# Danish scientist on 9/11



## jimmystar (Oct 22, 2005)

what do you think of this ?


----------



## leeston (May 30, 2006)

wow, how can this not be head line news. mmmmmmm the bent government and lapdog media thats why.

Not very revealing as it is what most people thought anyway but where do they go with it now. Do they reopen the investigation in the US and seek someone to blame - I wonder although I doubt it!


----------



## ichigo (Dec 22, 2008)

watched a programme a couple of months back some of the storys get you thinking then theres the ones were you just know the persons a nut job lol


----------



## Heineken (Feb 6, 2009)

Anyone that believes the US government had nothing to do with that is an idiot. You can see separate explosions going off on various floors on pretty much every video of the attack, and the foundations were destroyed seperatley. It's claimed the explosions knocked down the buildings, yet the hijackers' passports.. made of paper.. somehow survived and were found in the rubble?

What a crock of sh*t


----------



## pea head (May 28, 2008)

I from the start thought there was something dodgy with the collapse of the towers.


----------



## PHHead (Aug 20, 2008)

I must admit I always thought the towers looked like they where brought down in a controled explosion but I find it hard to believe the American Goverment would do that to its own people, also it was not just Americans killed so doing something like that would be risking an international incodent with its Alies!


----------



## Ollie B (Mar 14, 2007)

A very interesting video. I have seen a documentry a few years back about the towers collapsing saying that it was designed in a way for it to fall like that.


----------



## ba baracuss (Apr 26, 2004)

Expect to never hear from this guy again :whistling:


----------



## MXD (Jan 23, 2008)

It was so obviously a false flag operation it is crazy.. same as 7/7

Our govt don't give a ****, of corse they are going to kill afew of its own to controll the masses..


----------



## neildo (Oct 9, 2008)

Heard about the thermite stuff being found in the towers before, along with the main structural supports being cut at around a 45 degree angle with pics to prove it. There was a thread on here a bit ago about it, really interesting stuff...

Just makes you wonder though, fack me if it was (which i do believe it was) an inside job, who was involved at what levels of authority and who for example coined the plan, who placed the thermite, how long in advance was it set up etc....scary times! Cause we'll probably never know!


----------



## MXD (Jan 23, 2008)

NWO, secret govt, illuminati etc etc..


----------



## albie (Mar 16, 2007)

Ive always thought that all the conspiracy theories were B0llocks. Two many variables need to be timed for it to go as it did, planes , nano-thermite or whatever demolition charge could have been used.....

However, i just had a thought (lots of spare time today so it wasn't that painfull)....What if what happend was a rather convenient (for US government or whoever) coincidence.

What i mean is, following the 1st attempt to blow up ,or bring down, the towers with the van bomb,someone thought along the lines that maybe the towers coming down would have a use...ie military occupation of any country you wished to blame it on...so they then put in place all the required demolition charges and wait for the 'next' attack so that the towers do fall.

How convenient for a group of poeple to plan to fly two planes into the towers...sit back wait for them to fall..if they don't, push the button(s)?


----------



## leeston (May 30, 2006)

watch Zeigheist. It reveals all of the answers. David Icke all of a sudden does not look so stupid does he!!


----------



## freddiehick (Mar 15, 2009)

watch this quite an old video, some people may have seen it before but if you watch this and still believe the twin towers were an accident or just fell because of the planes then you are just wrong. Its a long video but I guarantee its worth it.


----------



## MXD (Jan 23, 2008)

leeston said:


> watch Zeigheist. It reveals all of the answers. David Icke all of a sudden does not look so stupid does he!!


Zeitgeist is half truth skip the utter crap it spouts about christianity..


----------



## evad (Mar 17, 2008)

google the temperature that concrete and steal bends at

then google the temperature of burning aeroplane fuel


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

I swear to ****ing god that reading these ****ign threads makes me reconsider being here alltogether.

I can't even be ****d to show you why all this stuff is complete bollocks, if you guys could be bothered to look at both sides of the coin it would become very obvious very fast that this wasn't a ****ign conspiracy.

I mean without me bothering to debunk every little thing in this pointless video, just think for a second:

If the US government wanted to take out these two buildings with explosives, WHY IN SH1TTING CRIKEY WOULD THEY FLY PLANES INTO THEM TOO??? They would jsut say that the terrorists planted bombs.

Please engage your brains.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

davetherave said:


> google the temperature that concrete and steal bends at
> 
> then google the temperature of burning aeroplane fuel


Please dude, don't be so gullable...

1. Airoplane fuel wans't the only thing burning

2. Those figures don't account for the fact that the steel and concrete was under thousands of tons of pressure AS ITS HOLDING UP A BUIULDING


----------



## Heineken (Feb 6, 2009)

Please debunk all these 'pointless' aspects of the film mate, I'd be interested to see how you go about arguing against scientific proof


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Heinkeken said:


> Please debunk all these 'pointless' aspects of the film mate, I'd be interested to see how you go about arguing against scientific proof


There is no "science" to these conspiracy theories, these people take small peinces of info without considering the whole picture and then shout loud enough and put dramatic effects in their vidoes so mongs go "ooh ahh yes".

thermite debunked: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Steel integrity debunked: http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel *I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.*

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

*Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.*

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

I'm surprised BritBB isn't ripping you guys new a55holes right about now.


----------



## evad (Mar 17, 2008)

megatron said:


> Please dude, don't be so gullable...
> 
> 1. Airoplane fuel wans't the only thing burning
> 
> 2. Those figures don't account for the fact that the steel and concrete was under thousands of tons of pressure AS ITS HOLDING UP A BUIULDING


hahaha so you want to go alone in your argument then? fair do's

do my comments say which way i believe the argument to be? 

are you looking at it from an americans point of view or a structural engineers?


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

davetherave said:


> hahaha so you want to go alone in your argument then? fair do's
> 
> do my comments say which way i believe the argument to be?
> 
> are you looking at it from an americans point of view or a structural engineers?


Check post No 20, which side are you on here? I assumed from your post you were insinuating that the burnign fuel wasn't enough to make the structure bend?


----------



## evad (Mar 17, 2008)

megatron said:


> Check post No 20, which side are you on here? I assumed from your post you were insinuating that the burnign fuel wasn't enough to make the structure bend?


fair do's

im going to back out of this argument as one internet argument in a day is more then enough for someone as angry as me 

i dont believe it was a conspiracy and can't be ar5ed going into an argument that is what about 8 years old?



> which side are you on here? I assumed from your post you were insinuating that the burnign fuel wasn't enough to make the structure bend?


ive seen the only video you need to see, the one with the interview with the architect that designed the towers, at the end of the day who knows the building better then him? (i forget his name)


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Must say im relieved, I thought better of you - and leeston too


----------



## evad (Mar 17, 2008)

megatron said:


> Must say im relieved, I thought better of you - and leeston too


hahaha thanks, i think

im more concerned as to why a bloke has a picture of him in a city shirt in the COMS with ronaldo on his back :confused1:


----------



## Heineken (Feb 6, 2009)

So can you explain

The convenient timing of the insurance policies being renewed?

All the money that was shifted days prior to the attacks?

The unusual closures of various floors of each building weeks prior to the attacks?

Why were no other buildings damaged?

Why no other buildings in history have ever collapsed from fire damage?

The separate explosions on various floors below the impact site?

Why hard drive data taken from the ruble indicated illegal transactions taking place prior to the attacks?

The explosions in the basement, thousands of feet from the impact site?

Molten steel underneath the ruble?

Why the government confiscated so many audio recordings and video tapes and still to this day, have not released them?

I know some of them aren't scientific questions, but I'll bet you can't explain most. It's also worth mentioning I don't have a problem with you having a different view mate nor do I want to get into a flame war.. I just see more evidence for this conspiracy theory than against.


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

People don't actualy believe all this crap do they, do they actualy think any goverment has the organisational ability to engineer something like this and keep it secret....for ****s sake grow up and go outside and spot some UFO's or count the fairies at the bottom of your gardens.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Heinkeken said:


> So can you explain
> 
> The convenient timing of the insurance policies being renewed?
> 
> ...


I'm not going to waste my time mate, people invariably believe what they want to believe. Have a read of the site I linked in post 20. Some real science not conjecture - answering most of your questions.


----------



## Heineken (Feb 6, 2009)

I pose you the same questions then Ian


----------



## Kezz (Sep 3, 2007)

i was wondering why they would go to the trouble of planting explosives in the buildings then crash planes into them, i think its a scaremongering crock of shyte


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

Heinkeken said:


> So can you explain
> 
> The convenient timing of the insurance policies being renewed?
> 
> ...


myths....coincidence and wishful thinking by people desperate for the world to be more complicated than it realy is...the truth is staring us in the face...planes flew into the buildings.... exploded...tons of aviation fuel spilled down through the floors and lift shafts...buildings fell over...end of story.


----------



## Heineken (Feb 6, 2009)

Kezz said:


> i was wondering why they would go to the trouble of planting explosives in the buildings then crash planes into them, i think its a scaremongering crock of shyte


It was far easier for the US to blame the attacks on terrorists because they were that dramatic, the spectacle of an airplane hitting such a high stature building would get everyone talking, people saw it with their own eyes.

Compare that to mere 'stories' of bombs being planted secretly by terrorists, which do you think the public will respond to more? That's one of the thoughts I've had anyway


----------



## Heineken (Feb 6, 2009)

IanStu said:


> myths....coincidence and wishful thinking by people desperate for the world to be more complicated than it realy is...the truth is staring us in the face...planes flew into the buildings.... exploded...tons of aviation fuel spilled down through the floors and lift shafts...buildings fell over...end of story.


The fuel ignited instantly, there was no 'spilling'


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Heinkeken said:


> The fuel ignited instantly, there was no 'spilling'


buring liquid still flows...


----------



## fozyspilgrims (Oct 22, 2007)

I just can't believe thats its an inside job. Not at all.


----------



## volatileacid (Dec 28, 2005)

fozyspilgrims said:


> I just can't believe thats its an inside job. Not at all.


I don't believe any of this conspiracy bullsh|t either. I've had enough of them through the years, including that good old one about the U.S. moon landing that wasn't. Uttter [email protected]


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

What about the pentagon megatron.

What hit the pentagon mate. lets have the plane evidence. Not 1 shred of proof to back up the official story, not one


----------



## d4ead (Nov 3, 2008)

i do believe there was more to it all then what was made officialy public but i dont believe it was an inside job so to speak.

i just find it hard to belive that they could find enougth people to organise somthing like this that would agree to it. let alone keep it quite, it just wouldnt happen.

theres a lot we dont know but i just dont think those unknowns re what the conspiricy people think they are.


----------



## recc (Apr 27, 2008)

Uriel said:


> What about the pentagon megatron.
> 
> What hit the pentagon mate. lets have the plane evidence. Not 1 shred of proof to back up the official story, not one


i saw a program on that i think saying there was next to no debris from a plane found at the scene... odd

but i dont really believe in all the conspiracy stuff. How a government could expect to do something like that and no one notice...

But for the points as to why the government would go to the trouble of flying planes ina building as well as blow it up, it would be because there is too many reasons why terrorists planting bombs wouldnt be accepted. Such as how, why didnt anyone see etc


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect​

In the aftermath of 9/11, I have heard many claims that a 757 could not possible have hit the Pentagon because the plane cannot fly so low to the ground at speeds of 500 mph or more. The primary reason given is that ground effect prevents this from happening. Is there any truth to this claim?
- question from Eric 


I am researching Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. The aircraft was a Boeing 757-200 traveling 345 mph according to the flight data recorder. Because of damage to light poles about 1500 feet from the building, the leading edge of the wing was about 15-18 feet off the ground at this location. The impact damage at the building is contained below the slab of the second floor, which is 14 feet high. Nothing hit the lawn prior to the building facade. How would ground effect have been overcome for this scenario?
- question from Russell Pickering 


Your article on ground effect says that it comes into play at a height equivalent to the wingspan of the aircraft, or about 125 ft for a 757. If a 757 tried to fly at low altitude at 500 mph, wouldn't ground effect force it up to at least 125 ft? And if the pilot tried to force the nose down at that speed, wouldn't the aircraft become unstable? I don't think any pilot could control an aircraft like that and hit the Pentagon. No 757 could fly like that, especially the terrorist supposedly flying Flight 11 who was an unskilled amateur pilot yet magically flew with total perfection.
- question from S. R. 

We have previously explored one of the most common questions about the attack on the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 in an article about engine wreckage photographed at the site. Another popular question raised by many who doubt the official story of what happened that day concerns the aerodynamic phenomenon known as ground effect.

Ground effect primarily affects the aerodynamic behavior of a conventional fixed-wing aircraft during landing. In order to understand what ground effect is and how it works, one must first understand the concept of trailing or tip vortices. A http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0176.shtml">vortex is an energetic swirling mass of air or water like a tornado or whirlpool. All aircraft, and birds for that matter, generate vortices off their wingtips. These vortices form because of the difference in pressure that exists between the upper and lower surfaces of the wing.










*Creation of trailing vortices due to a difference in pressure above and below a lifting surface*​
The Bernoulli theory of lift tells us that a wing creates lift because the air moving over the upper surface of the wing is at a lower pressure than the air beneath the wing. This difference in pressure creates a lift force that pulls the wing upward. Because of this difference in pressure, however, the high pressure air beneath the wing also tries to move outward and around the wingtip to escape to the low pressure region above the wing. As the wingtip flies forward, this motion of air creates a swirling vortex that trails behind. One of these vortices is left aft of each wingtip, swirling in opposite directions, to create a pair of trailing vortices behind the wing.










*Regions of upwash and downwash created by trailing vortices*​
Trailing vortices are undesirable primarily because they increase drag. Drag is the force that opposes an aircraft's forward motion and reduces its efficiency. While vortices do not directly increase the drag of a plane, they create a downwash that deflects the air behind a wing downward. This downwash decreases the lift generated by the wing.










*Effect of downwash in decreasing lift and increasing drag*​
In order to make up for that lost lift, the wing's angle of attack must be increased. Angle of attack defines the angle at which the wing meets the oncoming air stream. Increasing this angle causes the lift generated by a wing to increase. The lift continues to increase until a particular angle of attack called the stall angle is reached. At this critical angle, the air flowing over the wing separates from the wing surface causing the lift to decrease.










*Examples of typical lift coefficient data for fixed-wing aircraft*​
Now how does this interaction between downwash and lift cause drag to rise? The catch is that as lift increases with higher angle of attack, drag also increases at a faster rate. Therefore, as a wing's angle of attack is increased to compensate for the lift lost to downwash, the penalty is higher drag that reduces the efficiency of the wing. This form of drag is referred to as induced drag because it is induced by the generation of lift. Induced drag is the dominant type of drag acting on an aircraft at low speed, such as during takeoff and landing. It becomes considerably less significant at high speed during cruise flight where a different type of drag called parasite drag is dominant.










*Examples of typical drag coefficient data for fixed-wing aircraft*​
The amount of influence that trailing vortices have on the aerodynamic behavior of a wing depends on a number of factors. One of these is the distance of the wing from the ground. When operating very close to the ground, the vortices can become partially blocked and prevented from fully forming. This disruption of the trailing vortices reduces the magnitude of the downwash they create. A reduction in downwash results in higher lift and lower induced drag for a given angle of attack. As a result, ground effect increases the aerodynamic efficiency of a wing.










*Ground effect and its influence on trailing vortices*​
A second factor that influences the impact of trailing vortices on an aircraft is the speed at which it travels. A common misconception about ground effect is that a "bubble" or "cushion" of air forms between the aircraft and ground that somehow prevents the aircraft from landing or even forces the plane upward away from the ground. Furthermore, many believe that the strength of this cushion grows the faster an aircraft flies when near the ground. Both of these beliefs are wrong.

First of all, there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground. The true cause of ground effect is the influence of the ground on the wing's angle of attack as described above. Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack. Second, we have seen that this effect actually decreases with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies.

This relationship can be better understood by studying the relationship between lift, speed, and angle of attack. As demonstrated in an article describing thin airfoil theory, lift is linearly proportional to angle of attack for angles below the stall angle. However, the lift equation says that lift is also proportional to the square of speed. These two relationships tell us that the faster a wing flies, the lower an angle of attack is required to generate sufficient lift to remain in flight. It is for this reason that an aircraft flying at high speed during cruise operates at a very low angle of attack. The cruise angle of attack for a large airliner like the Boeing 757, for example, is around 1° or 2°. Aircraft fly at a much higher angle of attack during takeoff and landing because it is during these stages of flight when speed is the lowest and a high angle of attack is required to generate the needed lift.

This dependency is rather simple to remember--if speed is high, angle of attack is low. If speed is low, angle of attack must be high. Furthermore, when angle of attack is low, we have seen that induced drag is also low. If induced drag is low, the downwash generated by the wing must be small. If downwash is small, then the trailing vortices must be relatively narrow in diameter. If the trailing vortices are narrow, then the proximity of the ground can have little effect on their formation and ground effect will be minimal by definition.

Given this explanation, it should come as no surprise that pilots most often report the influence of ground effect during a traditional landing. It is during the landing approach when a plane is at its lowest speed and highest angle of attack of any portion of its flight. In addition, the plane's slow speed provides less energy to spin the tip vortices, and the lower a vortex's rate of rotation, the wider in diameter it becomes. This combination of high angle of attack and low speed creates a large downwash and trailing vortices with a large diameter that have a significant influence over a plane's wing. These wide vortices are more likely to be blocked as the plane comes closer to the ground, so any reduction in their strength has a correspondingly significant impact on the aircraft's aerodynamic behavior.










*Relative impact of ground effect on lift at low versus high angle of attack*​
The differences in the relative influence of ground effect on a wing are compared conceptually in the above diagram. This plot illustrates a typical lift curve for an aircraft showing how the lift coefficient varies with angle of attack. The lift coefficient required for cruise flight is rather low since the aircraft's speed is high, so the plane operates at a low angle of attack. The opposite occurs during landing when speed is low and a high lift coefficient is needed, so angle of attack must also be high. The impact of ground effect on a wing operating at a low angle of attack is quite small as indicated by the slight increase in angle of attack created by proximity to the ground. The same does not hold true at high angle of attack where ground effect has a much greater influence.

Nevertheless, we do see that ground effect often does have some small effect on a wing even at low angles. Is it significant enough to somehow force the plane away from the ground or make it difficult, if not impossible, to control? The answer is again no since the pilot can easily reduce a plane's angle of attack to eliminate any excess lift and maintain a desired flight path. This feat is accomplished thanks to devices called control surfaces placed along a plane's wing and tail.










*Aircraft control surfaces and axes of motion*​
The primary surface used to control the plane's angle of attack is the elevator located on the horizontal stabilizer. Deflecting the elevator up or down causes the nose of the plane to rotate up and down changing its angle of attack. This rotation is called pitch. The ailerons at each wingtip can also be used to influence the angle of attack on each side of the aircraft causing the plane to roll about its centerline. When an aircraft enters ground effect and goes to a higher effective angle of attack, the pilot simply pushes the control yoke forward. This adjustment causes the elevator to deflect downward and pushes the plane's nose downward to reduce its angle of attack. In so doing, the plane's lift is decreased.

That brings us to the question of whether an essentially untrained pilot like terrorist Hani Hanjour could have made these adjustments to fly the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. While such fine corrections do require some degree of finesse and familiarity with an aircraft's flight characteristics, the level of expertise required is not excessive. We have shown that any influence of ground effect would have been quite small on Flight 77 given its high rate of speed and small angle of attack. The 757 was apparently in a shallow dive as well, further reducing its angle of attack such that any impact of ground effect would have been extremely small.

In addition, many modern airliners are not directly flown by the pilot but by automated systems. Most newer aircraft even use fly-by-wire (FBW) systems that take control inputs from the pilot, process them by computer, and automatically make adjustments to the control surfaces to accomplish the pilot's commands. Though the 757 is not equipped with a fully digital FBW system, it does carry a flight management computer system (FMCS), digital air data computer (DADC), and autopilot flight director system (AFDS) that provide sophisticated control laws to govern the plane's control surfaces. The AFDS not only controls the plane when the autopilot is enabled, but Boeing recommends that these computerized systems always be in operation to advise the pilots on how to best fly the aircraft. The primary advantage of computerized control systems is that they can make corrections to an aircraft's flight path and help prevent the pilot from accidentally putting the plane into an uncontrollable condition. The 757's flight augmentation system is also designed to damp out aerodynamic instabilities, and computerized control systems often automatically account for ground effect by making adjustments to the plane's control surfaces to cancel it out.

These factors make it clear that ground effect could not have prevented a Boeing 757 from striking the Pentagon in the way that Flight 77 did on September 11. Nevertheless, we are still left with the claim that the pilot Hanjour flew a suspiciously "perfect" flight path on his approach to the Pentagon despite his lack of skill. It is unclear what has prompted this belief since very few eyewitnesses even describe how well the aircraft flew. The majority instead focus on the impact and aftermath. Even so, those few who did make statements regarding pilot ability indicate that Hanjour flew in a somewhat erratic manner as one would expect.










*Probable path of Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon*​
One of the most interesting quotes comes from Afework Hagos who commented on the plane see-sawing back and forth, suggesting that the pilot was struggling to keep the plane level in either pitch or roll or perhaps both. Hagos was stuck in traffic near the Pentagon when the 757 passed overhead. He reported, "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance." Another eyewitness named Penny Elgas also referred to the plane rocking back and forth while Albert Hemphill commented that, "He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just 'jinked' to avoid something." These observations were further confirmed by Mary Ann Owens, James Ryan, and David Marra who described the plane's wings as "wobbly" when it "rolled left and then rolled right" and the pilot "tilted his wings, this way and in this way."

This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

- answer by Jeff Scott, 21 May 2006

*Related Topics:*

I've read that the wheel photographed at the Pentagon doesn't match a Boeing 757. It has eight holes in it but the wheel on a 757 has ten holes. ... Look at these pictures of landing gear from the crash at the Pentagon and a 757. They PROVE a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon! I heard a big plane hit the Empire State Building in World War II. Why didn't the skyscraper collapse like the World Trade Center did?


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

I've seen pictures of engine wreckage at the Pentagon after 9/11. Your site says the engine of a 757 is over 6 feet across but this piece is way smaller than that. Does it prove that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a 757 and the government is lying about it?

- question from Leroy Mulligan

The page you refer to discusses the diameter of the engines used aboard the Boeing 757. What is not explicitly stated in that article is that the dimensions discussed refer only to the maximum diameter of the engine and not the widths of the various components within.

Schematic of a simple jet engine










In order to better understand the parts of a jet engine and how this form of propulsion works, let us briefly revisit the different types of jet engines. The earliest form of jet propulsion was the turbojet. This type of powerplant employs a series of compressor blades mounted on rotating disks that squeeze incoming air to a higher pressure and temperature. The compressed air is then mixed with fuel and ignited. The high temperature air passes through another series of rotating blades called a turbine, which causes this turbine to spin. The turbine rotors are attached to a central shaft running the length of the engine, so the turbine's spinning motion causes this shaft to rotate as well. Also attached to the same central shaft is the compressor section at the front of the engine. This connection between the turbine and compressor sections causes the compressor stages to continue spinning, bringing in additional air to keep the engine functioning in a repeating cycle. Once the airflow moves past the turbines, it is exhausted through a nozzle. The expansion of the high pressure gases against the nozzle walls creates thrust that pushes the engine forward, as well as the vehicle it is attached to.

Another type of jet that is similar to but more efficient than the turbojet is the turbofan. A turbofan uses the same components described above with the addition of a large fan in front of the compressor section. This fan is connected to the same central shaft that turns the compressor blades so that the fan also rotates. As it does so, the fan accelerates a wide column of air to further increase thrust. Air passing through the center portion of the fan enters the compressor where it moves through the core of the engine just like on a typical turbojet. Air accelerated through the fan's outer diameter, however, flows around the engine core without passing through it. This process can be better understood by studying an animation of airflow through a turbofan.

There are two basic types of turbofans that are differentiated by the relative amount of air that flows through the fan and around the engine core versus the amount of air that flows through the core itself. A turbofan with a low-bypass ratio means that most of the air flowing through the engine passes through the turbojet core and very little through the outer fan bypass duct. Such engines are most common on military combat aircraft like fighters. Today's commercial airlines, like the 757, are instead fitted with high-bypass turbofan engines. A high-bypass turbofan consists of a very large diameter fan and a much smaller-diameter turbojet core within.










Comparison of a low-bypass turbofan with long ducts and a high-bypass turbofan with short ducts

As shown in the above diagram, a turbofan contains many rotating compressor and turbine disks, all of which are smaller than the fan at the front of the engine. The rotary components within a high-bypass turbofan, in particular, are often only a small fraction of the fan diameter. Most specifications describing the overall size of an engine will list the fan diameter since this measurement defines the engine's maximum width. Our earlier article about the 757 uses this dimension to compare the diameter of the engine nacelle to that of the fuselage.

With that introduction aside, let's take a closer look at the specific question of debris found at the Pentagon following the attack on 11 September 2001. While researching this topic, we came across many websites claiming that it was not American Airlines Flight 77 that was hijacked and purposefully crashed into the Pentagon during the terrorist attack that morning. The authors of these sites instead believe that any of a variety of military aircraft, cruise missiles, or other weapons were used by the US government to attack the Pentagon, and the stories of terrorist hijackings were simply a cover up for the sinister scheme.










American Airlines Boeing 757-200 with tail number N644AA

According to the accepted story, American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked by five al Qaeda terrorists as it was traveling from Washington DC to Los Angeles. The aircraft involved in this hijacking was a Boeing Model 757-200 with the Boeing customer code 757-223 and the registration number N644AA. This same aircraft is pictured above in a photo taken at Logan International Airport in Boston on 7 August 2001. The terrorists steered the plane into the west side of the Pentagon killing 59 passengers and crew as well as 125 victims on the ground.

Those who doubt this version of events point to wreckage at the Pentagon as proof that some other kind of aircraft or missile was actually responsible for the attack. Probably the one piece of debris that has prompted the most debate is the following photo of what looks like a rotary disk from the interior of the plane's engine. This disk could be part of a fan, a compressor, or a turbine rotor from inside the engine, but the blades are not present and were presumably knocked off in the impact.










Rotating engine disk visible at the Pentagon










Close-up views of the Pentagon engine component

Based on the sizes of the person standing next to the debris and other objects in the photographs that we can use for comparison, it has been estimated that the disk is approximately 25 to 30 inches (63.5 to 76.2 cm) across. Obviously, this piece is far smaller than the maximum engine diameter of 6 feet (1.8 m) or more leading many to draw the conclusion that the item is not from a 757 engine. That conjecture causes conspiracy theorists to believe that a much smaller vehicle must have struck the Pentagon instead.

However, we have already seen that rotating components within a turbofan engine can vary widely in size. In order to determine whether this component could have possibly come from a 757, we need to take a closer look at the engine installed aboard the aircraft registered N644AA. Boeing offered two different engine options to customers of the 757-200. Airlines could choose between the Pratt & Whitney PW2000 family or the Rolls-Royce RB211 series. The particular engine model chosen by American Airlines for its 757 fleet was the RB211-535E4B triple-shaft turbofan manufactured in the United Kingdom. A drawing illustrating the overall size of this engine is pictured below.










Diagram of the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan

Note the relative sizes of the forward portion of this engine compared to the central core. Clearly, the section housing the fan is much wider than the turbojet core that contains the compressor and turbine components. We can get a clearer view of the relative sizes of components within this engine in the following cut-away drawing of the RB211-535.










Cut-away of the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan

Using these images and other diagrams of the RB211-535 engine, we can obtain approximate dimensions of the engine's rotary disks for comparison to the item found in the Pentagon rubble. Our best estimate is that the engine's twelve compressor disk hubs (without blades attached) are about 36% the width of the fan. The five turbine disk hubs appear to be slightly smaller at approximately 34% the fan diamter. According to Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory and Jane's, the fan diameter of the RB211-535E4B engine is 74.5 inches (189.2 cm). It then follows that the compressor disk hubs are approximately 27 inches (69 cm) across while the turbine disk hubs are about 25 inches (63.5 cm) in diameter. Both of these dimensions fit within the range of values estimated for the engine component pictured in the wreckage at the Pentagon.

We can take this analysis a step further by also exploring some of the alternate theories that have been put forward by those believing this object comes from a different aircraft. Two of the most common claims we have seen suggest that the plane used in the attack was a Douglas A-3 Skywarrior or a Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk. The A-3 is an airborne jamming aircraft originally ordered by the US Navy during the 1950s. The type is now retired from front-line service though a handful are still used for testing purposes by the defense contractor Raytheon. The Global Hawk is an unmanned aerial vehicle used by the Air Force for reconnaissance missions. Neither of these planes bears more than a superficial resemblance to the 757, but we will accept the possibility that they could be mistaken for a commercial airliner given the confusion on September 11.

For the sake of this investigation, the only issue we shall consider is the engines that power both planes. The A-3 was equipped with two Pratt & Whitney J57 turbojets like that pictured below. The J57 dates to the early 1950s and is rather antiquated by today's standards.

Pratt & Whitney J57 turbojet

For some reason, most of the conspiratorial sites instead make extensive reference to the A-3 being powered by a Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine. Moreover, these sites claim that the JT8D is a turbojet. The JT8D is actually a low-bypass turbofan that was developed for use aboard commercial aircraft like the 727 and 737. We have not found any source that indicates the JT8D was ever used on the A-3 Skywarrior, so it is unclear why the originators of the A-3 theory are so infatuated with this particular powerplant. Nevertheless, we will include it in our investigation for completeness.

Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbofan

The Global Hawk, meanwhile, is powered by a single Rolls-Royce AE3007H turbofan. The AE3007 is built by the Allison Engine division of Rolls-Royce located in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Rolls-Royce AE3007 turbofan

Using photos and cut-away drawings of these three engines, we can estimate the diameters of the compressor and turbine rotor hubs just as we did for the RB211. While the compressor and turbine disks on the J57 and JT8D are larger by percentage than those of the RB211, the maximum diameters of all three engines are considerably smaller as summarized in the following table.

Engine Overall Diameter Compressor Hub Diameter

(estimated) Turbine Hub Diameter

(estimated)

PW J57 40.5 in (102.9 cm) 16 in (40.6 cm) 18 in (45.7 cm)

PW JT8D 49.2 in (125 cm) 21.5 in (54.6 cm) 22.5 in (57.1 cm)

RR AE3007H 43.5 in (110.5 cm) 14 in (35.6 cm) 15 in (38.1 cm)

This analysis indicates that all three of these engines are too small to match the engine component photographed at the Pentagon. Some sites also suggest the part might be from the aircraft's auxiliary power unit (APU). An APU is essentially a small jet engine mounted in the tail of an aircraft that provides additional power, particularly during an emergency. However, APUs tend to be much smaller than jet engines, and the component pictured at the Pentagon is too large to match any found in an APU. It has also been suggested that the attack was conducted by a cruise missile like the Tomahawk or Storm Shadow, but these and other weapons are powered by engines no more than 15 inches (38 cm) across. These powerplants are obviously far too small to account for the Pentagon wreckage.

Whatever piece this is, it appears to be only the central hub of a compressor or turbine stage. Normally, each of these rotating stages would be fitted with several curved blades mounted along its circumference. These blades were apparently knocked off the rotor hub found in the wreckage due to the force of the impact. The loss of these blades is unfortunate since different manufacturers often adopt unique shapes for their fan, compressor, and turbine blades that would make the source of the component much easier to identify. Nonetheless, we have been able to locate the following picture of the intermediate pressure compressor section of the RB211 that appears to match several characteristics of the Pentagon debris. Note that this photo appears to be from the RB211-524 which is an uprated relative of the RB211-535 used on the Boeing 747 and 767. This engine model contains seven intermediate pressure compressor stages compared to the six of the RB211-535. However, the compressor disks used on both engines are believed to be nearly identical.










Comparison of intermediate pressure compressor stages on the RB211 to the wreckage

One similarity between the two photos can be seen in the cleats along the edge of the Pentagon object. These devices are called dovetail slots and provide attachment points for the compressor blades. The shapes of these slots on the Pentagon wreckage appear to match those on the RB211 assembly shown on the left. Furthermore, the "nosepiece" jutting out from the center of the disk in the Pentagon photo shares commonalities with the central shaft visible in the RB211 photo.

The above analysis indicates that the Pentagon debris does in fact match the characteristics of a rotor disk from the Rolls-Royce RB211-535. The wreckage is most likely a compressor stage given the shape of the dovetail slots. It is difficult to be certain exactly which compressor disk it is since the six rotors of the intermediate pressure section and six high pressure compressor disks are of similar size. The primary difference from one compressor to the next is the smaller span of the compressor blades as the air flows further into the engine, but these blades are no longer attached to the wreckage. However, additional clues in the photo suggest the rotor disk is probably from the high pressure section or perhaps the very last disk of the intermediate pressure compressors.

We believe the disk is most likely a high pressure compressor because of the shape of the piece jutting from its center. This item is part of the central shaft that runs the length of the engine to connect the rotating stages of the fan, compressor, and turbine. The RB211 is described as a triple-shaft or triple-spool turbofan since it uses three concentric shafts to drive the various rotating elements of the engine. These shafts are differentiated by the relative pressure of the gases passing through the rotor stages attached to them. The longest shaft with the smallest diameter located closest to the centerline connects the low pressure (LP) engine components. This shaft is rotated by the LP turbines, located just ahead of the nozzle, and drives the large fan at the front of the engine.










RB211 schematic illustrating the low, intermediate, and high pressure shafts

The LP shaft rotates within a shorter, larger diameter shaft that drives the intermediate pressure (IP) system. This shaft rotates at a higher rate and connects the IP turbine stage to the six IP compressor disks. The third concentric shaft is the shortest with the largest diameter and highest rate of rotation to drive the engine's high pressure (HP) system. This shaft connects the HP turbine to the six HP compressors. The debris photographed at the Pentagon appears to be connected to three concentric shafts of increasing diameter, suggesting that it most likely comes from the high pressure system of a triple-spool turbofan like the RB211-535.

Alternatively, this disk could be the last of the intermediate pressure compressor rotors and the larger diameter shaft we see might be the start of the shaft on which the high pressure compressors are mounted. If a photo of the opposite side of the disk were available, it should be easier to tell exactly which section of compressors it comes from. Nevertheless, the evidence documented above clearly shows that the size and shape of this debris is consistent with the RB211 turbofan carried by a 757 but not so with engines used aboard smaller aircraft and missiles.

Since this article was first published, we have received several comments from readers citing a quote from Rolls-Royce spokesman John W. Brown who said, "It is not a part from any Rolls-Royce engine that I'm familiar with..." The critics go on to suggest that this statement disproves all of our analysis indicating the disk is a compressor stage from the Rolls-Royce RB211-535. However, a simple review of the source of this quote shows just the opposite. The material is from an article titled "Controversy Swirling Over September 11 Pentagon Mystery: Industry Experts Can't Explain Photo Evidence" written by Christopher Bollyn that appeared on the pro-conspiracy website American Free Press.

The article describes John Brown as a spokesman for Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, Indiana. This location is home to the Allison Engine factory that builds the AE3007H turbofan used aboard the Global Hawk. Brown's quote regarding the mystery wreckage states that, "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." Furthermore, the article correctly notes that the RB211 is not built in Indianapolis but at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby, England. Since Brown is a spokesman for Allison Engines, which was an independent company that only became a subsidary of Rolls-Royce in 1995, it stands to reason that an engine built in the United Kingdom would be one he's not "familiar with." The article even goes on to point out that Brown could not identify specific parts from one engine or another since he is not an engineer or assembly line technician who would be familiar with the internal components of turbine engines.

For what it's worth (and it isn't worth much, given the author's apparent lack of journalistic skill), the Bollyn article actually supports the evidence assembled on this site. The article provides quotes from Honeywell Aerospace indicating that the piece did not come from an APU, from Allison Engines suggesting that it is not a component found in the turbofan used on Global Hawk, and from Teledyne Continental Motors indicating that it is not part of a cruise missile engine. All of these conclusions match those explained above.

Perhaps an even more conclusive piece of wreckage was found among other debris photographed at the Pentagon following the impact. The component shown below has appeared on several conspiracy theory websites claiming that it does not match any known component of the RB211 and must come from a different type of engine.










Another piece of engine debris found at the Pentagon

This item appears to be part of the casing of the combustion section. This portion of a jet engine is located aft of the compressors, and it is here that the high pressure air is mixed with fuel and ignited. The circumference of this circular casing contains several holes through which fuel injectors spray the jet fuel needed for combustion. The number, size, and shape of these nozzle holes is generally unique to a particular engine type and can be used to identify the engine model it comes from. Based on the curvature of the debris, the piece shown here appears to be about half of the total combustor case. We can count six nozzle ports along its circumference from the region nearest the floor around to the top, which represents about one-third of the total case. We can also see six screw holes along the circumference of each nozzle port that are used to attach the fuel injectors.

The best photos we have found illustrating the design of this part on the RB211-535 series engine come from the Boeing 757 maintenance manual. A diagram from this manual shown below illustrates components of the RB211-535 high pressure system and its location relative to the rest of the engine.

Components of the RB211-535 illustrated in the 757 maintenance manual

An even better close-up view of the combustion case is provided below. Note the overall design pattern of the fuel injector ports including the shape of the holes, the spacing between them, and their relative sizes compared to the diameter of the case itself. Also note the locations of the six screw holes around the circumference of each nozzle port. There also appear to be a total of 18 injector holes around the circumference of this casing, and six of these holes can be found over one-third of the case diameter. All of these measurements match up perfectly to the Pentagon photo.

RB211-535 combustion outer case

In summary, we have studied two key pieces of wreckage photographed at the Pentagon shortly after September 11 and found them to be entirely consistent with the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine found on a Boeing 757 operated by American Airlines. The circular engine disk debris is just the right size and shape to match the compressor stages of the RB211, and it also shows evidence of being attached to a triple-shaft turbofan like the RB211. While many have claimed the wreckage instead comes from a JT8D or AE3007H turbofan, we have shown that these engines are too small to match the debris. Furthermore, we have studied what clearly looks like the outer shell of a combustion case and found that its fuel injector nozzle ports match up exactly to those illustrated in Boeing documentation for the RB211-535 engine. There is simply no evidence to suggest these items came from any other engine model than the RB211-535, and the vast majority of these engines are only used on one type of plane--the Boeing 757.

Nonetheless, the various sites we have discovered over the course of answering this question raise a number of other questions about pieces of wreckage found at the crash site. While this article focused only on the engine debris asked about in the original question, we may revisit this subject in the future to better explore the claims of a Pentagon cover up following September 11.

- answer by Joe Yoon

- answer by Jeff Scott, 12 March 2006

Update!

One common question we've seen on sites critical of a Boeing 757 striking the Pentagon is why is there so little engine wreckage. The only identifiable engine components seen so far are the two discussed above. Since these pieces represent so little of the two large engines carried by a 757, those believing in conspiracy suggest that these small items were planted and the lack of more substantial debris is proof of a cover-up. If a 757 truly hit the Pentagon, they argue, then where is the rest of the two engines? This argument ignores the simple fact that a lack of photos of other engine parts does not mean that none existed, only that other engine components were either not photographed or the photos have not yet been released.

Luckily, several readers have pointed out an additional picture that was released as an exhibit during the Zacarias Moussaoui terrorist trial in 2006. This photo, shown below, clearly includes a sizeable and relatively intact portion of a gas turbine engine.

Piece of engine debris photographed at the Pentagon

This debris appears to contain two rotating engine disks with part of the engine's central shaft protruding forward. Behind the two disks is another component called a frame. Frames are fixed, non-rotating components that provide attachment points holding the engine together. This debris must come from the aft section of an engine given the shape of the blade attachment points visble along the circumference of the two rotating disks. These attachments have a highly cambered, or curved, banana-like shape indicative of the blades used in the turbine section of a jet engine. The blades used on fan and compressor stages, by comparison, have a much straighter and less curved shape.

Closer view of the turbine section debris

The RB211-535 engine used on the 757 contains five turbine disks--three low pressure turbines that power the fan, one intermediate pressure turbine driving the intermediate pressure compressors, and one high pressure turbine that turns the high pressure compressors. The debris shown here contains two of the three low pressure turbines and possibly the remains of the third. The protruding shaft also appears to be composed of two separate shafts of differing diameter. A small portion of the inner shaft, from the engine's low pressure system, appears to protrude from inside a second larger diameter shaft surrounding it. This larger diameter shaft corresponds to the intermediate pressure system and would connect to an additional turbine disk that is no longer attached.

Though it is difficult to conclusively identify these components as part of an RB211-535 engine without better pictures of an intact engine for comparison, perhaps the most identifiable object shown in debris is the aft frame. Along the circumference of this frame are several fixed blades called stators that help guide the air as it flows through the engine. We can see the remains of four of these stators in the photo over about a third of its diameter.

Cut-away diagram of the RB211-535 fitted to a Boeing 757

The above illustration from Rolls-Royce shows another cut-away of the RB211-535 that provides a good view of the internal components of the engine. In particular, note the frame just aft of the turbine stages. The spacing of the stator vanes shown here matches those seen in the Pentagon photo well and provides additional evidence that the debris is in fact from an RB211 engine.










RB211 high pressure system containing six compressor disks, combustors, and a turbine disk

To give a better idea of how the three engine components we have discussed relate to one another, the above image shows a diagram of the high pressure system within the RB211-535 engine. Also included are the objects identified in the Pentagon wreckage and their relative locations within the engine. As discussed in the main article, all three of these pieces of debris are identical matches to or at least consistent with the components found in the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan aboard a Boeing 757.

- answer by Jeff Scott, 6 May 2006

Related Topics:

I've read that the wheel photographed at the Pentagon doesn't match a Boeing 757. It has eight holes in it but the wheel on a 757 has ten holes. ... Look at these pictures of landing gear from the crash at the Pentagon and a 757. They PROVE a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon!

In the aftermath of 9/11, I have heard many claims that a 757 could not possible have hit the Pentagon because the plane cannot fly so low to the ground since ground effect prevents this from happening. Is there any truth to this claim? ... I don't think any pilot could control an aircraft like that and hit the Pentagon. No 757 could fly like that, especially the terrorist supposedly flying Flight 11 who was an unskilled amateur pilot yet magically flew with total perfection.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

I just love the way it's somehow up to me to prove stuff to you guys, rather than you actually bothering to research BOTH SIDES. I'm sure the families of those in the planes and towers appreciate the lack of effort on the part of so many to consider that maybe these 5 minute youtube videos with so called "science" must clearly be the truth...

Sad really.


----------



## Heineken (Feb 6, 2009)

Right so planes have computer software that will keep the plane as 'safe' as possible, that's fair enough. I am happy with the explanation of how it could have been *possible *to fly the plane into the building with such precision.

Where was the wreckage though :lol:

Why were there no imprints where the wings/tail/engines hit the building?

Why could staff smell explosives and not fuel?

Why were all CCTV tapes confiscated by the FBI within minutes of the attack and never released?

I saw the 4 or 5 image frames that were released that do not show any aircraft yet one massive explosion..


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Heinkeken said:


> Right so planes have computer software that will keep the plane as 'safe' as possible, that's fair enough. I am happy with the explanation of how it could have been *possible *to fly the plane into the building with such precision.
> 
> *Where was the wreckage though* :lol:
> 
> ...


If you're not even going to read my ****ing post why shouild I bother, THERE ARE 4 PICS OF JET ENGINES THERE AT THE PENTAGON.

Are you blind or something?


----------



## Heineken (Feb 6, 2009)

Oh and I have been reading the from the website you posted yesterday chap and still think it's all crap, if the government wanted to expel the rumors and conspiracy theories they would have released black box recordings and not *destroyed *them, released footage proving what hit the Pentagon and general other titbits that would pretty much be indisputable evidence

But that would be illogical wouldn't it, we'd rather blame it on bad men in turbans and start a war. The US government have covered something up.. clear as day



megatron said:


> If you're not even going to read my ****ing post why shouild I bother, THERE ARE 4 PICS OF JET ENGINES THERE AT THE PENTAGON.
> 
> Are you blind or something?


Calm down sweetness, I was replying as you posted it. And no I'm not blind


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Heinkeken said:


> Oh and I have been reading the from the website you posted yesterday chap and still think it's all crap, if the government wanted to expel the rumors and conspiracy theories they would have released black box recordings and not *destroyed *them, released footage proving what hit the Pentagon and general other titbits that would pretty much be indisputable evidence
> 
> But that would be illogical wouldn't it, we'd rather blame it on bad men in turbans and start a war. The US government have covered something up.. clear as day


Have you ever thought that maybe they didn't release black box recordings out of respect to the famalies on the planes?

As for not releasing "footage" of what hit the pentagon, well i have show you in my posts the engines in the wreckage, if you bothered to read them of course.

I have provided proof for you, but like a true idiot you still believe what you want. It's actually ****ing rude of you to ask for some proof then not bother to read it and stick to your guns.


----------



## Heineken (Feb 6, 2009)

Respect for the families? Plenty of apparent cell phone calls from the planes 32,000 feet up in the air were released, it's funny because studies show that the success rate of a phone call being connected at that altitude is 0.006 or something similar.. yet there were quite a few of them that day

And yes yes you keep raving about the pictures of the engine parts and have a very wordy explanation of dimensions of engine part sizes but can't /won't explain why no distinctive impact markings were left by the massive wings and tail fin. It was just one massive hole.. what happened, did they vaporize before impact or did it turn into a transformer or something?


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

Megatron.

Massive amounts of your posts (41) concerning basic theory of flight are padding.

I'm a licensed aircraft engineer so personally don't need the info in 99% of the post.

So far you have show a few relatively small pieces of debris that MAY have come from a 75.

The debris field in it's entireity around the pentagon just did not contain a complete 757.

and the hole in the pentagon wasn't caused by one IMO


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

News Flash.

When any plane crashes = almost every cvnt on is ALWAYS killed.

It's ok to disclose FDR info on ALL the others but not the 911 ones. What bollox


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

Oh and that Turbine disc lying on the grass outside the pentagon....

The most desnse part of an airliner and pretty much the only 4 things left visibly regognisible (that incidently travel the farthest in the debris field because of inertia...) is the core engine and the landing gears.

i've seen real crash sites and I've seen set up training crash sites and guess what? They look completely different because of a complete misunderstanding of how aircraft crash in the real world


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Are you trying to exhaust every last possible thing you can, why not look for yourself?

Lots of pistures of plane wreckage at the pentagon, explanations, science etc. I'm sure you will probably have a lazy, off-the-cuff answer for all this evidence too.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Area of fence to the right of the impact area partially flattened by the right engine of the plane. Note how a couple of the poles are bent right over, some are sheered off at the top, yet the pole and fence portion on the left is untouched (obviously the right engine took out the fence to the right of those poles) and the entire back side of the fence has been torn away. The generator was hit by the right wing and engine before the 757 hit the building - the damage is evidenced by other photos of the crash area.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Below: More parts from inside the 757 - note the Boeing green primer on 3 parts in this photo - two circled.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Landing Gear Evidence

Rim photographed in the Pentagon wreckage. You can clearly see it is a double bead design as required by the NTSB, and you can also see it has had 90% of the rim edge smashed off in the crash.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

The wreckage with the markings


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

I bet you will say that the government probably had the wreckage of a 757 and dispersed it over the site for fun or something rofl.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Below is a significant portion of a badly smashed RB211 engine in the Pentagon wreckage - what appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor, one of the pumps remains partially attached, some hoses and the familiar webbed wire wraps (to the right of the main ring) and some of the Boeing yellow primed support structure is lying beside it (left, with rivets - again: note the yellow primer).

Reference: Image of the engine used on the 757 (it's the rightmost one, top row) Rolls-Royce


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

A picture paints a thousand words


----------



## breamking (Mar 22, 2009)

theres alaways those that will say it was the goverments who planned it all lets get real a what they think oh lets kill a thousand oh so people today shall we what planet are these people on ?.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

LoL it's like the god debate over again, you believe what you want mate...

I imagine you could have been on that plane and would still believe it a conspiracy theory, it's frightening how deluded you are.


----------



## breamking (Mar 22, 2009)

wings could have been torn off when hitting the fence ?


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Lets look at the physics involved










Engineers, computer scientists and graphics technology experts at Purdue University have created the first publicly available simulation that uses scientific principles to study in detail what theoretically happened when the Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon last Sept. 11

Using simulation software called LS-Dyna, the smart folks use the physically accurate simulation results as input to animations and visualizations to produce a vivid reenactment of the impact of the aircraft on the Pentagon building and provide the larger team with the necessary data to construct these using 3D Studio Max, AutoCAD, and research tools.

Now we can see, through a very competent and valid simulator, what happened in the attack on the Pentagon. Click here (http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/popescu/pentagonVis_files/pentagonVis2003.mpg) to view a video generated by the simulator. Or, click here to read the white paper.

http://wiki.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/doku.php?id=projects:visualization_large-scale_simulations

In layman's terms the crash dynamics worked like so: A large hollow tube, with a belly full of luggage, a passenger bay with 60 people, and wings full of fuel smashed into the side of an almost solid object while moving at a tremendous speed (somewhere around 350-400mph). When the 225,000lb+ plane hit, it smashed apart with such force from the crash that it became like one massive column of liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn into liquid, it just acted like one physically - mountainslides act the same way, a million tons of rock acts like a large field of liquid during a landslide even if no water is present). All the small parts, luggage, people, seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like a massive river came crashing into the wall of the Pentagon. This force burst through the outside wall and flowed through the inside to the next wall, and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

megatron said:


> Below: More parts from inside the 757 - note the Boeing green primer on 3 parts in this photo - two circled.


That picture Megatron is of the EXIT hole after that debris has passed throught 4 layers of Pentagon building structure.......

Have you seen light aluminuim alloy structure capable of doing that?


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

megatron said:


> LoL it's like the god debate over again, you believe what you want mate...
> 
> I imagine you could have been on that plane and would still believe it a conspiracy theory, it's frightening how deluded you are.


I don't beieve in any conspiracy theory. Why are you saying that? What is your angle on this?

What I'm saying after looking at all the pictures I can find is that IMO a Boeing 757 did not strike that buiding. That's it

To conspire, I would have to put forward a theory on what DID happen and I don't do that do I?


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

breamking said:


> wings could have been torn off when hitting the fence ?


And the 2 5 ton engines?


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

http://www.itap.purdue.edu/enablingthefuture/video/

Watch the video simulation done by REAL SCIENTISTS as to what happened, but again i'm sure you know better than Purdue University on the matter.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Uriel said:


> And the 2 5 ton engines?


Post number 58, please try to keep up.


----------



## breamking (Mar 22, 2009)

how fast was the plane going when hit the ground that could have made some of the engine disintgrate with the force of the impact.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Uriel said:


> That picture Megatron is of the EXIT hole after that debris has passed throught 4 layers of Pentagon building structure.......
> 
> Have you seen light aluminuim alloy structure capable of doing that?


Again, you are oversimplifying a very complex problem, look at the simulations done on the matter, READ MY POSTS... At that speed on impact the plane and its contents act like a fluid it's not as if you only fired aliminium at it... You can't think of it in simple terms like that.


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

megatron said:


> Post number 58, please try to keep up.


Look at the pic on my post 59 Megatron???

Where did the engines go? Are you blind.

That is a 757 superimposed at the correct rsolution and the published flight angle.

Where did the engines go.....where is the hole they made?


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Uriel said:


> Look at the pic on my post 59 Megatron???
> 
> Where did the engines go? Are you blind.
> 
> ...


Getting bored now mate, if you won't do me the coutesoy of trying to comprehend my posts I can't be bothered to make them.


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

megatron said:


> Again, you are oversimplifying a very complex problem, look at the simulations done on the matter, READ MY POSTS... At that speed on impact the plane and its contents act like a fluid it's not as if you only fired aliminium at it... You can't think of it in simple terms like that.


Why did those guys go to all that trouble to show all that simulated stuff if the evidence of what happened stood on it's own merit I wonder


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

megatron said:


> Getting bored now mate, if you won't do me the coutesoy of trying to comprehend my posts I can't be bothered to make them.


Get bore and childish if you like.

I actually will go over your posts (unlike you with anyone elses) because I'm a fvcking engineer with an interest in this. There is a lot of info so it'll take a wee while

Go have a yawn and a sleep now.


----------



## corbuk (Jan 18, 2008)

* Tower Collapse Not Plausible from Crash Alone (Index)

Heat from jet fuel fire alone would not cause towers to crumble. Uniform collapse implies supplemental demolition charges and shadow government complicity.

o BYU professor says bombs, not planes, toppled WTC (Deseret News; Nov. 10, 2005)

o Steven Jones Lecture - 2-hour lecture given Feb. 1, 2006. (Google Video)


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Uriel said:


> Why did those guys go to all that trouble to show all that simulated stuff if the evidence of what happened stood on it's own merit I wonder


To keep retards quiet I imagine


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

Megatron stop being a little cyber bully. Present your posts and let us read them then make a decision.

it's not as clear cut as your closed mind would believe


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

It's very clear cut if:

A. You can be bothered to consider both sides of a story.

B. You don't have a "want" to believe one side or the other.

C. You are able to understand written English.


----------



## breamking (Mar 22, 2009)

uriel are ya anti american goverment?


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

megatron said:


> It's very clear cut if:
> 
> A. You can be bothered to consider both sides of a story.
> 
> ...


Why do other scientists and engineers disagree then, they not as gifted as you?


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

breamking said:


> uriel are ya anti american goverment?


That's an increadibly stupid thing to say. You sir are a c0ck!

No I'm not.

Show me where by stating that I seriously doubt a 757 hit a building translates to am I anti US Government.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Uriel said:


> Why do other scientists and engineers disagree then, they not as gifted as you?


Because of MONEY lol.

There are plenty of retards out there who will join as members of their websites, buy their publications or DVDs... Yawn I guess it's just not as trendy to want to know the truth.


----------



## breamking (Mar 22, 2009)

but it like ya saying that they crashed the plane on purpose killing what ever amount of people on board .and a plane hitting the ground with that much force will dissintgrate quite a bit of the plane and what with the fuel explodeing.


----------



## SHAROOTS (Nov 22, 2007)

Just seen the scientist link, mind boggling stuff. I have to say personally I think the US had something to do with it, I just wonder if there will be an enquiry into it so that this new evidence could be brought forward?

Uriel are you an aeronautical engineer mate?


----------



## Heineken (Feb 6, 2009)

Basically you are being a c0ck and implying that if anyone doesn't agree with you, they are thick

I don't have any kind of 'want' to believe, I have no financial/emotional ties to the events of that day, none of my family were involved

What I see is a first in history of buildings collapsing from fire, their foundations somehow being destroyed in the process

Evidence being confiscated and destroyed by the government

Shady behavior from many US organizations pre and post attack involving billions of dollars

I have seen both sides of the story and there is convincing evidence for both versions of events. In expecting everyone to see things from your point of view and see the whole picture you are being massively hypocritical by dismissing anything posted that goes against your theory.

You've insulted me several times in this thread and given me a very immature neg- rep note, so I can't be bothered with you or this thread anymore

This goes far deeper than you or I can comprehend.


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

breamking said:


> but it like ya saying that they crashed the plane on purpose killing what ever amount of people on board .and a plane hitting the ground with that much force will dissintgrate quite a bit of the plane and what with the fuel explodeing.


FFS.

I'm not saying what MIGHT have happened. It doesn't interest me.

I am saying that IMO as an aircraft engineer for 26 years. I don't think a 757 hit the Pentagon.

The entire debris field contents does contain a complete aircraft and no scientist from Purdue can change that fact


----------



## El Ricardinho (May 30, 2008)

freddiehick said:


> watch this quite an old video, some people may have seen it before but if you watch this and still believe the twin towers were an accident or just fell because of the planes then you are just wrong. Its a long video but I guarantee its worth it.


the chain of events that transpired after the planes hit were unusual. for example the pentagon explosion i suspect was done by america as no one was injured and the size of the blast differed from what a plane would leave. I am however very doubtful that the twin towers were brought down in a controlled explosion. I have watched various docu's on it and i see no reason why the tradgically came down as a result of the planes hitting the buildings. Its not like they just grazed the sides of them. the actual structure of the building was such that it made the type of fall that it created. ther are a series of factors including the fuel and fabric of the walls which created an ideal environment for the walls to collapse.

I am open to theorys of this kind of thing but i have thought about this many times and i just cant see the reasoning behind it.

I know the reasoning in that america wanted to build that pipeline thru afghanistan etc and that this kind of ''war on terror'' that they say would be an ideal opportunity to exploit this without a public outcry. I also kept the saudi's happy which in turn provided financial stability during what has tranpired since then.

There is no doubt some seriously shady underhand dealings going on within the corridors of power but they are good at what they do and people who question them are usually hushed up or quickly dissapear.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Heinkeken said:


> Basically you are being a c0ck and implying that if anyone doesn't agree with you, they are thick
> 
> I don't have any kind of 'want' to believe, I have no financial/emotional ties to the events of that day, none of my family were involved
> 
> ...


You maybe mate, not I.


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

SHAROOTS said:


> Uriel are you an aeronautical engineer mate?


Yes mate


----------



## jw007 (Apr 12, 2007)

IMO I think its set up, I have an open mind, and from things ive researched and looked into, a lot of very strange coincidences

I dont really bleieve in coincidence on a multitude of scale..

However I have no doubt whatsoever that over here 7\7 was set up and I was there 

As far as "terrorism" goes there are far more effective ways to create panic that a few bombs on one set day.....

Funny how after that new "powers of control" were rushed thro

Anyway, I cant be bothered posting more than my opinion else will be here forever


----------



## jw007 (Apr 12, 2007)

As far as MEGATRON debunking everything as False etc etc

TBH mate im suprised at you as conspiracy theorys aside, there is far more going on behind scenes at all levels and information and skullduggery that you, I and rest of the nobody population will never become party too as we are too far down food chain..

End of

So in reality its merely speculation from both sides...


----------



## jimmystar (Oct 22, 2005)

"I just love the way it's somehow up to me to prove stuff to you guys, rather than you actually bothering to research BOTH SIDES. I'm sure the families of those in the planes and towers appreciate the lack of effort on the part of so many to consider that maybe these 5 minute youtube videos with so called "science" must clearly be the truth...

Sad really. "

Megatron, what do you mean "so called science" , Niels Harrit is from the department of science Copenhagen University .He was being interviewed on mainstream Danish news .

this is not a conspiracy theory its an 18 month scientific study , the only thing that can disprove this ,is for an other university to provide scientific evidence that Niels Harrit is wrong .


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

At the end of the day, there was tons of 757 wreckage at the crash site, engines, landing gear, wings, fuselage... I have given you guys pohtos.

Furthermore I have given resources to simulations of the crash showing that the holes and damage was accurate.

If one chooses to believe that this was still a conspiracy then fine, I can't do much more than show you proof.

I'm not posting any more as it's a waste of my Saturday - it's much more esoteric to believe in conspiracy theories and as such some people will look at any evidence with blinkers and bias. Just look how many retards believe in god.

It's just sad that so many people are so easily led by youtube clips from 12 year olds.


----------



## SHAROOTS (Nov 22, 2007)

Uriel said:


> Yes mate


I'm starting HNC in aeronautical Engineering in September mate, I had started it last September but I had to leave due to newborn so I'm gonna give it a final go this year! The maths are mad LOL


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

megatron said:


> At the end of the day, there was tons of 757 wreckage at the crash site, engines, landing gear, wings, fuselage... I have given you guys pohtos.
> 
> .


No you fvckinh haven't that is a lie.

A 757 has 2 engines and 2 main gears with 8 wheels,

You've shown a pic of part of one engine (The turbine disc has been argued to be off a JT8 from a 737 classic)

And the wheel doesnt have enough flagne bolts to be off a 757


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

> Some people have tried to claim that the rims are different from a 757 rim - well here (bottom) is a 757-200 rim from an American Airlines 757, I've outlined the exact same symmetrical holes. I think perhaps some people are thrown off by the balancing led weights attached on the rims in the bottom photo? Have you never taken your car in for a wheel alignment and tire balancing? This is clearly the same kind of rim found on a 757. (The hub-covers/grease-covers are not present for obvious reasons - to remove one you pop it off with a flathead screw driver... so how would you expect it to stay on in a 400mph impact with a reinforced concrete wall?)


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

See? boring posting the same sh1t over and over isn't it...


----------



## MXD (Jan 23, 2008)

Erm has everyone forgotten the third world trade centre that collapsed with the other two towers without having a plane flown into it? 

http://www.wtc7.net/ one link of many..

So buildings just randomly fall down do they? Yeah ok.. If you've have looked at both sides of *all *the info in an *unbiased *way then there is only one conclusion and that is that it was a false flag.

Jesus people wake the fvck up!


----------



## evad (Mar 17, 2008)

i dont really care if it is a conspiracy or not, i stated a few pages back that i didnt think it was, im english, was born in england and still live in england, i dont care whether bush, obama or whoever run america, but there are a lot of unanswered questions

however from what ive heard over the years it could be, or it couldnt

i believe some of it was planes and some of it was not

i dont buy the whole pentagon thing and believe that a missile was involved, even if it was to shoot the plane out of the sky

why would the us government admit to killing x number of people on that plane when it went into the building anyway?

let's face it if they have military planes over anything then surely it is the pentagon

here are some questions from both sides

*
for a conspiracy*

where did the wings go?

where did the black box go? (they released the pan am one)

where did the cctv images go?

why have they still not caught/killed bin laden?

*
against a conspiracy*

why would the us try to take out their own military headquarters thats supposed to be indestructable?

*
neither for or against*

why is the pentagon made up of a rather shoddy timber frame?

apologies for there being more against then for questions but thats the way it is


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

MXD said:


> Erm has everyone forgotten the third world trade centre that collapsed with the other two towers without having a plane flown into it?
> 
> http://www.wtc7.net/ one link of many..
> 
> ...


You have to be joking?

That is the dumbest sh1t I have ever read I think:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm

*Eyewitness to second plane is angry at conspiracy theorists.*

Most offensive of all, some of these bozos claim that there are no eyewitnesses that actually saw an airplane hit the tower. Here are some 
*facts*
for you bozos to consider - whenever anyone actually tells you the 
*truth*
, you omit it from your evidence. Until such time as I see "the Drogin evidence" blogged and linked and debated as much as the reconstructions using videogame technology by these idiots, I suggest that any readers of this consider that the 9/11 "truth" movement is merely another stupid variation on Holocaust denial.



*
*
http://www.geocities.com/bdrogin/battery.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/bdrogin/battery.html
http://www.geocities.com/bdrogin/battery.html

http://www.geocities.com/bdrogin/war.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/bdrogin/war.html
http://www.geocities.com/bdrogin/war.html

*Featured Video!*

* A clip from the History Channel's '9/11 Conspiracies'*

*




The Last Hour of Flight 11: With interviews by the families of the so called holograms


​
I'm sure the famalies of those on board those flights would love to talk to you in person about your theories...*


----------



## evad (Mar 17, 2008)

as regards the moon landings i dont believe they were real for one second as their timing was far too convenient for me

russia (the ussr) and america were involved in a space race, america conveniently won this so russia gave up,

whats the point in being second to the moon?

yet 50 or so years later no-ones been back?

bollox


----------



## MXD (Jan 23, 2008)

> against a conspiracy
> 
> why would the us try to take out their own military headquarters thats supposed to be indestructable?


When a goverment want to put in new fashist laws fo example the terrorism laws that are directly un-constitutional and which basicly means you can by pass a legal crimal system / human rights.

They create a problem - terror

Create a reaction - through the media

Provide the solution - through the laws they wanted to introduce anyway.

Simple and effective.

Where are the people behind the attacks? who where they? Are they wanted now? Where is the investigation into where these people were and who are they are now?

Also several of the supposed terror suspects meant to of flown the planes are actually alive us citizens! (this is from the pictures released via the cia/pentagon) and have come forward saying they where obviously not on the planes :laugh: yet another massive hole.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html - first aticle i pulled of google so can't back it but its pob got good info. There are alot more so find them.


----------



## evad (Mar 17, 2008)

half of those videos dont work pal


----------



## MXD (Jan 23, 2008)

megatron said:


> I swear to ****ing god that reading these ****ign threads makes me reconsider being here alltogether.
> 
> I can't even be ****d to show you why all this stuff is complete bollocks, if you guys could be bothered to look at both sides of the coin it would become very obvious very fast that this wasn't a ****ign conspiracy.
> 
> ...





megatron said:


> I'm not going to waste my time mate, people invariably believe what they want to believe. Have a read of the site I linked in post 20. Some real science not conjecture - answering most of your questions.





megatron said:


> You have to be joking?
> 
> That is the dumbest sh1t I have ever read I think:
> 
> ...


*PMSL* read my post first yeah? World trade centre building 7 ...

Btw I want an apology ..


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

Megatron

Stating an increadulious "You have to be joking" then presenting equally unsubstatuated footage in no way improves your standing as an "expert" in these matters, I assure you.


----------



## evad (Mar 17, 2008)

my questions in post number 99 still stand

at the end of the day unless a member on here is a civil enginner, structural engineer and aeronautical engineer then there is no way that they can rule out all possibilities for another side of the argument beign there

i dont agree with some of these videos


----------



## MXD (Jan 23, 2008)

I did answer your 99# mate 

Look what I'm saying is why was there a building that fell down from "fire damage" when no building made of steel in history has done that and just totally randomly with no plane crashing into it what so ever??

Look up world trade centre 7


----------



## evad (Mar 17, 2008)

the empire state building, 1945

plane crashed straight through, so imagine a larger plane, travelling faster and with more fuel however the structure for the WTC is more advanced



> I did answer your 99# mate


yeah mate, i saw that pal


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

WTC7

Debunked.......................................................................................................


----------



## MXD (Jan 23, 2008)

megatron said:


> http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
> 
> WTC7
> 
> Debunked.......................................................................................................


LOLOLOLOL 

Perfect example of someone with no prio knowledge of something pulling something of the net to back up an argument, which they have allready irresolutley made their opinion on.

Do yourself a favour and read the articles that are for/against


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

The thing is MXD... I used to believe the conspiracy theories until I actually DID look at both sides, then it suddenly becomes obvious (to anyone with the ability to comprehend the argument) that it's not a conspiracy theory... The only conspiracy in the whole thing is that the US Government intelligence service knew it was going to happen and didn't take appropriate action.


----------



## MXD (Jan 23, 2008)

Mega - fair enough then mate.. but hold on so you admit they had prior knowledge it was going to happen and let it? If that is conspiracy theory I don't know what is... :wink:

-----------------------

Oh and another point! Lets get back to the original post and ask the question why is the fvck has this dood found THERMITE a fvcking explosive in the rubble!?


----------



## BigSmurf (May 11, 2008)

IMO the us govt set up 9/11 and even a japanese parliament member has started questioning 9/11 and makes some very good points here are 2 links about it-

http://hempsavetheworld.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/japanese-parliament-member-mr-yukihisa-fujita-makes-911-conspiracy-inquiry/

and this 1 is the full convo-

http://benjaminfulford.com/Transcript%20of%20Japanese%20Parliamentary%20discussion%20of%20911.html

also about the pentagon there was cctv footage put on a conspiracy program from 1 of the camera's and it shows a object flying to into the building not even near the size of a plane and when they showed it in slow motion and froze it, it looked like a missile...


----------



## BigSmurf (May 11, 2008)

also does this look like a 747 hit it? hmmm...........


----------



## breamking (Mar 22, 2009)

so what happened to the passengers then ? bigsmurf where are they then?


----------



## cellaratt (Jul 16, 2008)




----------



## MXD (Jan 23, 2008)

cellaratt said:


>


Whats you opinon dood? being american and all 11% of americans think 9/11 was an inside job after all.


----------



## cellaratt (Jul 16, 2008)

I'm 100 % American of Irish Decsent...I might post here later but for now am headed to the mall with the wife and child to buy some more dumbells and the what not...I think you are all right to a certain degree...but in all honesty I'm not committed to telling you anything and think the whole thing is too complexed to articulate it in the short amount of time I currently have...I'll try and get back before the end of the week...


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

MXD watch this mate, i'd like to know your thoughts


----------



## evad (Mar 17, 2008)

how indepth do you want to go?





















the last video isnt exactly a surprise, having a chooper over the pentagon is like having a car on a motorway


----------



## strongasanox (Mar 14, 2008)

to me the towers were definately brought down with controlled explosions


----------



## sham (Mar 26, 2008)

this is a cut and paste

The first supposed problems with the official version of the events on September 11th comes before the planes even leave the airport. For the Arab terrorists to have carried out the attack, four of the 19 terrorists would have needed to be able to fly a two engine plane.

Yet none of the terrorists had a pilots licence, and one of the pilots Hani Hanjour, had gone for lessons, and had been deemed unsafe to fly even a one seat plane.

Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the airport, said the man named Hani Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with instructors from the airport three times beginning the second week of August and had hoped to rent a plane from the airport. &#8230; Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo &#8230; - The Prince George's Journal (Maryland), 2001-09-18, as quoted in Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS

But even if the entire 19 terrorists were crack pilots could they have realistically got hold of the planes in the first place on September 11th?

The official story expects us to believe that these alleged nineteen on-board hijackers (acting with military coordination and precision) overpowered the flight attendants (with nothing more than box cutters and shouted commands), forced their way into the cabin (were all eight official pilots absorbed in contemplation of the clouds?), overpowered the pilots (apparently none of them, some ex-military, could offer any resistance to hijackers armed only with box cutters), took command of the planes

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference: "Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being manoeuvred by remote control."

http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=September%2011%20-%20US%20Government%20accused&edition=663

FRONT PAGE STORY - 03/08/2002

September 11 - US Government accused

A Portugal-based investigative journalist has presented THE NEWS with version of the September 11th attacks that has to date failed to attract the attention of the international press. The report, compiled by an independent inquiry into the September 11th, World Trade Centre attack, warns the American public that the government's official version of events does not stand up to scrutiny.

A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of Colonel Donn de Grand, after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft.

In a detailed press communiqué the inquiry stated: "The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets."

The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers, supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact. Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act requiring military precision of the highest order.

A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference: "Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being manoeuvred by remote control."

In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the US Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, across the Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South Australia. According to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight path under the control of a pilot in an outside station.

Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways boss, in an interview given to the London Economist on September 20th, 2001. Ayling admitted that it was now possible to control an aircraft in flight from either the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by expert witnesses at the inquiry who testified that airliners could be controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation from command and control platforms based either in the air or at ground level.

All members of the inquiry team agreed that even if guns were held to their heads none of them would fly a plane into a building. Their reaction would be to ditch the plane into a river or a field, thereby safeguarding the lives of those on the ground.

A further question raised by the inquiry was why none of the pilots concerned had alerted ground control. It stated that all pilots are trained to punch a four-digit code into the flight control's transponder to warn ground control crews of a hijacking - but this did not happen.

During the press conference Captain Hill maintained that the four airliners must have been choreographed by an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS). This system can engage several aircraft simultaneously by knocking out their on-board flight controls. He said that all the evidence points to the fact that the pilots and their crews had not taken any evasive action to resist the supposed hijackers. They had not attempted any sudden changes in flight path or nose-dive procedures - which led him to believe that they had no control over their aircraft.

THE NEWS, in an attempt to further substantiate the potential veracity of these findings, spoke to an Algarve-based airline pilot, who has more than 20 years of experience in flying passenger planes, to seek his views. Captain Colin McHattie, currently flying with Cathay Pacific, agreed with the independent commission's findings. However, he explained that while it is possible to fly a plane from the ground, the installation of the necessary equipment is a time-consuming process, and needs extensive planning. THE NEWS will publish a full interview with Captain McHattie in next week's edition.

The FBI also came in for criticism for the various pieces of contradictory evidence it has published regarding the suspects. Questions are now being asked as to how incorrect information was given out regarding the ID cards of the suspects, and the seat numbers they supposedly occupied after boarding the flights.

None of the suspects named by the FBI appeared on any of the official passenger lists. A further point was how the FBI had managed to retrieve the passport of one of the suspects amid the molten and twisted remains of thousands of tons of steel and rubble brought about by the Twin Towers collapse.

Dr. Paul Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, and presently Senior Research Fellow at Stamford University, has lent his support to the independent inquiry findings. He also claims that Osama Bin Laden was not responsible for September 11th. The doctor has challenged President Bush to make public the so-called "irrefutable evidence" incriminating Bin Laden.

Colonel Donn de Grand said that if President Bush is lying it would not be the first time that the American people had been mislead by its government. He cited the recently published official government archives describing President Roosevelt's duplicity in deceiving Americans about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, which triggered the US entry into WWll.

He also highlighted the role of the country's government in misleading its citizens in respect of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, and the events that brought about the Spanish American war in the late 19th, century. "Whilst considering who committed this act of war on September 11th," he said, "albeit Russia, China, an Islamic country or NATO, we must also consider that the enemy may well be within the gates.

"Not for the first time the American public might be being mislead, by those with ulterior motives, into lending its support to a war, this time against Iraq, that has no bearing whatsoever on the interests of the people of the USA."

So far the mainstream American news media has failed to publish or broadcast any details regarding the independent inquiry. Similarly, the White House, whilst having received a copy of the report, has remained silent on its findings.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Bump for later.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

i love a good conspiracy thoery but this one holds no water for me.


----------



## tom0311 (Nov 17, 2008)

Heineken said:


> Anyone that believes the US government had nothing to do with that is an idiot. You can see separate explosions going off on various floors on pretty much every video of the attack, and the foundations were destroyed seperatley. It's claimed the explosions knocked down the buildings, yet the hijackers' passports.. made of paper.. somehow survived and were found in the rubble?
> 
> What a crock of sh*t


Haven't watched your link, but I watched '9/11 in plane sight' and 'loose change'.

It is a bit too fishy isn't it. Even the janitor said he heard bombs going off in the basement before the collapse, and some news broadcasts were not aired as they included interviews that uncovered funny business.

As for the attack on the pentagon, if it was a plane why were the lampposts still intact? There's too many inconsistencies for me to believe the 'real' story.


----------



## vlb (Oct 20, 2008)

im a structural engineer and i conclude it was JW searching for dbols


----------



## Bambi (Jul 1, 2009)

Cui bono?


----------



## ares1 (Apr 27, 2008)

Uriel said:


> And the 2 5 ton engines?


They only found parts to one amongst the wreckage

















theres also loads of eyewitnesses... unless they have been brainwashed by the govt too?

only thing that makes me doubt it is how the f*ck guys who have only flown cessnas can smash a 757 into the 1st and second floors with such precision.


----------



## UnitedFan (Jul 27, 2008)

Witnesses will say whatever they've been told to say when someone points a gun at them/their family.

It's small minded of people to think that we, as common people, will know everything that goes on in the world. We live in a world that's covered by a blanket of what these 'higher people' want us to see and believe. Everything in the news is what they want us to see, like propaganda in the war.


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

ares1 said:


> They only found parts to one amongst the wreckage
> 
> 
> 
> ...


this is an old thread and I can't be @rsed re reading it....from memory my comment was about the pentagon hit.

If you look at a pic, there was a fairly small round hole in the pentagon. If a 767 or 757 hit it - the biggest most dense parts of the aircraft (the engines) don't fit though that hole.......why did they just fall off before hitting the building (where they would have made 2 huge hioles either side of the hole that was made)??


----------



## ares1 (Apr 27, 2008)

Uriel said:


> this is an old thread and I can't be @rsed re reading it....from memory my comment was about the pentagon hit.
> 
> If you look at a pic, there was a fairly small round hole in the pentagon. If a 767 or 757 hit it - the biggest most dense parts of the aircraft (the engines) don't fit though that hole.......why did they just fall off before hitting the building (where they would have made 2 huge hioles either side of the hole that was made)??


i think the hole youre thinking about is the "exit hole".

the impact hole looked something like this before the building collapsed:-

EDIT: Red outline is where the plane supposedly smashed into the building


----------



## Matt 1 (May 8, 2010)

Its funny because there are always those who can't accept something for what it is, don't get me wrong, I think its good to challenge certain topical issues and to keep an open mind, but I really do believe this was a real terrorist attack.

I remember when you were able to go into the cockpit of a plane LOL.

Extremist muslims do believe in sacrifice and being taken to 'paradise', and suicide bombing is the way in which they believe they can do this... there has been terror attacks way before 9/11, but not on the same scale, but I do believe it was a genuine terror attack, well planned and executed..

At the time airport security was nowhere near as good as it is now, and I think it was 100% possible for them to take over a plane and do not believe it to be the government.


----------



## Matt 1 (May 8, 2010)

Just to add 

My favorite thing was the flight of the plane and if you put it into 'Wingdings' it comes up with two building and a plane or something similar...

Obviously this is a little bit silly, but its a version of how you can twist something a little bit to get what you want and make it look dodgey! Like above where its saying about the exit hole of the crash...fair enough, but its a plane crashing into a building, theres not going to be a perfect match with every aspect 100% correct, they can say this wall here is 1mm out..hmm, thats not the exact size.. CONSPIRACY lol, (i'm over exaggerating - but just to make the point!)

I just think these conspiracy theorist will look at anything they can, twist it slightly to make it look a certain way.. end of the day, its a massive plane crashing into a building, is there a written law on how the events after should take place and what sizes the crash holes are.. I don't think so.


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

ares1 said:


> i think the hole youre thinking about is the "exit hole".
> 
> the impact hole looked something like this before the building collapsed:-
> 
> EDIT: Red outline is where the plane supposedly smashed into the building


Now check mine bitch lol


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)




----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

looking inside...


----------



## jimmystar (Oct 22, 2005)

i just dont understand why people are prepared to beleive the government over scientists and engineers ................... of course they have never lied before have they ?

what when the majority of engineers and scientists speak up against the government ........we have to grow up somtime and admit to ourselfs that we are not as civilized as we think we are .

intelligence will win in the end .....


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

I've just read this thread and it's been going on for years.......

I spent too long on the moon landings thread to go into this, but if you think there's a conspiracy, prove it. Build a start to finish argument with evidence.

Don't just give us the 'the shadows were at the wrong angle' argument.

Human beings just aren't clever / organized enough to get conspiracies done.


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

spaynter said:


> I've just read this thread and it's been going on for years.......
> 
> I spent too long on the moon landings thread to go into this, but if you think there's a conspiracy, *prove it*. Build a start to finish argument with evidence.
> 
> ...


Then it wouldn't be a conspiracy you mong:lol:


----------



## jimmystar (Oct 22, 2005)

proof is in this clip 




the building is falling to the left ..yes ?

so were is the pressure coming from to crush the right side of the building ?

and why does the top part of the falling building not continue falling over the side ?


----------

