For those of you crying conspiracy, because you can't see the plane, take this into account.
The car in the upper video is probably going 5-10 miles per hour, yet it appears in only 7 frames.
The guys in the plane probably accelerated to close to the plane's top speed to make the biggest impact. How fast would this be? 400-500 miles per hour or so, I'd guess. Now, how many frames should the plane be in the video?
If the car was going 5 mph, and the plane 500, with the car only in 7 frames then...
The plane would be in .07 frames of video.
Having formerly worked in video production, let me re-assure you all that there is no such thing as .07 of a frame. What this means is that it would be extremely unlikely for a low-grade 10 frame a second surveilance camera to catch anything that is moving at that high rate of speed. There's about a one in 14 chance that such a video camera would catch even a single frame where the plane was in view.
Problem is that they only released that video...im sure theres more than 1 security camera in the freaking pentagon. Also all the cameras in the surounding areas must have recorded something, as pointed out in that 911 video, those tapes were confiscated.. why the fuck do they only have just that 1 take, thst doesnt prove a passenger plane hit the dam place.. It just looks like the tip of something long and thin..Not huge and bulging like the nose of a boeing plane
For me i am going on what i see. I dont think there is a massive conspiracy but i do think there are alot of unanswered questions
1. If this was truely a plane why not release all the videos? that would definatly shut up the people who believe there is a conspiracy but a the moment based on what ive seen there are alot of unasnwered questions.
2. Do you know how impossible it is for a plane to fly at level flight at that height/speed at the angle it flew in? and then how will someone who learned to fly at a flight school manage to fly a passenger airline at that height and at that speed?? Please Explain that to me. If its possible that means that that pilot must be one of the best pilots in the world to manage that feat without crashing prior to hitting the intended target.
3. Then theres the white hot initial explosions,again only missles which have a pure oxygen source will explode like that, anything else exploding will burn orange and yellow in the intial explosion.
4. And the smoke trail after what is supposed to be a plane,planes dont leave smoke trails,at high altitudes the heat of the exhaust in combination with the cold air will make trails which appear as smoke but at that altitude it wont happen.
So to everyone who keeps saying thid video proves its a plane, go to every single reason i doubt it is a plane and explain how i can be wrong on all 4 of those .
ever think that those other videos haven't been released because there is nothing on them? that they were confiscated because they might have shown something but ultimately had nothing? just because they were pointed towards the Pentagon doesn't mean they caught anything.
[ QUOTE ]
For me i am going on what i see.
[/ QUOTE ]
then how about this:
[ QUOTE ]
It's a damned plane. And every time you say it's not I feel you disrespect those who passed away. I saw the damned pieces of it, and so did several of my coworkers in the Pentagon at that time. I saw more pieces of it in a warehouse later as they were investigating it. It was an air plane for the billionth time. Ask me anything you want about it. There was a plane sized hole in the rings where the nose punched through, still patched up today and you can touch the wall. A Navy medical technician friend of mine had to sort through the bodies and parts, and low and behold there were dum dum DUM! AIR PLANE PARTS IN THE FUCKING WRECKAGE.
[/ QUOTE ]
from Downsizer's post on the first page. eyewitnesses or internet video... which to believe...
1. They're paranoid someone will see the videos and realize how inept their security around the pentagon actually was.
2. Microsoft Flight Simulator. Seriously, we had a lot of pro pilot try out stuff, plan trips, etc., just by using the game. They told us it was pretty darn accurate. Plus, it's one thing trying to do a crazy stunt in a large jet and intend to survive, it's another thing to not have to be worried about living through it.
3. I am not a chemical engineer, and don't have an answer for that. Please refer me to proper pyrotechnic/chemical analysis studies to confirm this claim. Or might the flash just have been an overexposure of the film due to general brightness of the explosion, then the autoexposure compensates? No idea here. I haven't seen jets or missiles strike building in real life.
4. I'm not seeing a smoke trail. I see dust kicked off of the ground, and smoke from the fire.
OK, if it was a missile strike, what the hell happened to the plane with all of the people on it? There's a lot of grieving family members who would like to find out. It just seems pretty difficult to make an entire plane full of people disappear.
It just seems to me that 1 plane full of people disappearing + claims by pentagon staff who saw it that a plane hit the building + a big boom would most likely indicate that the plane hit the building. It's the most simple and logical conclusion.
I cant really tell you everything, but the building was built to withstand impacts. The whole thing about the windows not being cracked or blown out is a big duh. Think about it. Would the pentagon have non-bullet/impact resistant windows? The lack of damage is exactly what the building was built for. It's a flipping self contained above ground bunker.
Good call about the lack of a smoke trail. Also a missile would'nt have clipped 5-6 lightposts out of the ground.
[ QUOTE ]
I cant really tell you everything, but the building was built to withstand impacts. The whole thing about the windows not being cracked or blown out is a big duh. Think about it. Would the pentagon have non-bullet/impact resistant windows? The lack of damage is exactly what the building was built for. It's a flipping self contained above ground bunker.
Good call about the lack of a smoke trail. Also a missile would'nt have clipped 5-6 lightposts out of the ground.
[/ QUOTE ]
unfortunately it was the only part of the pentagon house to be re-inforced in this way. thus the conspiracy.
Apparently it was also the only part that could be reached without getting into range of the anti-air defenses. I think I heard they were shut down for maintenance or something. Still strange that anything could hit such an important building. What would have been had that plane carried enough payload to blast the pentagon to bits?
it was a 1 in 5 chance it would hit there, and it's right next to the most crowded area in south parking. i'm not saying there is'nt a cover up, i'm just saying it was'nt something as stupid as a missile. I cant really give some of my opinions here, sorry.
something maybe along the lines of a disgruntled fighter pilot knowing these things about the building is more likely than us firing a missle at our own buildings. To launch a cruise missile with that accuracy takes time. If they were aming at that spot for reason, either people would have seen a hovering helicoptor for well over 2 mins and there would have been an obvious firing of the missile, a low flying fighter jet (which is'nt rare here actually), or a group of ground rocket armed soldier measuring and aiming the shot with shoulder mounted launcher. If it was fired offsite, you would have seen the launch for miles.
As for the information about being the only part they could hit without being shot down, or the anti-air defense being shut down. Terrorists do research, and more than likely knew all of this. Typically the simplest answer is always the correct one. They most likely would rather hit something than nothing.
missile would have had to turn in air, it would have gone over the most crowded area on the east coast. there would have been more witnesses, especially as low as it was.
but sure the range and accuracy of a cruise missile can do that. but i doubt they could have brought in a wrecked plane to scatter across the pentagon rings.
the rings are open air between letters, there are offices with windows on either side. my most credible witness was in her cubicle and saw it hit, out of her window. she said it was a plane, and has been in therapy ever since. she said she looked down and out of her window at the front of a plane. this woman has no reason to lie to me.
Yeah. I think that there are a lot of conspiracy theories that are just plane wrong (haha!)
In a lot of these cases, there just aren't enough facts to know with any degree of certainty either way. On the Loose Change video they mention something about the pilot of the plane having been the pilot in tests involving a plane hitting the Pentagon. If anyone knows where I could read more about that, I would be interested.
Might it be that there simply weren't any anti-air defenses? And that the pentagon is afraid that if people knew this, there would likely be more attacks on this surprisingly soft yet valuable target?
I used to work as muscle in a maximum security institution, and occasionally had residents ask me weird questions about security, such as "Do you think a Cadillac would be able to drive through that door?" And while I'm thinking "Damn straight", I instead tell the resident, "No chance. They wouldn't clear the three rows of electric fences, the spike strips, or get past the armed guards at the checkpoint.
There were no electric fences, spike strips, or armed guards, but how the heck was the resident to know this? It seemed to be a good deterrent, and I never saw a Cadillac come through the door on my watch.
If the government is lying to us about anything, it is the amount of security that the pentagon actually had. They're covering up their own ineptitude in security measures, and since this is the military we're talking about, their jobs hinge on providing security which they obviously failed to provide for their own headquarters. They would much rather than people get riled up about some phantom missile strike, rather than the public getting ticked off because our own military and intelligence departments completely failed at defending against a rather simplistic plot.
Great point Ryno, and I highly agree. The security you see now was not in place then. They did'nt even have the cement barriers that they do now to stop an incomming vehicle.
While in the military I did learn that the uppers are incredibly inept at moving troops from point A to point B, let alone orchestrating the kind of conspiracies that exist in movies and books. I think people give our government way too much credit when it comes to planning the kind of things they think may have taken place on 9/11.
My theory is that what they say happened did actually happen. Whether they knew about it beforehand or suspected it (or not) is another story entirely.
Bottomline: The President really should have read and taken seriously a report entitled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States" and taken measures to prevent it. It is a FACT that, prior to his administration or pre-9/11 Bush, President Clinton invested more money in anti-terrorism than any president prior. Only post-9/11 Bush's administration has surpassed that. But then, this administration has been more about reactionary than preventative anyhow.
It's pretty much unforgivable that any enemy could get a flying object into Washington DC airspace. Hell, if you can get a 757 in there you could even carry the freaking Czar bomb to the white house. A single plane can deliver enough payload to take out the entire white house and pentagon in one strike so they should have installed enough anti-air to make it impossible for any unidentified flying object to enter DC airspace. Hell, wasn't there supposed to be anti-air defense for NYC, too?
kdr you are'nt even from america, so how about you stop making idiotic assumptions and suggestions.
America before Bush was pretty peacefull, and if we started putting up these military defenses America would be seen as a country that has something to hide, or is preparing for war. There are more reasons to leave things as they are.
And your claim is idiotic, if the fighter planes that were supposed to be stationed at Bolling were there, this would'nt have happened. Bush may have had the ability, but how do you make a call to kill innocent people on a plane that may or may not hit others?
You simply could not walk a bomb up the the white house or fly a military plane into our airspace. It would be, without question, shot down. Here, a passenger jet, there was a question to shoot it down. And people normally dont panic about seeing 747s in teh air. I see 15 daily.
Our government is also very spread out, they can take out whatever single target they want, we have hundreds of thousands of bases. Yes the Pentagon is important, but it's meant to be out in the open like you said. It's a symbol that we are'nt afraid of this shit. Notice it is'nt a re-occuring thing yet?
And if you think it's unforgivable, eat a dick, cause last time i checked we have the single best offensive and defensive capabilities on the planet. So god know how easy it would be to take out your military installations as well.
hehehe, the way some of you are talking it seems like you think our capital should look like a base in Command and Conquer or StarCraft or some other RTS game. bunkers filled with troops, AA turrets and stealth detectors lining the perimiter overlapping each other's range, war vehicles parked in the street. the only people walking around are wearing our colours and weilding gauss rifles, anyone or thing walking by gets shot at.
but still, in those games, even with all your fortified defenses, how many times have you wiped? been hit with the mega-nuke?
or closer to home, had several carriers full of troops make a suicide run to your base and take out strategic targets within your defenses?
It's a military headquarter. Who'd be surprised to see anti-air systems on its lawn? Would that really be considered "preparing for war"? (never mind the fact that there wasn't much time over the last 50 years when the USA wasn't preparing for a war or at war)
And if you think it's unforgivable, eat a dick, cause last time i checked we have the single best offensive and defensive capabilities on the planet. So god know how easy it would be to take out your military installations as well.
Ah, yes, I really see that working. Especially on a decentralized threat that has no identifiable installations.
And if you think it's unforgivable, eat a dick, cause last time i checked we have the single best offensive and defensive capabilities on the planet. So god know how easy it would be to take out your military installations as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Jesus. What's that internet law again about how long it takes a thread to contain reference to Hitler or Nazism?
Well there needs to be a new one based on how long it takes an American to use the 'we could kick your ass in a fight' diatribe. So predictable!
Unfortunately, it's actually pretty easy to attack the White House or the President. We've had a guy land a Cessna on the White House lawn, and a guy drive a tractor onto the lawn. If you ever visit D.C. and see the President come in on Marine One (his Hhelicopter), you'd see that it would pretty easy to shoot out of the sky. There are plenty of areas to hide you wanted to accomplish this task. I spent a week there last year and I couldn't believe how easily locations could be attacked. Almost no difference security-wise since I visited when I was 15 (about 17 years ago).
As Downsize suggested though, things are usually pretty peaceful and safe here in the US(asside from typical crime). But I don't see it too much of a stretch to believe the White House could be hit.
Hell, when you are standing at the Washington Monument, all you see are giant commercial aircrafts landing at Reagan International Airport. Wouldn't be hard to take a jet right from there.
I dont want to enter the flame war, and I don't want to do any more research than is necessary. All I have done is watched the films. But, from what I can see, and what I know from previous experiance, here is what I can see.
1. The angle that the 'object' hit from is pretty much horizontal. If this were a missile, it would have to be launched from the ground. Now, I used to live in Virginia (very close to the pentagon) and if anyone has seen the area around the pentagon, it is a whole lot of roads and a MASSIVE car park. For somthing to fire a missile they would have to be relativly close and for them (or the launcher) to be unseen would be almost impossible.
2. If you examine the movies closely, you will see that behind the explosion there is dust kicked up. It looks almost as if the ground was skimmed before the impact. A missle would have exploded.
3. The pentagon isnt like in the movies. It has been around for ages, and i beleive fully that that technology of camera is all that would be there.
Now, take this however you want. I don't know what happened, and all I can do is speculate. But would the government be so stupid as to release videos that showed missiles? Im sure someone somwhere would have thought this thre. Heck, if you dont agree, throw insults my way. I can take it
It seems to me that it was a plane that hit the pentagon, and not somthing else.
sorry for the bump and being short notice but National Geographic Channel's Seconds from Disaster is having a show about the attack on the Pentagon at 9pm EST (about 10 minutes from now). and will re-run the program at midnight.
Didn't watch that but did see two shows about a plane crash in the Florida Keys (1996?) and the 747 into an apparement complex in Amsterdam (1998?). God there was a lot of debris left from both planes *cough*...
[ QUOTE ]
Was this apartment complex made of 6-8 foot thick steel reinforced concrete, with blast resistant windows?
I can tell you most of the pictures showing the debris witheld are very gory. No one needs to see that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, but with a little digging around I *could* show you the huge amount of wreckage left after a plane plows into the side of a mountain. I bit tougher than concrete me thinks [Stewie Griffin]hmmmmmmmmmm?[/Stewie Griffin]
I wouldn't expect the gory photo's to be released, certainly not to the general public.
The problem is becuase they released so little information over this, it gives the impression that very little did happened other than a fireball and "a few bits and pieces" scattered on the lawn.
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention, a 747 is significantly larger than a 757 (the former weighs almost three times as much as the latter).
[/ QUOTE ]Those were examples shown in the program. I'm sure that given enough time one could find crashes covering pretty much any aircraft that has flown, 757's amonsgt them, and the debris pattern they've left behind.
Replies
The car in the upper video is probably going 5-10 miles per hour, yet it appears in only 7 frames.
The guys in the plane probably accelerated to close to the plane's top speed to make the biggest impact. How fast would this be? 400-500 miles per hour or so, I'd guess. Now, how many frames should the plane be in the video?
If the car was going 5 mph, and the plane 500, with the car only in 7 frames then...
The plane would be in .07 frames of video.
Having formerly worked in video production, let me re-assure you all that there is no such thing as .07 of a frame. What this means is that it would be extremely unlikely for a low-grade 10 frame a second surveilance camera to catch anything that is moving at that high rate of speed. There's about a one in 14 chance that such a video camera would catch even a single frame where the plane was in view.
1. If this was truely a plane why not release all the videos? that would definatly shut up the people who believe there is a conspiracy but a the moment based on what ive seen there are alot of unasnwered questions.
2. Do you know how impossible it is for a plane to fly at level flight at that height/speed at the angle it flew in? and then how will someone who learned to fly at a flight school manage to fly a passenger airline at that height and at that speed?? Please Explain that to me. If its possible that means that that pilot must be one of the best pilots in the world to manage that feat without crashing prior to hitting the intended target.
3. Then theres the white hot initial explosions,again only missles which have a pure oxygen source will explode like that, anything else exploding will burn orange and yellow in the intial explosion.
4. And the smoke trail after what is supposed to be a plane,planes dont leave smoke trails,at high altitudes the heat of the exhaust in combination with the cold air will make trails which appear as smoke but at that altitude it wont happen.
So to everyone who keeps saying thid video proves its a plane, go to every single reason i doubt it is a plane and explain how i can be wrong on all 4 of those .
Please explain away
[ QUOTE ]
For me i am going on what i see.
[/ QUOTE ]
then how about this:
[ QUOTE ]
It's a damned plane. And every time you say it's not I feel you disrespect those who passed away. I saw the damned pieces of it, and so did several of my coworkers in the Pentagon at that time. I saw more pieces of it in a warehouse later as they were investigating it. It was an air plane for the billionth time. Ask me anything you want about it. There was a plane sized hole in the rings where the nose punched through, still patched up today and you can touch the wall. A Navy medical technician friend of mine had to sort through the bodies and parts, and low and behold there were dum dum DUM! AIR PLANE PARTS IN THE FUCKING WRECKAGE.
[/ QUOTE ]
from Downsizer's post on the first page. eyewitnesses or internet video... which to believe...
2. Microsoft Flight Simulator. Seriously, we had a lot of pro pilot try out stuff, plan trips, etc., just by using the game. They told us it was pretty darn accurate. Plus, it's one thing trying to do a crazy stunt in a large jet and intend to survive, it's another thing to not have to be worried about living through it.
3. I am not a chemical engineer, and don't have an answer for that. Please refer me to proper pyrotechnic/chemical analysis studies to confirm this claim. Or might the flash just have been an overexposure of the film due to general brightness of the explosion, then the autoexposure compensates? No idea here. I haven't seen jets or missiles strike building in real life.
4. I'm not seeing a smoke trail. I see dust kicked off of the ground, and smoke from the fire.
OK, if it was a missile strike, what the hell happened to the plane with all of the people on it? There's a lot of grieving family members who would like to find out. It just seems pretty difficult to make an entire plane full of people disappear.
It just seems to me that 1 plane full of people disappearing + claims by pentagon staff who saw it that a plane hit the building + a big boom would most likely indicate that the plane hit the building. It's the most simple and logical conclusion.
Good call about the lack of a smoke trail. Also a missile would'nt have clipped 5-6 lightposts out of the ground.
I cant really tell you everything, but the building was built to withstand impacts. The whole thing about the windows not being cracked or blown out is a big duh. Think about it. Would the pentagon have non-bullet/impact resistant windows? The lack of damage is exactly what the building was built for. It's a flipping self contained above ground bunker.
Good call about the lack of a smoke trail. Also a missile would'nt have clipped 5-6 lightposts out of the ground.
[/ QUOTE ]
unfortunately it was the only part of the pentagon house to be re-inforced in this way. thus the conspiracy.
something maybe along the lines of a disgruntled fighter pilot knowing these things about the building is more likely than us firing a missle at our own buildings. To launch a cruise missile with that accuracy takes time. If they were aming at that spot for reason, either people would have seen a hovering helicoptor for well over 2 mins and there would have been an obvious firing of the missile, a low flying fighter jet (which is'nt rare here actually), or a group of ground rocket armed soldier measuring and aiming the shot with shoulder mounted launcher. If it was fired offsite, you would have seen the launch for miles.
As for the information about being the only part they could hit without being shot down, or the anti-air defense being shut down. Terrorists do research, and more than likely knew all of this. Typically the simplest answer is always the correct one. They most likely would rather hit something than nothing.
but sure the range and accuracy of a cruise missile can do that. but i doubt they could have brought in a wrecked plane to scatter across the pentagon rings.
the rings are open air between letters, there are offices with windows on either side. my most credible witness was in her cubicle and saw it hit, out of her window. she said it was a plane, and has been in therapy ever since. she said she looked down and out of her window at the front of a plane. this woman has no reason to lie to me.
In a lot of these cases, there just aren't enough facts to know with any degree of certainty either way. On the Loose Change video they mention something about the pilot of the plane having been the pilot in tests involving a plane hitting the Pentagon. If anyone knows where I could read more about that, I would be interested.
Might it be that there simply weren't any anti-air defenses? And that the pentagon is afraid that if people knew this, there would likely be more attacks on this surprisingly soft yet valuable target?
I used to work as muscle in a maximum security institution, and occasionally had residents ask me weird questions about security, such as "Do you think a Cadillac would be able to drive through that door?" And while I'm thinking "Damn straight", I instead tell the resident, "No chance. They wouldn't clear the three rows of electric fences, the spike strips, or get past the armed guards at the checkpoint.
There were no electric fences, spike strips, or armed guards, but how the heck was the resident to know this? It seemed to be a good deterrent, and I never saw a Cadillac come through the door on my watch.
If the government is lying to us about anything, it is the amount of security that the pentagon actually had. They're covering up their own ineptitude in security measures, and since this is the military we're talking about, their jobs hinge on providing security which they obviously failed to provide for their own headquarters. They would much rather than people get riled up about some phantom missile strike, rather than the public getting ticked off because our own military and intelligence departments completely failed at defending against a rather simplistic plot.
My theory is that what they say happened did actually happen. Whether they knew about it beforehand or suspected it (or not) is another story entirely.
Bottomline: The President really should have read and taken seriously a report entitled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States" and taken measures to prevent it. It is a FACT that, prior to his administration or pre-9/11 Bush, President Clinton invested more money in anti-terrorism than any president prior. Only post-9/11 Bush's administration has surpassed that. But then, this administration has been more about reactionary than preventative anyhow.
America before Bush was pretty peacefull, and if we started putting up these military defenses America would be seen as a country that has something to hide, or is preparing for war. There are more reasons to leave things as they are.
And your claim is idiotic, if the fighter planes that were supposed to be stationed at Bolling were there, this would'nt have happened. Bush may have had the ability, but how do you make a call to kill innocent people on a plane that may or may not hit others?
You simply could not walk a bomb up the the white house or fly a military plane into our airspace. It would be, without question, shot down. Here, a passenger jet, there was a question to shoot it down. And people normally dont panic about seeing 747s in teh air. I see 15 daily.
Our government is also very spread out, they can take out whatever single target they want, we have hundreds of thousands of bases. Yes the Pentagon is important, but it's meant to be out in the open like you said. It's a symbol that we are'nt afraid of this shit. Notice it is'nt a re-occuring thing yet?
And if you think it's unforgivable, eat a dick, cause last time i checked we have the single best offensive and defensive capabilities on the planet. So god know how easy it would be to take out your military installations as well.
but still, in those games, even with all your fortified defenses, how many times have you wiped? been hit with the mega-nuke?
or closer to home, had several carriers full of troops make a suicide run to your base and take out strategic targets within your defenses?
And if you think it's unforgivable, eat a dick, cause last time i checked we have the single best offensive and defensive capabilities on the planet. So god know how easy it would be to take out your military installations as well.
Ah, yes, I really see that working. Especially on a decentralized threat that has no identifiable installations.
And if you think it's unforgivable, eat a dick, cause last time i checked we have the single best offensive and defensive capabilities on the planet. So god know how easy it would be to take out your military installations as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Jesus. What's that internet law again about how long it takes a thread to contain reference to Hitler or Nazism?
Well there needs to be a new one based on how long it takes an American to use the 'we could kick your ass in a fight' diatribe.
As Downsize suggested though, things are usually pretty peaceful and safe here in the US(asside from typical crime). But I don't see it too much of a stretch to believe the White House could be hit.
Hell, when you are standing at the Washington Monument, all you see are giant commercial aircrafts landing at Reagan International Airport. Wouldn't be hard to take a jet right from there.
1. The angle that the 'object' hit from is pretty much horizontal. If this were a missile, it would have to be launched from the ground. Now, I used to live in Virginia (very close to the pentagon) and if anyone has seen the area around the pentagon, it is a whole lot of roads and a MASSIVE car park. For somthing to fire a missile they would have to be relativly close and for them (or the launcher) to be unseen would be almost impossible.
2. If you examine the movies closely, you will see that behind the explosion there is dust kicked up. It looks almost as if the ground was skimmed before the impact. A missle would have exploded.
3. The pentagon isnt like in the movies. It has been around for ages, and i beleive fully that that technology of camera is all that would be there.
Now, take this however you want. I don't know what happened, and all I can do is speculate. But would the government be so stupid as to release videos that showed missiles? Im sure someone somwhere would have thought this thre. Heck, if you dont agree, throw insults my way. I can take it
It seems to me that it was a plane that hit the pentagon, and not somthing else.
I can tell you most of the pictures showing the debris witheld are very gory. No one needs to see that.
Was this apartment complex made of 6-8 foot thick steel reinforced concrete, with blast resistant windows?
I can tell you most of the pictures showing the debris witheld are very gory. No one needs to see that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention, a 747 is significantly larger than a 757 (the former weighs almost three times as much as the latter).
Cell's were apparently no dealio back then...
And as for the whole 9/11 thing. Who gives a f¤!" - It sucked bigtime. That's reason enough to let it slide.
Some things seem suspicious, others make perfect sense(regardless of your stance on this).
None of them will ever make a difference, though.
That Bush Jr was (and still is) a friggin' moron, was evident before he even became president.
Was this apartment complex made of 6-8 foot thick steel reinforced concrete, with blast resistant windows?
I can tell you most of the pictures showing the debris witheld are very gory. No one needs to see that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, but with a little digging around I *could* show you the huge amount of wreckage left after a plane plows into the side of a mountain. I bit tougher than concrete me thinks [Stewie Griffin]hmmmmmmmmmm?[/Stewie Griffin]
I wouldn't expect the gory photo's to be released, certainly not to the general public.
The problem is becuase they released so little information over this, it gives the impression that very little did happened other than a fireball and "a few bits and pieces" scattered on the lawn.
They've only got themselves to blame really.
Not to mention, a 747 is significantly larger than a 757 (the former weighs almost three times as much as the latter).
[/ QUOTE ]Those were examples shown in the program. I'm sure that given enough time one could find crashes covering pretty much any aircraft that has flown, 757's amonsgt them, and the debris pattern they've left behind.