Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Josh_B, Jan 4, 2003.

  1. igsi


    #11     Jan 4, 2003
  2. Josh_B


    Yeah, I had similar reaction when I saw those pics, and now the video wild posted.

    it just doesn't add up:


    The official version is complex and contradicts itself, so read on carefully.

    To justify the absence of Boeing debris, the authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted with such a highly reinforced building as the Pentagon.
    To explain the disappearance of the aircraft's more resistant components, like the engines or brakes, we were told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light and its black boxes).
    To justify the absence of 100 tons of melted metal, experts attempted to show that the fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the evaporation of parts of the aircraft (but not of the building itself or, clearly, of the landing light or black boxes).
    To justify the presence of the hole, officials now state that it was caused by the nose of the aircraft, which, despite the rigors of the crash, continued careering through the three buildings.

    The aircraft thus disintegrated on contact with the Pentagon, melted inside the building, evaporated at 2500° C and still penetrated two other buildings via a hole 2 ½ yards in diameter. Questions need to be asked of Pentagon experts here. The official version has its own holes that need filling.

    the turbine blades use exhaust gasses of 2800 to over 3000 degrees to run the compressors. Most likely some titanium alloy to withstand both extreme temperatures and stresses and they were nowhere to be found? both engines???

    But only the "black boxes" along with one or 2 plastic lights? and some other aluminum skin parts???

    Notice that glass on the building windows is still intact where the wings and rudder supposingly hit...

    But a DU tipped missile would do both the penetration, hole size and burnthrough..


    Boeing 757 or military craft?

    The aircraft "appeared to hold about 8 to 12 people" and "sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter", explained Steve Patterson to the Washington Post, on September 11.

    «That may have been the plane. I have never seen one on that (flight) pattern»
    Tom Seibert, a network engineer at the Pentagon, told the Washington Post: "We heard what sounded like a missile, then we heard a loud boom."

    and that pic on top of a cruise missile looks suspiciously close to size color on the released video and other link wild posted.

    There was a flight path analysis by some ex airforce pilots somewhere mentioned back then. I'll post when found.

    If it was a missile, who might be behind this?


    #12     Jan 4, 2003
  3. wild


    How rapidly did the fireball expand?

    The date and time is displayed in the lower left corner of the five frames of video that the Pentagon decided to let us see, although the time is incorrect by about 32 hours.

    The time is shown only to the nearest second. I suspect the real video has IRIG time code recorded on an audio track, in which case the military could precisely identify each frame of video.

    The first and second frames have identical times. The first frame shows the building before the plane hit. The second frame shows a fireball that is at least 50 percent taller than the pentagon. This means that within 1 second the plane crashed and a fireball grew to a height of at least 100 feet (33m).

    If we could see the frames between those two we could estimate the rate at which the fireball expands. This would also let us determine whether the fireball was from jet fuel or an explosive. Jet fuel fireballs, as with automobile fireballs, do not expand very quickly. By comparison, the fireball from an explosive can expand at an enormous rate.

    Why does the Pentagon allow us to see only five frames of video rather than the entire video? Note that the video of the planes hitting the World Trade Centers and the collapse of the towers were broadcast by American news reporters at least 2 million times during September in order to stimulate anger towards the Arabs. Why did they not broadcast the video of this plane crashing into the Pentagon at least 2 million times?

    I think the Pentagon refuses to release the entire video because it would show a small missile flying close to the ground, and then it would show the fireball expanding at such an incredible rate that even the "ordinary" Americans would realize that it was from an explosive.

    If the video proves that a 757 hit the building then the Pentagon officials are idiots for keeping the video a secret. They are also idiots for hiding the remains of the plane, the dead passengers, and the luggage. Their secrecy is allowing conspiracy rumors to run wild.

    Do you think the Pentagon officials are so stupid as to hide proof of the 757? I doubt if any human is that stupid. I say their behavior is evidence that they are involved in this fake "Terrorist Attack On America".

    If it looks and acts like a bomb...

    When an airplane crash has all the characteristics of a bomb, there is a good chance that it was a bomb.

    I think a more sensible explanation for Flight 77 is that it never crashed into the Pentagon. Rather, the Pentagon fired a missile at the building, and they selected a section of the building that was being renovated in order to reduce deaths. I think they also set the missile to explode before it hit the building in order to reduce damage.

    The plane that witnesses saw flying around the Pentagon may have been Flight 77, but that plane did not crash into the Pentagon.

    more at


    #13     Jan 4, 2003
  4. If the theory proves true and this is what the USA does to her own servants of the State, God help humanity...
    #14     Jan 4, 2003
  5. wild


    Proof: The Pentagon Anticipated and Prepared For Aircraft Event

    Washington, D.C.,Nov. 3, 2000 - The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas. Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the "plane crash" was a simulated one. The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room. On Oct. 24, there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that were practiced to better prepare local agencies for real incidents.

    more at

    Historical Precedent: NORTHWOODS and S-11

    this kind of thinking has been going on for a while... since 1962 as demonstrated by the Northwoods document

    I think you need to read the Northwoods material more carefully and remember its not going to state "kill americans" outright. Please be reasonable... What's going to justify military intervention other than the loss of friendly life and property.

    "... which place the United States in the position of suffering justifiable grievance." p.5.pdf

    "... should be developed to focus all efforts on a specific ultimate objective which would provide adequate justification for us military intervention. Such a plan would enable a logical build-up of incidents to be combined with other seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective and create the necessary impression on Cuban rashness and irresponsibility on a large scale, directed at other countries as well as the United States. ...The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." p.8.pdf [just replace Cuba with Militant-Islam]

    "...the ultimate objective is overt military intervention, it is recommended that primary responsibility for developing military and para-military aspects of the plan for both overt and covert military operations be assigned the Joint Chiefs of Staff." p.9.pdf

    "The courses of action which follow are a preliminary submission suitable only for planning purposes. ...they are intended to provide a point of departure for the development of a single, integrated, time-phased plan. Such a plan would permit the evaluation of individual projects within the context of cumulative, correlated actions designed to lead inexorably to the objective of adequate justification for US military intervention..." p.10.pdf

    pages 11 and 12 specifically call for riots, mortar shelling of friendly bases, sabotaging and sinking of ships. Section 3 a. "We could blow up a US ship" Section 3 b. "we could blow up a drone" Section 4 "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

    "Conduct funerals for mock victims..."

    "An [aircraft] properly painted would convince... However, reasonable copies of the [aircraft] could be produced from US resources in about three months."

    a. An aircraft at [AFB] would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA propriety organization in the [local] area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

    b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow rendezvous [near area]. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to a minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at [AFB] where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan, when over [required area]... the transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.
    "...would disburse [aircraft] parts..."


    #15     Jan 4, 2003
  6. My original questions still stand.

    If this is the case, why would the U.S. want to lie and say a plane crashed into the Pentagon when they knew it was something else.

    If a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon, where did that plane go?
    #16     Jan 4, 2003
  7. bobcathy1

    bobcathy1 Guest

    Where did all the people who died on that flight go?
    To Las Vegas? I don't think so!

    What good would reporting it incorrectly do? Why would it be better to report a plane crash than a bomb explosion? No rational explanation to that.

    Did you ever see a plane crash nose down? There would be just about nothing left. When it happened to the Value Jet in Florida, it just up and disappeared into the swamp.

    This site is pretty sick stuff in my opinion.:(
    #17     Jan 4, 2003
  8. bahahahah

    you guys are a riot! (not overthehill and long shot, I'm talking about the conspiracy theorists..)

    listen to you, you've got it all worked out, right? there's no possibility of you being wrong huh? candle and wild, i think your posts in this thread prove conclusively what a couple of deadheads you are...

    there's at least one conspiracy theory debunking website for every one of your so called 'proofs' (replete with selectively chosen 'evidence', and hey let's ignore anything that refutes our arguments..) of no plane websites... go and read them and at the very least come away with a balanced view..

    now, i'm not saying it couldn't be as you claim, only that you are a long way from conclusive proof, and at this stage, i think the plane crashing is a far, far better explanation of what happened..

    candle and wild, and to some extent josh b, you desperately need to get over your emotional hang up with the state of world affairs -- it's obviously destroyed your ability to objectively judge and reason; you keep stating your (emotinally charged) opinions as undisputable facts. time to grow up, isn't it?
    #18     Jan 5, 2003
  9. wild


    quote from daniel_m

    "... i think the plane crashing is a far, far better explanation of what happened..."


    i applaud you for your grown-up emotion-free objectively judged & reasoned analysis of the matter ... based on undisputable facts.


    "wild ... you keep stating your (emotinally charged) opinions as undisputable facts."

    where & when exactly did i commit this crime against objectivity and reason?

    up until now you´ve constantly accused me of the plain opposite ... namely for not expressing my personal thoughts & views but merely copying & pasting the contents of related websites.


    #19     Jan 5, 2003
  10. yeah, sorry wild. i did kinda set it up so that you couldn't win huh.. :)

    you don't have to answer this here, but just to yourself: wouldn't you agree that much of what you've copy and pasted was because you liked the writers' conclusions and not because of the dispassionate, objective reasoning?

    ...and, i think, we all do that to some extent. ideally, though, i think we all ought to be prepared to accept factual accounts no matter how much they upset our preconceptions about the world..

    certainly if it could shown to me that something else other than american airlines flight 77 was the cause of the pentagon wreckage i'd be prepared to accept that view...

    sorry, but what's been offered up so far doesn't really come close..

    #20     Jan 5, 2003