find the boeing

find the boeing 757

pretty interesting. deals with 757 which smashed into the pentagon. several pictures showing the damage. challenges you to find airplane wreckage in photographs

THE PICS ON THIS SITE MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THOSE SENSITIVE TO 911

sounds to me like we've been fooled, i saw no evidence what so ever that a plane of that size hit the building. i love shit like this(not 911), i like when people probe into what the government feeds us, and we find out that maybe we have been fooled:mean:

Snopes to the rescue.

Don't believe the conspiracy hype.

:bubble bursts::(

Originally posted by El Mamerro

Snopes to the rescue.

 

Don't believe the conspiracy hype.

There's those facts I was looking for...

ah, memories...

'there's the 'facts' you were looking for'? that site is run by the 'San Fernando Valley Folklore Society', which is one guy and his wife. hardly an unquestionable source of 'fact'.

also, it was not posted until a year after our discussion, so supplying it with a link to our debate, as if it was the backing for your argument then, is misleading.

lastly, there is no more 'fact' stated there, than in the original article. and 'infact' one of this guys main claims is that the plane hit the ground first, and then 'bounced'. now, simply looking at all of those pictures, both his and the french sites, i can not find any evidence of a several thousand pound plane hitting the ground at 350 mph. then again, my 'knowledge' of cratering and explosions is centered mostly around childhood experiments with m80's and bottle rockets with the stocks torn off, so what do i know?

seeks/till it makes glue

Originally posted by seeking

'there's the 'facts' you were looking for'? that site is run by the 'San Fernando Valley Folklore Society', which is one guy and his wife. hardly an unquestionable source of 'fact'.

No, not those facts, I always believed that a plane hit the pentagon... in the thread I linked to, you might notice me asking you (or anyone), to produce a simple outline of the facts concerning the conspiracy... What, where, when, why and how...

No, in the post above I was refering to the 'facts' concerning the time you told me I wasn't allowed to stop arguing with you... something you recently denied, but, it's all good...

believe what you want...

eh, they have video footage of the explosion that has been admitted but not of the aircraft impacting?

besides it would of clipped the wings at one point, the penetgon was not a wtc tower.

hmm...thats odd.

it seems odd that a 757 was angled perfectly into such a low target...the ground seemed fine as if the plane never skidded across it, just straight into the building...but i guess they were professionals or something...

You'd expect that theyd be able to at least find the plane's engine blocks or something

:confused: its all a front.

I've always thought the same about Snopes, seeking, how it's run by a mom-and-pop couple and how much I should really trust it. However it's been around for quite a while now, and it's been generally acclaimed almost everywhere (websites, magazines, etc.) as a solid online fallacy-defuser. Besides that, they always make sure to list their sources for each and every article... in this case, they were news articles in responses to the French publications (nobody else think's it's weird that all of these Pentagon conspiracy articles are French?) that made the claims. One of them is even from The Guardian, a newspaper that I would've expected to do somewhat of the opposite. Not only that, but the snopes article is peppered with further links.

Regardless, the explanations brought forth from Snopes and it's sourced articles seem to me to be fairly solid in terms of dismissing the questions brought forth by the site. I do think that the whole bouncing thing doesn't seem to be as convincing as the rest, but just as I haven't seen pictures of lawn damage, I haven't seen pictures of an undamaged lawn either, one that doesn't have a dozen fire trucks and rescue vehicles covering most of it. One of the quotes mentions it hitting the helipad, which I don't feel sounds right (angle is off), but it would have left little marks beyond concrete scrapes.

And as for the precision involved, well, if there was as much planning into this as there appears to have been, I don't know why it would be hard to believe that the calculations were made beforehand to make a standard landing procedure place the plane touch-down spot in that general area. They could've hit the roof or smashed harder against the lawn just as much as they could've hit it dead on like they did, and they would've still fucked shit up, maybe to a lesser degree. The wrong people often get lucky.

*Edit: I'd like to add that even the stuff outlined by the snopes articles isn't my strongest reason for not believing the conspiracy site... the main reason is that I honestly can't imagine the government being so unbelievably sloppy in execution and coverup.

"Yeah, we'll set up a bomb to explode and then we'll tell everyone it was a plane."

-"Word... but wouldn't a plane leave debris?"

"Nah, nobody's gonna care about that."

-"What about the plane and the people on it? They have to exist and families must lose relatives and a registered plane has to dissappear."

"Whatever, we'll take a flight and dump it in the middle of the Atlantic."

-"Dope... but wouldn't radar... ah fuck it dude, let's do it!"

to be honest, i didnt feel their 'debunking' facts were any more persuasive than the original 'conspiracy' theory, and thats not because i dont want to believe, its just how i see it. i had problems with the conspiracy theory as well. trust me, id much rather be able to accept that it was actually a plane and not possibly something else. but the way it stands, i just cant. and as far as some of the comments you made... if it hit the heli-pad before hitting the building, it would leave a whole hell of alot more than 'scrapes'.

" And as for the precision involved, well, if there was as much planning into this as there appears to have been, I don't know why it would be hard to believe that the calculations were made beforehand to make a standard landing procedure place the plane touch-down spot in that general area."

it would be difficult to believe because they were flying without the aid of navigational support, using ground landmarks to find their way. as cracked originally stated in the original thread, for them to be able to spot the building, make a wide turn to andle themselves towards it, then come down in such a manner as to hit it perfect at the base, when they had never performed such an operation before in their lives, is highly, highly suspect. i'm not positive, but i dont believe any of the men had flown planes anywhere near this size before, which makes all the difference in the world.

ok, here's my little undeveloped theory:

let's say plane A is the one that "crashed " in pennsylvania... i really don't believe it crashed because of the heroism, otherwise, don't you think that there were heroic people on the other flights ready to do somethng about these towel heads plotting to blast a several hundred thousand pound plane full of fuel into a building with them on board? so, i think the pennsylvania flight was shot down once the "proper authorities" realized where they were headed. as for the pentagon, i kinda think the plane that supposedly went into it was shot down, too...and then maybe a missile was fired into the side of it to make up for damage...i dunno. it's a loose theory and i'm not going anywhere with it.

www.guerrillanews.com is a good source for news that sounds conspiratorial, but seems to back up it's claims with plenty of references.

ive never claimed i had any idea of what actually happend at the pentagon, ive just been adamant that the 'facts' as presented, dont seem to add up. an improbable, acrobatic flight, a lack of debris, a very questionable impact area, a very 'convenient' impact site, and a near complete media avoidance of the topic since it happend?! no one ever mentions the pentagon. even if no one was really killed in the building, several hundred people still 'lost' their lives on the plane, certainly that's worth remembering.

also, if this was the only inconsistency in the whole event, i wouldnt think twice, but EVERYTHING about the events of that morning is kind of fishy. the fact that planes were ordered to be deployed, but then recalled, despite the fact it defied protocol.... that for what, for over an hour, 4 planes flew completely off course, avoided contact with the FAA over the intercom, and this alarmed no one? even after one plane smashed into the wtc? caaammmaannnnnnn.

again, im not claiming to have answers, just pointing out the obvious questions that those who we depend on to answer, and have the facts to answer have not (or have not sufficently).

Browser crashes after lengthy responses are fucking awesome.

In summary, my first paragraph was a somewhat detailed explanation of how a a smooth surface such as a plane's belly, travelling at very high speed, hitting a slab of concrete at a very shallow nearly horizontal angle would be quickly deflected like a rock skimming on water and cause little more that scrapes and cracks regardless of the weight of the plane. And then I went on to say "But I don't know, I'm no engineer".

My second paragraph explained how I personally don't even believe the plane touched down before hitting the building, and how it doesn't really matter if it did or not. It also touched upon how not believing the conspiracy tale doesn't mean I totally believe the government explanation, and how I think the government explanation seems a lot weaker on other aspects not touched upon that particular Hunt the Boeing site, such as analysis of interior damage.

My third paragraph was about the piloting of the plane, how I still think that with detailed study and calculations, by building scale models of DC, one could devise a landmark-based landing procedure with no navigational aid. It also mentioned that contrary to what most people think, a 757 is no jumbo jet, it's actually a midsize commercial airliner, a size that commercial airliner pilot training programs such as the ones taken by the alleged hijackers include in their curriculum.

My last paragraph was about how even if it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, it's rather strange that a Boeing 757 and 64 passengers simply disappeared off the face of the planet with no trail. Also how we could continue back and forth on this forever as many people have already and reach no solid conclusion. For now, I'll say I believe the plane hit the Pentagon.

i barely skimmed the last couple posts..

but personally, i see no evidence of a plane crash.

and really, why bother covering anything up in the first place? whats the difference between a plane and a car bomb in the end?

^Exactly... why come up with an elaborate airplane crash coverup if the execution won't seem to match it? I just don't think the government would be that stupid.

Also, most of the explanations offered in contrast involve some sort of missile, but those present as many contradictions and non-adding up facts as the plane crash.

dammit! get in on the sybntax project, you hippie! haha, maybe Joker will email you or call you about it.

as for the plane...i dunno. let's ask olver stone

America is evil.

Originally posted by El Mamerro

^Exactly... why come up with an elaborate airplane crash coverup if the execution won't seem to match it? I just don't think the government would be that stupid.

 

Also, most of the explanations offered in contrast involve some sort of missile, but those present as many contradictions and non-adding up facts as the plane crash.

dude, this is the same government that came up with the 'magic bullet theory', that completely defies every law of physics, yet still is maintained as truth. if you tell a big enough lie, enough times, it will becoem the truth, regardless as to how ridiculous it is.

and thanks for breaking down your post line by line, as if i somehow didnt get what you were saying, despite the fact that since i argued it point by point, obviously i did :rolleyes: .

the only thing i'll bother to touch on again, is that it would have been impossible given the landscape, to come down at such a gradual angle, as to just 'skim' the surface of the ground (or helipad). think about how long it takes to descend in a plane, down to a runway. now obviously, thats done with the intent to land, not crash, but physics still applies. you cant just aim it down, pull it up at the last second, an level it out.

ive never been real big on the missle theory. that just seems silly. its far more likely that if not a plane, that it was a bomb placed inside the building.

again, one of my biggest points since this whole thing happend, is my dis beliefe that there is no video surveilance of the pentagon. if this plane had crashed into a K-mart, it would have been caught on tape, by 4 different angles...certainly the pentagon has similar security measures in place to protect the perimiter of probably the single most important building in the country.

not trying to argue with you mams, just arguing the points. its all love.

Originally posted by seeking

and thanks for breaking down your post line by line, as if i somehow didnt get what you were saying, despite the fact that since i argued it point by point, obviously i did :rolleyes:

Hahahaha, no dude, that wasn't my intention... I was saying that I had typed a much lengthier response, about twice as long, and had a browser crash... and not wanting to write all that stuff again I just decided to write a summary of what would have been my post.

About the gradual angle, seems like light poles were clipped, and those are pretty low to the ground... and the trajectory profile seems to be pretty close to horizontal... Again, I don't even think it touched the ground.

The "magic bullet theory" is being maintained as truth? I know it's A theory, but i don't think I've ever heard of it being referred to as THE theory.

ahh, i thought you were reiterating your first post, line for line, for me. ;)

maybe a plane could have done it, i dont know, but if i was a gambling man, i'd take the cubs to win the superbowl, before i took the governments claim.

and yeah, the 'magic bullet theory' as far as i know, was the explanation given by the government forensic expert (or whoever) when explaining how one bullet, when shot from behind, could produce several entrance wounds, from the opposit direction of the (alleged) shooting angle.

honestly, the jfk conspiracy alone, should be enough to cast doubt on anything our government ever says about anything.

if i caught my girl fucking some dude in a broom closet in 1986, and then caught her again 12 years later in the same broom closet, with another dude, i'm not buying the excuse that they were looking for a new mop head.

seeks/bored at work

the cubs really are a longshot to win the superbowl.

Originally posted by TEARZ

the cubs really are a longshot to win the superbowl.

our government is really a long shot be honest and not murder innocent people to further its agenda. :crazy:

seeks/that smiley does not fit at all

:crazy: <=== huh?

haha

you don't gotta convince me homey.... i was just liking the analogy...

i've had a bit of physics before

i understand how fast the plane was traveling at that moment of impact, and how if the trajectory of the plane was at a severe angle, the plane very likely could have impacted the outer ring of the pentagon, basically crushed down on top of itself and the incredibly secure building, and basically imploded into a fireball.

physice would then suggest that the intense heat of the combusting jet fuel, concentrated in that small area occupied by the plane, could have just melted the plane down into dust..

the pentagon was built by our military, to protect itself. of course it is impenetrable!

oh yeah!!!

i know 1 person who saw the plane hit the pentagon! I KNOW HIM ..i spoke to him about that day. he is a d.c. resident, not a government employee. explain that !!

i also know several d.c. residents who experienced that day. they was a big chance to create a lot of mass hysteria, why wasn't that taken advantage of? what would the government's motivation have been? haven't they already demonstrated that they will do what they feel is necessary regardless??

according to the french guy who wrote one of the first 911 books claiming it to a us goverment right wing conspiracy of the military industrial complex, it was a cruise missle that struck the pentagon.

that shit got to the third ring of the pentagon. the wtc planes never made it out the other side which was far less resistant than 6 ft thick walls of steel reinforced concrete.

and i heard some urban myth that the people killed in the pentagon were the more moderate higher ups, the more peacefull minded ones.

oh that french guys book also states that the planes that hit the wtc were remote controlled to. and it is widely belived that at least 7 of the hijackers are still alive and swell in saudi arabia and two are dead. they have disputed there involvement and, if its true i would say that identity theft of the hijackers is a good sign shady shit is going. then you got the mossad agents dancing on their van as the twin towers collapsed and the other mossad agents caught with a van bomb on the george washington bridge...or maybe it was just plastic explosive residue.

anyway. i read recently that more and more evidence points to bombs as what brought the world trade center down.