if thats a boeing 757... - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

WarChild · 05-17-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

also..how much lift do you think is possible for a huge plane like a 757 to have when it is ten ft off the gorund?

think about that carefully....a plane that size is in constant fre fall..the only thing keeping it up is lift...i highly doubt a large commercial airline is capable of what they are saying

So basically what you're saying is a 757 is not capable of taking off from a runway, because when it hits 10 ft it freefalls back to the ground? Logical.

cranki · 05-17-2006, 01:40 PM

I agree, this conspiracy theory is just plain bullshit, but maybe...

Dirty F · 05-17-2006, 01:49 PM

Phoenix and other idiots:

How did the plane leftovers get in and around the building?

WarChild · 05-17-2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franck

Phoenix and other idiots:

How did the plane leftovers get in and around the building?

Why are you even bothering to argue with somebody that thinks a 757 doesn't have enough lift at 10ft to hold its self up off the ground?

Brujah · 05-17-2006, 01:55 PM

Let's get MythBusters on the case.

Dirty F · 05-17-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

Why are you even bothering to argue with somebody that thinks a 757 doesn't have enough lift at 10ft to hold its self up off the ground?

Well i know hes full of shit but im trying to get him to realize that as well.

directfiesta · 05-17-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheeseFrog

Again... Why was no explosive residue found?

Why no WMD were found ??? They did exist, didn't they ????

Answer: because there was none .

directfiesta · 05-17-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

So basically what you're saying is a 757 is not capable of taking off from a runway, because when it hits 10 ft it freefalls back to the ground? Logical.

Warchild, you are way smarter than that ...

Are you flirting with Frank by saying stupid things like him ????

If I go with your " logic " , the plane, at take off, could level off when reaching 10 feet ... and FLY ...

Please ....

Scootermuze · 05-17-2006, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

I don't know how to fly a plane ... But if I wanted to cause damage to the Pentagon, I would have stayed straight & steady till I am to be OVER it, then nose dive in it....

This low flying shit is stupid on his part, because a slight movement and he digs the soil instead of the building ...

But I am not a pilot, he was ....

Oh but he wasn't... He did a little bit on flight simulators, which in no way can prepare you for flying a plane that size.. let alone being able to drop down from whatever altitude, cruising til passing over the interstate then drop to an altitude that would put it into the first floor.. at great speed...
Even the most seasoned pilots said they couldn't do it...

Dirty F · 05-17-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Why no WMD were found ??? They did exist, didn't they ????

Answer: because there was none .

How did pieces of the plane get there. Please explain. Stop all your other bs and answer it.

Dirty F · 05-17-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootermuze

Oh but he wasn't... He did a little bit on flight simulators, which in no way can prepare you for flying a plane that size.. let alone being able to drop down from whatever altitude, cruising til passing over the interstate then drop to an altitude that would put it into the first floor.. at great speed...
Even the most seasoned pilots said they couldn't do it...

How did the pieces of the plane get in and around the building?

WarChild · 05-17-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Warchild, you are way smarter than that ...

Are you flirting with Frank by saying stupid things like him ????

If I go with your " logic " , the plane, at take off, could level off when reaching 10 feet ... and FLY ...

Please ....

So a plane 10 feet of the ground isn't flying? Something with enough lift to gain altitude doesn't have enough to maintain altitutde?

Scootermuze · 05-17-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRL

I think you have to put speed into perspective here. If you've ever seen a really nasty car crash, where the car was going super fast, there's not much left as a single structure.

Now you figure a fully fueled jet going full speed at over 500 MPH.

Do the physics. The energy of that mass at that velocity going into a heavily reinforced structure like the Pentagon will completely disintegrate quite compactly.

While doing the physics, explain how the thin skinned nose structure was able to penetrate the reinforced structure, yet the 2, 6 ton engines with titanium parts didn't even leave a mark..
And again, applying physics, inertia, etc., with respect to speed, the wings could in no way just fold back and follow the fusleage through a 16' hole..
as has been claimed by some..

And as far as the plane just burning up... again.. 2, 6 ton engines with titanium parts won't burn beyond existence from a jet fuel explosion.. and.. the fuel on a 757 is stored near the fuselage at the root of the wings... The fire/explosion couldn't have reached the ends of the wings to make them vanish..

WarChild · 05-17-2006, 02:24 PM

What Directfiesta and Phoenix don't understand (imagine that for a second), is that a wing very close to the ground is actually MORE effecient. That's right, there isn't less lift, there's more, jackasses. It's called the ground effect and you can feel free to read about it here:

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/airflylvl3.htm

Since you won't actually read it, I'll quote the part that you don't understand:

Quote:

Another common phenomenon that is misunderstood is that of ground effect. That is the increased efficiency of a wing when flying within a wing length of the ground. A low-wing airplane will experience a reduction in drag by 50% just before it touches down. There is a great deal of confusion about ground effect. Many pilots (and the FAA VFR Exam-O-Gram No. 47) mistakenly believe that ground effect is the result of air being compressed between the wing and the ground.

To understand ground effect it is necessary to have an understanding of upwash. For the pressures involved in low speed flight, air is considered to be non-compressible. When the air is accelerated over the top of the wing and down, it must be replaced. So some air must shift around the wing (below and forward, and then up) to compensate, similar to the flow of water around a canoe paddle when rowing. This is the cause of upwash.

As stated earlier, upwash is accelerating air in the wrong direction for lift. Thus a greater amount of downwash is necessary to compensate for the upwash as well as to provide the necessary lift. Thus more work is done and more power required. Near the ground the upwash is reduced because the ground inhibits the circulation of the air under the wing. So less downwash is necessary to provide the lift. The angle of attack is reduced and so is the induced power, making the wing more efficient.

Matt 26z · 05-17-2006, 02:26 PM

No serious conspiracy theorist will argue that a plane of some sort didn't hit the Pentagon. It may not have been a 757, but everyone who was there saw a plane. Many eyewitnesses say it was a smaller jet.

I do not subscribe to any one explanation, and I have not ruled out the possibility that a plane much smaller than a 757 was constructed to carry a warhead. This plane would of course leave behind non-757 parts, and part manufacturers have in fact denied that certain parts found belong to a 757.

It is also possible that they expected the warhead to blow a much bigger hole into the wall that would span 757 engine to engine. But now they have to explain how two massive engines turned into dust on impact and left no mark on the building... Yet the flimsy fuselage ripped through layer after layer.

WarChild · 05-17-2006, 02:30 PM

Is the goverment telling the whole truth? Probably not. Are people like Phoneix and Directfiesta so smart and so in the know they can get to the heart of truth and nobody else can? Absolutely not.

When more than one explantion exists to explain something, generally the simplest is true:

on September 11 either

a) Two planes hit the WTC and a third plane hit the Pentagon

OR

b) Two planes hit the WTC, a third plane was shot down, and a missile fired in to the Pentagon. The official cover up of course being that a plane hit the Pentagon.

One is simpler than the other folks.

elitegirls · 05-17-2006, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

you make my balls itch...im going to go do some work

but just so you know...you are a pussy

insanity is something you should look up...i mean refusing to see what is on front of your face must be close to the definition

keep holding your blankie and keep your head in the sand

no need for you to worry you are dutch

i second that

Phoenix · 05-17-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

So basically what you're saying is a 757 is not capable of taking off from a runway, because when it hits 10 ft it freefalls back to the ground? Logical.

not so...but if you were to bank that same plane radically to the left while taking off...well there you go wind currents have caused crashes becasue of this

not saying planes cant turn...but they drop in altitude once you bank them...they lose their lift

logical?

Minte · 05-17-2006, 02:32 PM

Nothing like a good conspiracy thread to keep things moving at GFY on a dreary rainy day!
Personally,I know it's possible to keep hundreds if not thousands of people with absolutely nothing to gain quiet about what happened.
I'll hold off a few more years and read the book.

carry on...

Phoenix · 05-17-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

So a plane 10 feet of the ground isn't flying? Something with enough lift to gain altitude doesn't have enough to maintain altitutde?

bank a plane that large at ten feet off the ground and the wings would dig into the ground....it would also fall as the lift is gone

just think about it

Dirty F · 05-17-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

not so...but if you were to bank that same plane radically to the left while taking off...well there you go wind currents have caused crashes becasue of this

not saying planes cant turn...but they drop in altitude once you bank them...they lose their lift

logical?

I know your mentally challenged so let me repeat again you moron:

How did the plane pieces get in and around the building?

WarChild · 05-17-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

not so...but if you were to bank that same plane radically to the left while taking off...well there you go wind currents have caused crashes becasue of this

not saying planes cant turn...but they drop in altitude once you bank them...they lose their lift

logical?

Look your exact words implied that a 757 at 10ft off the ground would have less lift than normal, when in fact the opposite is true. I don't know how you can twist that in to you were right, sorry.

Theo · 05-17-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franck

Soul rebel: How do you explain the pieces of plane found in and outside the building. Please tell me man.

first you made a claim i didn't

and then you ask me a question without replying mine

Phoenix · 05-17-2006, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franck

I know your mentally challenged so let me repeat again you moron:

How did the plane pieces get in and around the building?

let me say this delicately

SUCK MY DICK you fuckin loser

pornguy · 05-17-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franck

And that was shot how?

You fucking moron.

That could have been shot from a sub off the coast. DC is almost on the water.

Phoenix · 05-17-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

Look your exact words implied that a 757 at 10ft off the ground would have less lift than normal, when in fact the opposite is true. I don't know how you can twist that in to you were right, sorry.

you are right i think i did say that

and i think it is stil true..there is less lift available..enough to take off and land sure

but less available room for error

CheeseFrog · 05-17-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

bank a plane that large at ten feet off the ground and the wings would dig into the ground....it would also fall as the lift is gone

just think about it

Yup. Exactly. How do you think the street lamps and trees were knocked down? From the wings of the airplane hitting them as it was banking.

WarChild · 05-17-2006, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

you are right i think i did say that

and i think it is stil true..there is less lift available..enough to take off and land sure

So you're disputing the Ground Effect then? It's your theory that a wing within a wing's length of the ground is less effecient and therefor generates less lift? Strangely enough, pilots of the world disagree.

Again, a wing within a wing's length of the ground is MORE effecient, and generates MORE lift.

If you can't even get basic scientific principles straight, what makes you so qualified to debunk 9/11?

Scootermuze · 05-17-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franck

How did the pieces of the plane get in and around the building?

They supposedly found pieces from a single engine.. and no parts near the size of an engine from a 757.. again.. we're talking 2, 6 ton engines.. with numerous titanium parts.. none of which were found..

Now a couple questions for you..
How did 2, 6 ton engines enter a 16' hole and completely vanish from a short lived fire?

How can a plane with a 125' wingspan get through a 16' hole?

Who changed the laws of physics and inertia?

Dirty F · 05-17-2006, 02:45 PM

Look at you idiots. You cant answer how those plane pieces got there :1orlaugh

Small details i guess hahaha

Fucking losers.

Gary - AWP · 05-17-2006, 02:45 PM

Okay, this looks very much like a missile, but does anyone have a suggestion where these guys might have launched the damn thing...? Could it be that Osama shaved his beard off...don´t know what to think anymore these days...can´t tell you that I think Bush´s okay, but not all Americans think like Bush...

Phoenix · 05-17-2006, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

So you're disputing the Ground Effect then? It's your theory that a wing within a wing's length of the ground is less effecient and therefor generates less lift? Strangely enough, pilots of the world disagree.

Again, a wing within a wing's length of the ground is MORE effecient, and generates MORE lift.

If you can't even get basic scientific principles straight, what makes you so qualified to debunk 9/11?

i contend that a huge plane 10 ft from the ground cant bank without losing air

if it banked at that speed it would fall

that is all...im done for today

have a good night eveyone

well except for franck..i hope he smokes some bad weed and gets the munchies and eats some rat poison by mistake

but everyone else..have a great night

MaddCaz · 05-17-2006, 02:47 PM

all ths shit is a tad suspect

Phoenix · 05-17-2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franck

Look at you idiots. You cant answer how those plane pieces got there :1orlaugh

Small details i guess hahaha

Fucking losers.

it was already explained you are just too obtuse to realise it

the parts came form the missile that hit the building

most likely that expalins why the makers of the engines for the 757 said the pieces found scattered in no way came from their engines

Dirty F · 05-17-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootermuze

They supposedly found pieces from a single engine.. and no parts near the size of an engine from a 757.. again.. we're talking 2, 6 ton engines.. with numerous titanium parts.. none of which were found..

Now a couple questions for you..
How did 2, 6 ton engines enter a 16' hole and completely vanish from a short lived fire?

How can a plane with a 125' wingspan get through a 16' hole?

Who changed the laws of physics and inertia?

Supposedly? What planet you live on? They found PLENTY of pieces. In and around the buildings. Search with google. Noone is hiding it from you, although you probably dont want to hear that. IN and AROUND the building. So how did it get there? Big pieces. Not something one person can quickly plant there.

I dont know how big the hole was. But its CLEARLY reconstructed how most of the plane disintegrates whne hitting the building. Its not rocket science. And once again, exact explanation is out there. Look for it. Once again, noone is hiding it for you. Its even shown on discovery channel.

A plane with that speed with that much fuel on board hitting a building like the Pentagon will 95% disintegrate within seconds.

World Expert Internet Service · 05-17-2006, 02:50 PM

close call

Dirty F · 05-17-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

it was already explained you are just too obtuse to realise it

the parts came form the missile that hit the building

most likely that expalins why the makers of the engines for the 757 said the pieces found scattered in no way came from their engines

Ok, i already thought you did but now im sure.

Youre just fucking with me, trying to piss me off. You cant be that retarded.
Congrats, you did a great job, i fell for it.

I really thought you were mentally challenged

Phoenix · 05-17-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franck

Supposedly? What planet you live on? They found PLENTY of pieces. In and around the buildings. Search with google. Noone is hiding it from you, although you probably dont want to hear that. IN and AROUND the building. So how did it get there? Big pieces. Not something one person can quickly plant there.

I dont know how big the hole was. But its CLEARLY reconstructed how most of the plane disintegrates whne hitting the building. Its not rocket science. And once again, exact explanation is out there. Look for it. Once again, noone is hiding it for you. Its even shown on discovery channel.

A plane with that speed with that much fuel on board hitting a building like the Pentagon will 95% disintegrate within seconds.

even the titanium engines which dont even melt at the temperature kerosene gets to right...we will just forget about that...i mean you got some landing gear smashing through walls and walls of concrete...but the titanium engines are all gone except for a few small pieces...which the makers of the engines claim arent theirs

ya you got it all figured out...you are the smartest

MattO · 05-17-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

but the titanium engines are all gone except for a few small pieces...which the makers of the engines claim arent theirs

Completely wrong. And it's so nice that you never site a source for this information of yours, and a source would be a independant, credible souce, not someone from a conspiracy site.

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

Engine Evidence
Let's take a look at some of the ground debris that appears to be related to an aircraft engine. Many different sites and posts have reported that the 757 uses Rolls-Royce engines [RB211-535E4B] - however it should be noted, for the sake of thuroughness, that American Airlines also use Pratt & Witney engines [PW2037] in many of their 757 fleet. You can also view this information on their website. (The 757 fleets around the world actually use over six different kinds of engines.) The 757 that is reported to have hit the Pentagon was using RB211-535E4B engines.

Here is are photos of some apparent engine parts from the Pentagon crash site.

What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to furnish ground auxillary power while the main engines are shut down during ground operations. An online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a 757/767 instrument pannel.

There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above hahaha65533;It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that Ihahaha65533;m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.hahaha65533; (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the militaryhahaha65533;s unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grummanhahaha65533;s subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. A detailed view of what the turbofan that powers the Global Hawk looks like - I'm sure you can see it's too small to be anything in the pictures contained here or anywhere else in the Pentagon crash evidence. Also visible in this photo, one of the 757's blue passenger seats to the left of the turbine, and possibly a 2nd seat above the other seat.

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, we'll cover that further down).

Another engine part, bottom right

CheeseFrog · 05-17-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootermuze

They supposedly found pieces from a single engine.. and no parts near the size of an engine from a 757.. again.. we're talking 2, 6 ton engines.. with numerous titanium parts.. none of which were found..

Now a couple questions for you..
How did 2, 6 ton engines enter a 16' hole and completely vanish from a short lived fire?

How can a plane with a 125' wingspan get through a 16' hole?

Who changed the laws of physics and inertia?

What the...??? Where did you read that the engines weren't found?

Dirty F · 05-17-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattO

Completely wrong. And it's so nice that you never site a source for this information of yours, and a source would be a independant, credible souce, not someone from a conspiracy site.

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

Engine Evidence
Let's take a look at some of the ground debris that appears to be related to an aircraft engine. Many different sites and posts have reported that the 757 uses Rolls-Royce engines [RB211-535E4B] - however it should be noted, for the sake of thuroughness, that American Airlines also use Pratt & Witney engines [PW2037] in many of their 757 fleet. You can also view this information on their website. (The 757 fleets around the world actually use over six different kinds of engines.) The 757 that is reported to have hit the Pentagon was using RB211-535E4B engines.

Here is are photos of some apparent engine parts from the Pentagon crash site.

What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to furnish ground auxillary power while the main engines are shut down during ground operations. An online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a 757/767 instrument pannel.

There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above hahaha65533;It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that Ihahaha65533;m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.hahaha65533; (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the militaryhahaha65533;s unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grummanhahaha65533;s subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. A detailed view of what the turbofan that powers the Global Hawk looks like - I'm sure you can see it's too small to be anything in the pictures contained here or anywhere else in the Pentagon crash evidence. Also visible in this photo, one of the 757's blue passenger seats to the left of the turbine, and possibly a 2nd seat above the other seat.

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, we'll cover that further down).

Another engine part, bottom right

Thats just a few of the pics out there that show plane parts.

So i know now Phoenix is joking but the other people who are serious, they claim that:

A missile hit the building.

Then while god knows how many people are watching they get trucks to plant huge pieces of heavy engines and other stuff all over the place, in and outside the building.

Uhm yes..yup, that must be it.

directfiesta · 05-17-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

Is the goverment telling the whole truth? Probably not. Are people like Phoneix and Directfiesta so smart and so in the know they can get to the heart of truth and nobody else can? Absolutely not.

Can't edit a post after 3 minutes or so ... so I remove my statment saying " Warchild, you are way smarter than that ... " ...

Obviously I was wrong, and recognize being so ...

Now, Warchild, show me one place in this thread were I claim that a missile did that, or that a plane didn't do that ...
Should be easy for you ...

I just question the facts, the cover-up, the lack of evidence and so on ...

So please post and quote....

I should believe it is a plane, because it is said so by a lying administration, even with the lack of evidence .... OK.

Dirty F · 05-17-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheeseFrog

What the...??? Where did you read that the engines weren't found?

From a conspiracy site. Where else?

CheeseFrog · 05-17-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

which the makers of the engines claim arent theirs

Quit making shit up. Where'd you hear that Rolls Royce claimed that the engines aren't theirs?

CheeseFrog · 05-17-2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

I should believe it is a plane, because it is said so by a lying administration, even with the lack of evidence .... OK.

Orrrrr howabout all those plane pieces laying all over the ground?!? Maybe that might be a slight clue, don't ya think?

Dirty F · 05-17-2006, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheeseFrog

Quit making shit up. Where'd you hear that Rolls Royce claimed that the engines aren't theirs?

They paint a missile to make it look like a plane.
Then claim it was a 757 to the public and then plant (while everyone is watching) huge engine parts in and around the building from the wrong plane

Pleasurepays · 05-17-2006, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

So a plane 10 feet of the ground isn't flying? Something with enough lift to gain altitude doesn't have enough to maintain altitutde?

jesus some of these people are amazing eh?

for those who still dont have a clue.... the plane was not "flying" at 10 feet. it was descending at several hundred knots per hour and glanced off the ground before it hit the pentagon.

it all happened in a split second... its not like the guy was flying around downtown at 30 miles per hour, 10 feet off the ground and checking shit out. he was lucky to hit the building at all.

Pleasurepays · 05-17-2006, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

I should believe it is a plane, because it is said so by a lying administration, even with the lack of evidence .... OK.

eye witnesses, dead body parts and a destroyed plane and a fireball on video that was clearly caused by fuel, hardly constitute "a lack of evidence"

directfiesta · 05-17-2006, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheeseFrog

Orrrrr howabout all those plane pieces laying all over the ground?!? Maybe that might be a slight clue, don't ya think?

I can' t, neither can you ...

Many possibilities... This is one of them:

one possible explanation

Back to the landing " Frank " gear

directfiesta · 05-17-2006, 03:36 PM

Another greatly documented study is here

It addresses the engine parts, the 10' lift phenomena, the light poles and so on ....

Makes you wonder ... if you wish to...

05-17-2006, 01:55 PM	#155
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	Let's get MythBusters on the case. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

05-17-2006, 02:30 PM	#166
WarChild Let slip the dogs of war. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bermuda Posts: 17,263	Is the goverment telling the whole truth? Probably not. Are people like Phoneix and Directfiesta so smart and so in the know they can get to the heart of truth and nobody else can? Absolutely not. When more than one explantion exists to explain something, generally the simplest is true: on September 11 either a) Two planes hit the WTC and a third plane hit the Pentagon OR b) Two planes hit the WTC, a third plane was shot down, and a missile fired in to the Pentagon. The official cover up of course being that a plane hit the Pentagon. One is simpler than the other folks. __________________ .

05-17-2006, 02:32 PM	#169
Minte Babemeister Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Madison Posts: 7,081	Nothing like a good conspiracy thread to keep things moving at GFY on a dreary rainy day! Personally,I know it's possible to keep hundreds if not thousands of people with absolutely nothing to gain quiet about what happened. I'll hold off a few more years and read the book. carry on... __________________ You might not be as anonymous as you think you are.

05-17-2006, 02:45 PM	#181
Gary - AWP Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 78	Okay, this looks very much like a missile, but does anyone have a suggestion where these guys might have launched the damn thing...? Could it be that Osama shaved his beard off...don´t know what to think anymore these days...can´t tell you that I think Bush´s okay, but not all Americans think like Bush... __________________ BigTitsInBikini FathOOters JerkingDwarf

05-17-2006, 02:47 PM	#183
MaddCaz Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Illinois Posts: 9,483	all ths shit is a tad suspect __________________ BigCocks.com - MatureWomen.com - Tranny.com - DrunkGirls.com - TeenGirls.com - MonsterCock.com and many more... Click here to see them all!

05-17-2006, 01:40 PM	#152
cranki Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Café del Mar Posts: 5,162	I agree, this conspiracy theory is just plain bullshit, but maybe...

05-17-2006, 01:49 PM	#153
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Phoenix and other idiots: How did the plane leftovers get in and around the building?

05-17-2006, 02:26 PM	#165
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	No serious conspiracy theorist will argue that a plane of some sort didn't hit the Pentagon. It may not have been a 757, but everyone who was there saw a plane. Many eyewitnesses say it was a smaller jet. I do not subscribe to any one explanation, and I have not ruled out the possibility that a plane much smaller than a 757 was constructed to carry a warhead. This plane would of course leave behind non-757 parts, and part manufacturers have in fact denied that certain parts found belong to a 757. It is also possible that they expected the warhead to blow a much bigger hole into the wall that would span 757 engine to engine. But now they have to explain how two massive engines turned into dust on impact and left no mark on the building... Yet the flimsy fuselage ripped through layer after layer.

05-17-2006, 02:45 PM	#180
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Look at you idiots. You cant answer how those plane pieces got there :1orlaugh Small details i guess hahaha Fucking losers.

05-17-2006, 02:50 PM	#186
World Expert Internet Service Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 513	close call

05-17-2006, 03:36 PM	#200
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 29,776	Another greatly documented study is here It addresses the engine parts, the 10' lift phenomena, the light poles and so on .... Makes you wonder ... if you wish to... __________________ I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT ! But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....