What really happened at the Pentagon?
Posted 01 October 2011 - 02:19 AM - 05124221
If my theory is right that changes the whole ball game. It would also change industrial explosive laws. I suspect foreign and domestic terrorism.
Posted 22 November 2011 - 12:17 PM - 05124222
when that B-29 hit the Empire state they investigated it for a year, thoroughly.
I've read through all this topic (how sad am I? ) and as a plane nut I must point this out.
The plane that hit the Empire State Building was a B-25, not a B-29.
The B-25 was roughly half the size and a quarter of the weight (loaded) as the B-29, and 20% slower
It is worth pointing out that the Boeing airliners, although comparable in size, are also almost twice as fast as the B-29, let alone the poor B-25
Posted 22 November 2011 - 12:27 PM - 05124223
Pre-9/11 what happened to hijacked airliners? They land somewhere and the hijackers make demands using the passengers & crew as hostages. Standard procedure is to let them land, then either negotiate a conclusion or storm the plane with special forces. It is worth pointing out that any civilian deaths from this procedure cause mass outrage among the public.
So, on 9/11... you learn that a plane has been hijacked. Serious stuff, but no biggy. There are plans for this. Suddenly, hijacked plane crashes into building. New situation! So exactly how do you now identify a) if any other planes are going to do the same and which ones they are and c) in time to actually do anything about it?
Now try and imagine the absolute sh*tstorm if the US had simply shot down 4 airliners that it suspected of being hijacked, with the excuse "Well, we think they might have crashed into a building... proof? Oh, no, nothing like that"
It's the kind of PR disaster that screws a country over.
Posted 22 December 2012 - 01:49 AM - 05124224
Thins kinda thing makes me laugh. A plane did hit WTC and pentagon. I am in military intel. Trust me
and when i say laugh i really mean want to hit someone....
Posted 22 December 2012 - 02:18 AM - 05124225
So when are we allowed to shoot down planes suspected of being use as a weapon?
Posted 22 December 2012 - 03:08 AM - 05124226
Never as long as the plane could be concidered to be a "US person"
Posted 22 December 2012 - 03:21 AM - 05124227
Bureaucracy was the reason why we were not prepared for an attack. Intel got lost in all of the layers of government.
Posted 07 January 2015 - 03:25 AM - 05124228
I was just surfing the web last night, and ran into a 9/11 conspiracy video. The video, which was almost an hour long raised some great points that I never even considered.
This is a picture by one of the 3 live feeds that were present for the second tower explosion. I have circled the head of the airplane, intact, poking out the opposite side of the South tower. First, must I point out that the nose of airplanes are comparable to a bumper of a car. Hollow and made of plastic. For reference, here is a picture of the nose of a plane that hit a bird mid flight:
Granted, this is not the same type of plane that was said to be used during the attacks, but the same apply to the Boeing 767 that was supposedly flown into the South tower.
This is a close up of the plane after going through the building.
We can all agree that the nose of the plane is sticking out of the opposite side of the World Trade Center in this picture on live tv. Here is another, clearer picture of the nose from the same feed from a different frame.
This next picture is of the far side of the building, the side away from the direct impact, that the nose of the plane stuck out of in the live feed.
Notice how all the support beams are in tact. There is no hole where the plane nose would have made its way through.
Lastly, this is a picture of the wideshot on the live feed prior to the South Tower being hit.
The read line represents where the plane should have been in the sky based on the speed it was traveling and the time before impact. Which was less then a minute. Note there is not ever a spec of something that could be a plane.
A video manipulator master argues that the live picture was altered using video compositing. He showed exactly how they would have done it, and exploited some errors in their methods. I only posted some of his observations (the widespan and the nose poke.) He argues that the widespan was a simple overlooking by the man whose job it was to composite the video. Hence why the zoom was placed immediately on the building instead of focusing on the path of the plane. As for the nose poking through the building, he argues that the animated plane was not masked well because the helicopter was in motion, making it impossible to apply the mask precisely. If you watch the WNYW live footage, the screen blacks out the second after the nose pokes through on the feed. It then goes back up without the nose.
Here is the full video: https://www.youtube....h?v=S5FB2n1J5tU
Not saying I totally believe this, but it is hard to accept the fact that the planes nose clearly goes straight through the building in the video, but there is not a subsequent injury to the building that would allow for such a thing to occur. The wide shot is also suspicious. Feel free to respond
Posted 08 January 2015 - 09:51 AM - 05124229
I haven't watched the video yet (not had the time, will watch it next week when my wife is away), but my initial thoughts are rooted in scepticism. This is a video put together by a conspiracy theorist, who ironically tend to not be above mis-representing things to 'prove' their views. There is already one potential problem - the picture with the blue & red lines. There is some debate about the speed the airliner was going, for example (562mph is an odd figure to pick, 5mph below the 767's max cruise speed?) plus looking at the view in that pic do they really think that it would take a minute to cover the rather short distance shown? A straight line between WTC and Battery Park is roughly 0.6 miles, making the full distance shown in the picture roughly 1 mile. At 562mph you'd cover about 9.3 miles in a minute. I'd like* to see that footage running.
Me, I'd be much happier if we could see all the exact same images from the youtube video from a reputable source (for example, is figure 6-30 really the patch of the tower that it is claimed to be?)
Even the pic showing the 'nose' of the aircraft is just a vague blur - it could just as easily be a chunk of the skin that was torn loose. Again, it would be good to see the full clip. And, actually, it doesn't look much like the profile of a 767 fuselage - the 'step' for the cockpit is too far back. And if it was the nose of the aircraft that crashed into and through the building, why is it in such relatively good shape?
* For the purposes of the discussion, not to see the actual event.
Posted 14 January 2015 - 07:58 PM - 05124230
Turns out the video is 45 minutes long - I don't want to waste my life in such a fashion. Although I was pleased to see within the first 5 minutes a claim that 'all the footage was shot on the shadowed side of the tower' which when you look at the videos is actually false.