Proof That AA77 Crashed Into the Pentagon!
via.
Related question-- why exactly is it that so much fuselage debris was found around the Pentagon (ostensibly blown out from the "entry hole"), yet none was found around the WTC?
And I'm still waiting to hear what happened to those massive tail structures at both the WTC and Pentagon sites.
posted by spooked at 7:50 AM
13 Comments:
No fuselage pieces were found in NYC? No wonder people don't take you guys seriously.
And as long as you live in the world where tail structures of commercial airliners are made of some mysterious, indestructible material, you will continue to wonder what happened to them.
Those of us here in reality can reason that objects traveling in upwards of 500 mph and hitting buildings don't stand much chance of surviving.
Whoa, slow down cowboy. First you imply that fuselage pieces WERE found
in NYC, then you say "objects traveling in upwards of 500 mph and hitting buildings don't stand much chance of surviving.
I admire your ability to hold contradictory positions simultaneously without so much as batting an eyelash.
I imply nothing. Fuselage pieces WERE found in NYC. Pictures of them were even posted on this here blog. Scroll through some of the archives and you will find them. And when you do, if you can honestly say that you believe that constitutes "surviving", let me know.
But I thank you for taking my words so literally. By "objects", I thought it was pretty clear I was referring to commercial airliners. By them not surviving, I thought it was pretty clear that I meant they end up as wreckage. Events like those on 9/11 are complex, dynamic events.
Spooked here however seems to be under the impression that tail sections in general should be impervious to such events.
I have no idea what you are trying to communicate in your 8:00 PM post.
I assume that you know that most objective conspiracy analysts/researchers are of the opinion that no planes crashed into the WTC or at the Pentagon.
nice try chad!
hey first of all, a 767 can not go 500+mph at an altitude of 1000ft - according to mr. joe keith (a boeing design engineer) it would vibrate itself to death long before it reached such a speed at such a low altitude.
secondly, there are only 4 videos showing an alleged 767 impacting the wtc2 - and all 4 of these vids depict said 767 defying the laws of physics. what does this say about this alleged event? were the laws of physics suspended for that that moment in time? or were we all initially fooled by easily produced (and badly done) video fakery?
third, watching these only 4 vids of alleged 767 hitting wtc2 reveal that not a single piece of fuselage survived said impact, so how exactly can you explain these supposed fuselage pieces that you claim were found in nyc?
chad-- what a "pleasant" surprise!
I was referring to fuselage pieces found blown back from the entry hole, a la the Pentagon.
The only clear fuselage piece I know of found outside the wtc, that officially came out right after the crash, came out from the north side of the south tower-- officially the exit side. This was the piece found on wtc5, and is of dubious origin.
There was one other piece of apparent plane debris photographed in the street north of the wtc, that so obviously planted that it has been deleted from the official record. See here.
And I'm still waiting to hear what happened to those massive tail structures at both the WTC and Pentagon sites.
there weren't any.
oh yeah-- thanks!
though actually, i meant that i haven't even heard an official explanation for what happened to them.
supposedly the wings chopped right through the steel wtc columns-- but the 30 foot tall tail just turned to dust? is that the official story? Come on, Chad, help us out.
I'm guessing the official explanation for the tail sections are right in line with the official explanation for the rest of the plane.
Only a few people in this world are of the mind that tail sections are impervious to the forces of the rest of the plane or that, because there are no pictures of them, they "turned to dust".
Help you out Spooked? I'm not the one in the minority here. (On this blog, yes, but not in terms of what happened that day.) You guys go on believing what you want. You've all but admitted that nothing will come of all the "research", but please...
Keep asking questions. They make me smile. And if you could rekindle some of your scientific chicken wire experiments, that'd be great to.
There's no pictures or even an eyewitness description of the remains of the huge tail. Not one video shows it breaking off, as it should have in real life. The only possible explanation is it turned to dust, but that defies logic. No tail debris makes sense in the larger context of no plane hitting the tower-- along with the dozens of other anomalies.
You're coming at this from the stand point of assuming the tail should've broken off. You also seem to think that it should've survived such an impact so as to be recognizable to any eyewitnesses. I would like to further understand where you base this "real life" assumption off of.
Perhaps you deemed this knowledge from chicken wire?
The tail of the plane typically survives any crash, as it is last to impact. This is fact.
Also, we have the wings breaking in leaving a hole, but the tail leaves no hole. Hard to imagine how the tail can turn to dust on impact when the wings bust through.
But as I said, this is just one of many anomalies, that all add up to the official story of a 767 impact being false.
Post a Comment
<< Home