9/11 conspiracy theorists

[Dodge_Sniper]

You didn't "get me". The majority of the plane is a hollow aluminum tube. The rest of the plane (engines, landing gear, etc...) is made of titanium, as I stated previously. A giant mass of titanium (the engines) hitting the wall at high speed would, in my opinion, go through and cause a lot of damage. You said it would "annihilate the wall". I say it would cause a lot of damage.

But if it's reinforced concrete, how would the engines go through? I can't find the video yet, if I can, I'll link you, but the rumor going around by 95% of non-theorists is that the fuselage hit the wall, and kept going, INSIDE the pentagon, hit the E ring, and then stopped. Now see, if that's true, the fuselage was damn strong, and had to be going fast as fuck, to bust through concrete and not just come to a rest. And then, where's the entire fuselage, because if it did come to rest at the E ring, it should be there...resting...

 

[All Else Failed]

I highly doubt it, but let me do some research and get back to ya


And a side note, here's a bad ass video:

YouTube - Phantom F4 Jet Nuclear Power Plant Crash Test

Well, that pretty much puts a major nail in the coffin of the 9/11 conspiracies about the pentagon. The Pentagon was even MORE reinforced than what the video shows, and fighter planes are even MORE structurally stronger than commercial liners.




I'm curious....people that believe in the whole pentagon conspiracy, how do you account for the large number of eyewitness account of there being a large air liner going over head? The power lines and streetlights that were knocked over?

 

[Dodge_Sniper]

Well, that pretty much puts a major nail in the coffin of the 9/11 conspiracies about the pentagon. The Pentagon was even MORE reinforced than what the video shows, and fighter planes are even MORE structurally stronger than commercial liners.

You...are...stupid. Think about what you just said. If the fighter plnes are STRONGER than a commercial airliner, that makes no sense. The Pentagon's walls are stronger than that video's wall. Ok, that's good. Fighter jets are stronger than commercial jets. Ok, that works too. But if that fighter jet couldn't penetrate the wall in the video, and the wall in the video is WEAKER than the Pentagon's walls, how could a mere commercial jet penetrate the wall?

 

[dt3]

But if it's reinforced concrete, how would the engines go through?

Because the engines are several tons of titanium travelling at 500 miles per hour.

 

[Dodge_Sniper]

Because the engines are several tons of titanium travelling at 500 miles per hour.

Ok, that works. But what happened to the other engine? Where's the second hole?

I'm curious....people that believe in the whole pentagon conspiracy, how do you account for the large number of eyewitness account of there being a large air liner going over head? The power lines and streetlights that were knocked over?

I've yet to see anybody debunk, nor even MENTION the photos I provided of a new frame of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon. The nose of the object is not accurate to the size of a Boeing, and the multiple frames show a Global Hawk leaving the scene.

 

[All Else Failed]

You...are...stupid. Think about what you just said. If the fighter plnes are STRONGER than a commercial airliner, that makes no sense. The Pentagon's walls are stronger than that video's wall. Ok, that's good. Fighter jets are stronger than commercial jets. Ok, that works too. But if that fighter jet couldn't penetrate the wall in the video, and the wall in the video is WEAKER than the Pentagon's walls, how could a mere commercial jet penetrate the wall?

No see what you fail to realize about my statement is that while both planes are strong, they are both capable of piercing a reinforced concrete wall. I was just saying that even a stronger plane can do it and lose it's wings. Even though the pentagon had thicker walls, the partitions in the building made it weak in several spots, where a breach could occur.Thats why there is a hole, and no cartoony "wing holes" because the wings were sheared off when they hit the stronger points of the building.

 

[All Else Failed]

Ok, that works. But what happened to the other engine? Where's the second hole?



I've yet to see anybody debunk, nor even MENTION the photos I provided of a new frame of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon. The nose of the object is not accurate to the size of a Boeing, and the multiple frames show a Global Hawk leaving the scene.

you just ignored what I said. All of those people can't mistake a fucking jumbo jet for a extremely smaller airplane thats driven by a propeller or a smaller jet engine. There's a huge difference.

 

[Dodge_Sniper]

No see what you fail to realize about my statement is that while both planes are strong, they are both capable of piercing a reinforced concrete wall. I was just saying that even a stronger plane can do it and lose it's wings. Even though the pentagon had thicker walls, the partitions in the building made it weak in several spots, where a breach could occur.Thats why there is a hole, and no cartoony "wing holes" because the wings were sheared off when they hit the stronger points of the building.

That is EXACTLY what I've been trying to say these past 3 or 4 pages!!!! Why don't we have the fucking wings?! Where are they? Why aren't they lying somewhere?

 

[All Else Failed]

That is EXACTLY what I've been trying to say these past 3 or 4 pages!!!! Why don't we have the fucking wings?! Where are they? Why aren't they lying somewhere?

well if you watched the video that dt3 posted, you will recognize that they get pounded into dust by the sheer force and impact. This isn't some plastic, toy plane that you throw at a wall and the wings comically fall off.

 

[Dodge_Sniper]

you just ignored what I said. All of those people can't mistake a fucking jumbo jet for a extremely smaller airplane thats driven by a propeller or a smaller jet engine. There's a huge difference.

I take it you've never seen a Global Hawk?

It could have easily clipped the wires and poles, dropped a bomb or missile, and in the midst and confusion of the explosion, nobody notices it escape.

 

[dt3]

Ok, that works. But what happened to the other engine? Where's the second hole?

I'm not saying I have all the answers. That was my initial impression. Other reports I've seen say it was a piece of the landing gear. I don't know.

I've yet to see anybody debunk, nor even MENTION the photos I provided of a new frame of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon. The nose of the object is not accurate to the size of a Boeing, and the multiple frames show a Global Hawk leaving the scene.

I said the photos are too low quality to form an opinion. I also said that with the range of the hellfire missile fired by Global Hawk, there would be no need for it to be that close to the Pentagon.

 

[All Else Failed]

I take it you've never seen a Global Hawk?

It could have easily clipped the wires and poles, dropped a bomb or missile, and in the midst and confusion of the explosion, nobody notices it escape.

Have you ever seen a Boeing 757?





Slightly bigger than what you posted, and only a complete fool would mistake the two of them.



Plus, any bomb or missile would have made a VERY different kind of damage than what really happened.

 

[Dodge_Sniper]

Have you ever seen a Boeing 757?





Slightly bigger than what you posted, and only a complete fool would mistake the two of them.



Plus, any bomb or missile would have made a VERY different kind of damage than what really happened.

Yes, SLIGHTLY. But they also have white Global Hawks. At first glance, it looks like a regular commercial jet. Also, it could have been a low-grade missile. I do see what you mean Donnie, but maybe they did want it to look like a plane hit the Pentagon, so the get closer to the Pentagon, release one missle, and then fly off in the smoke.

 

[dt3]

Yes, SLIGHTLY. But they also have white Global Hawks. At first glance, it looks like a regular commercial jet. Also, it could have been a low-grade missile. I do see what you mean Donnie, but maybe they did want it to look like a plane hit the Pentagon, so the get closer to the Pentagon, release one missle, and then fly off in the smoke.

By the way, Global Hawks are incapable of carrying weapons. Predators are the UAV's that carry HellFire missiles.

Of course it looks nothing like an airliner, so the conspiracy theorists wouldn't want that to get out:

 

[Dodge_Sniper]

What's stopping the USAF from making one of the Global Hawks like I provided capable of carrying a missile? They could already have one. You know, the government doesn't tell us everything

 

[dt3]

What's stopping the USAF from making one of the Global Hawks like I provided capable of carrying a missile? They could already have one. You know, the government doesn't tell us everything

Let just say personal experience and leave it at that

 

[All Else Failed]

Yes, SLIGHTLY. But they also have white Global Hawks. At first glance, it looks like a regular commercial jet. Also, it could have been a low-grade missile. I do see what you mean Donnie, but maybe they did want it to look like a plane hit the Pentagon, so the get closer to the Pentagon, release one missle, and then fly off in the smoke.

They absolutely do not. The 757 is much much bigger than the hawk.

 

[Silious950]

Yeah much bigger....

 

[dt3]

Global Hawk:
Length 13.5 meters/44 feet 5 inches
Wingspan 35.4 meters/116 feet 2 inches
Height 4.6 meters/15 feet 2 inches



757:
Length 47.32 m (155 ft 3 in)
Wingspan 38.05 m (124 ft 10 in)
Height 13.56m (44ft 6in)

 

[Silious950]

Oh completely owned!