Author Topic: Wheres the Boeing? (Read 2081 times)

Wilfrid · « **on:** March 07, 2002, 03:23:05 AM »

Wheres the Boeing?

Interesting link, personally I believe the Pentagon was hit by a plane.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #1 on:** March 07, 2002, 03:50:51 AM »

Hmmm the stupid French again??

Is this like when they asked: Where is the German Army now......

straffo · « **Reply #2 on:** March 07, 2002, 04:32:15 AM »

GRUNHERZ why are you doing French bashing ?

The "Réseau Voltaire" is perhaps french speaking but that's all.
They express their opinion not A (*) French opinion.
(*) the only one.

Next time if I read any message I don't agree with I'll do some American bashing ...

Hortlund · « **Reply #3 on:** March 07, 2002, 04:36:52 AM »

Wtf...

Shouldnt there be parts of that plane there somewhere?

Either the ac hit with enough energy to cause a total desintegration of the plane. But what about the damage of the building? I'm thinking "more damage than ground floor only".

OR the aircraft hit with less engery (in order to match the damage to the building), but then there should be a large aircraft sticking out from the building...you know what I mean.

I still believe the terrorists are behind it all, and that they are responsible for every single death that day.

These pictures are seriously weird.

Can any of you engineer types explain this to me?

Qnm · « **Reply #4 on:** March 07, 2002, 04:48:58 AM »

What Straffette said.

Seeker · « **Reply #5 on:** March 07, 2002, 05:26:48 AM »

This just in......

"French Intellectuals to be Deployed in Afghanistan To Convince Taliban of Non-Existence of God

[Paris]

The ground war in Afghanistan heated up yesterday when the Allies revealed plans to airdrop a platoon of crack French existentialist philosophers into the country to destroy the morale of Taliban zealots by proving the non-existence of God.

Elements from the feared Jean-Paul Sartre Brigade, or 'Black Berets', will be parachuted into the combat zones to spread doubt, despondency and existential anomie among the enemy. Hardened by numerous intellectual battles fought during their long occupation of Paris's Left Bank, their first action will be to establish a number of pavement cafes at strategic points near the front lines. There they will drink coffee and talk animatedly about the absurd nature of life and man's lonely isolation in the universe. They will be accompanied by a number of heartbreakingly beautiful girlfriends who will further spread dismay by sticking their tongues in the philosophers' ears every five minutes and looking remote and unattainable to everyone else.

Their leader, Colonel Marc-Ange Belmondo, spoke yesterday of his
confidence in the success of their mission. Sorbonne graduate Belmondo, a very intense and unshaven young man in a black pullover, gesticulated wildly and said, "The Taliban are caught in a logical fallacy of the most ridiculous. There is no God and I can prove it. Take your tongue out of my ear, Juliet, I am talking."

Marc-Ange plans to deliver an impassioned thesis on man's nauseating freedom of action with special reference to the work of Foucault and the films of Alfred Hitchcock.

However, humanitarian agencies have been quick to condemn the operation as inhumane, pointing out that the effects of passive smoking from the Frenchmens' endless Gitanes could wreak a terrible toll on civilians in the area."

Gadfly · « **Reply #6 on:** March 07, 2002, 06:41:14 AM »

I suppose the Boeing full of people that didn't hit the Pentagon was abducted by aliens?

Hortlund · « **Reply #7 on:** March 07, 2002, 06:54:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gadfly
I suppose the Boeing full of people that didn't hit the Pentagon was abducted by aliens?

You tell me, do you see any sign of an ac in those pictures? Take a look at the last two pictures. Does that look like the scene of a 757 diving into a building?

[edit] Notice how the windows on the 2nd floor arent even broken? And that's at the point of impact.

straffo · « **Reply #8 on:** March 07, 2002, 07:19:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gadfly
I suppose the Boeing full of people that didn't hit the Pentagon was abducted by aliens?

Dunno ... but if the plane is not here where is it ? that's the real question (for me anyway)

SOB · « **Reply #9 on:** March 07, 2002, 07:45:22 AM »

I think maybe the idea they're trying to get at is that the Air Force actually DID shoot down an Boeing that day. I'm thinking maybe the pictures and their conjecture amound to about dick in my book.

SOB

Sikboy · « **Reply #10 on:** March 07, 2002, 07:46:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
You tell me, do you see any sign of an ac in those pictures? Take a look at the last two pictures. Does that look like the scene of a 757 diving into a building?
[edit] Notice how the windows on the 2nd floor arent even broken? And that's at the point of impact.

Just one observation:
We don't know that those pictures are from the point of impact. I would argue that they are not, but rather, they are to the left or right of the point of impact, where the fire had spread, but not where the plane hit. I don't find the other photos much more convincing. I'm not an experct at photo analysis (and I'd wager that neither are the operators of that sight) but I don't see how these photographs steer people to the conclusion that the Aircraft DIDN'T hit the building, considering the fact that, as far as I know, there hasn't been much experimentation on the effects of Airliners smashing into buildings. I think many expected the WTCs to collapse with the Impact. I didn't realise that they were going to collapse from the fire until I watched the first one come down.

Personally, my biggest question would be "What does the government have to gain by making this an Airliner instead of a truck bomb?" Perhaps they would be trying to cover up the way they shot down an Airliner (the same way they used the "Lets Roll story to cover up shooting down the airliner in PA?

I just don't see it.

Udie at Work · « **Reply #11 on:** March 07, 2002, 07:52:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo

Dunno ... but if the plane is not here where is it ? that's the real question (for me anyway)

It's called disintegration. The reports I remember seeing on the 11th said that the plane hit the ground outside the pentegon before crashing into the building, that would have started the disintegration. The building would have finished it. Ever seen the test footage of them shooting an f4 phantom into a big block of concrete? They did it at like 500 mph or something and the plane disapeared. The block of concrete was still there afterwords.

I doubt the plane would have flown into the building wings level (the 2 that hit the WTC didn't) I think the pilot would have had to roll the plane to see where he was going so low, probobly causing one of the wings to hit the ground before the plane hit the building. He's in a descent so the plane was probobly going about as fast as it could (500 mph?)

Then there are all the first hand reports from military and civilian employees at the pentegon of all the burning jet fuel. These people are shreckin nuts in the head and I wonder what their true motivation is.....

Ripsnort · « **Reply #12 on:** March 07, 2002, 07:52:45 AM »

The superimposed aircraft is off by 2 fold. In regards to the sand, gravel, have any of you ever tried to move heavy equipment on a lawn before?

I'll have to raise the flag on this one.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #13 on:** March 07, 2002, 07:59:06 AM »

In Spain, the first news after the Pentagon impact was that it has been a chopper. After one or two hours, the chopper was transformed into a Boeing.

K West · « **Reply #14 on:** March 07, 2002, 08:06:49 AM »

If there weren't actual videos of the two planes hitting the tower I'm sure these idiots would say the same thing; where are the planes? The tails should at least be be sticking out of the burning tower and in plain view. The fact is when rammed into glass and steel girder building they both vaporized. Same thing with the Pentagon plane you muh roons and the Pentagon was older and far more solid (think "rock" facade ) than the towers were by far.

All I see are long external shots taken a LONG time after the actual crash. Any pieces possibly left of the FULLY FUELED aircraft would have been under and beyond the begining of where the building debri is seen.

And just for the record, I'd be the first to suspect a cover up by the US gov't in saying a plane, that they may shot down, was the culprit behind the damage instead of a truck bomb in order to pull a cover up.

In this case I think some paranoidal delusion is at work.

Westy