Ex-CIA Pilot - No Planes Hit The Twin Towers


Status
Not open for further replies.
The engines at the pentagon were not engines that would have been found on a 757 though...

They are from a commercial jet, just not a 757.

I have a link to a site which says they are. Want it or does it just mean its a lie?

I read that and chuckled once I realised what was left out when quoted earlier.

Don't chuckle mate. They reckon thst bit missed of means it can't have been a 757 :lol:
 
I have no idea if it was a plane, missile or exploding pizza delivery truck.
Just keeping an open mind and questioning the evidence or lack off.

Right. Look at the evidence for it being flight 77 and then compare it to the evidence for it being another type plane or missile. Those who are logical will draw a fairly obvious conclusion.[/QUOTE]

Im going for an exploding pizza delivery truck that dropped of some engines and a cockpit seat before exploding. Its seems a likelier to me than the official story.
 
Loads more liars here...

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html (Some duplicated from previous link)

Incidentally it also includes the full quote where this came from...



"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

How odd, that hijackers would fly a plane which they were intending to crash in an unsafe manner. Even odder that the crucial last part of the quote was missing from the post. Must have been an oversight.

yes, unsafe but I'm pretty sure you'd still need to be an expert pilot in order to fly a 757 in that manner, an expert. just a guess

I'm just taking a punt here, bare with me. I'm sure a team of experienced ATC controllers are aware that a 757 could be flown that way, however, it didn't stop the entire office being of the assumption, making a judgement call based on their vast experience, that what they had just witnessed was a military aircraft,

not a novice who could barely control a cessner light aircraft
 
its not acceptable for you to simply say neither did the plane vaporise on impact. that was put out as a statement at the time to explain the fact there was virtually no wreckage at the scene

the official version of events was that the plane vaporised on impact to explain barely no wreckage, now how could most of the wreckage enter the pentagon structure through a 16ft hole in the structure, as that was all there was initially before more of the structure collapsed at a later time - can you explain that to me

there was no marks whatsoever on the lawned area - please explain this

ill go back to WTC, if you want. its all a massive cover up and conspiracy and the official version of events it can taken apart with ease

what you're actually arguing here is that the majority of the wreckage from a 757 airliner left only a 16ft wide hole

Structural weakness in a reinforced structure ie a construction entrance or similar hole. Hit that fast enough and with enough weight and the projectile, in this case a 757, will initially funnel through the path of least resistance like water and eventually batter its way through the surrounding structure creating the larger hole. You'd be surprised how small a hole a large aircraft can leave. The level of vaporisation, again, surprise surprise, is consistent with the more frangible aircraft parts hitting a reinforced wall at high speed.

What you're actually arguing here is that a missile was fired into the Pentagon and then loads of Men In Black went out and made it look like an aeroplane, somehow hypnotizing the eyewitnesses who either saw a missile or MIB emptying aircraft parts onto the Pentagon lawn in full view of a public highway. How did they catch all those who saw it and put their foot down, leaving the scene before any response was possible?

Oh, and the angle's not right for a cruise missile anyway (had to be for that level of destruction), they go in through the top. Apart from that it's perfectly reasonable. When you can find me an aircraft hitting a reinforced building and leaving a Looney Tunes style outline then get back to me.
 
The "16ft hole" nonsense...

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Are they trying to say there was another wall the plane crashed into and that wall had a 75foot hole in it, which then collapsed (and disapeared leaving no rubble at all) so as to not be visible at all in photographs or videos?
Im confused what they are trying to say.

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
What he just stuck his hand inside and found the black box? Yeah sure....
 
The "16ft hole" nonsense...

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.


And here's another liar...

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report

that is called debunking mate


Structural weakness in a reinforced structure ie a construction entrance or similar hole. Hit that fast enough and with enough weight and the projectile, in this case a 757, will initially funnel through the path of least resistance like water and eventually batter its way through the surrounding structure creating the larger hole. You'd be surprised how small a hole a large aircraft can leave. The level of vaporisation, again, surprise surprise, is consistent with the more frangible aircraft parts hitting a reinforced wall at high speed.

What you're actually arguing here is that a missile was fired into the Pentagon and then loads of Men In Black went out and made it look like an aeroplane, somehow hypnotizing the eyewitnesses who either saw a missile or MIB emptying aircraft parts onto the Pentagon lawn in full view of a public highway. How did they catch all those who saw it and put their foot down, leaving the scene before any response was possible?

Oh, and the angle's not right for a cruise missile anyway (had to be for that level of destruction), they go in through the top. Apart from that it's perfectly reasonable. When you can find me an aircraft hitting a reinforced building and leaving a Looney Tunes style outline then get back to me.

you've watched too many films mate and don't come at me with the loony tunes outline thing either

Is this mongfest still going?

it is now you've appeared on the thread
 
Last edited:
yes, unsafe but I'm pretty sure you'd still need to be an expert pilot in order to fly a 757 in that manner, an expert. just a guess

I'm just taking a punt here, bare with me. I'm sure a team of experienced ATC controllers are aware that a 757 could be flown that way, however, it didn't stop the entire office being of the assumption, making a judgement call based on their vast experience, that what they had just witnessed was a military aircraft,

not a novice who could barely control a cessner light aircraft

Thought it was a missile?
 
ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report

that is called debunking mate




you've watched too many films mate and don't come at me with the loony tunes outline thing either



it is now you've appeared on the thread

I'm not your mate. I associate only with sane people.

The bloke who reckons an elaborate and expensive conspiracy will have enough holes in it for spotty kids and Philosophy professors to suss it tells me I watch too many films.

This conspiracy theory - it's what they want to believe because it gives them ample cover for all sorts of things.
 
Ok, but the debate on that point is not if they are from a commercial jet, but if they are from THE commercial jet that was supposed to have hit the building - or were they from a similar commercial jet, but someone made a mistake when picking engines to plant and got the wrong model....


fair point, although the military might have had access to such technology back then, you would epect the pentagon to have the best available tech.
Indeed. Making it even more unlikely they'd show it to the general public.
 
I'm not your mate. I associate only with sane people.

The bloke who reckons an elaborate and expensive conspiracy will have enough holes in it for spotty kids and Philosophy professors to suss it tells me I watch too many films.

This conspiracy theory - it's what they want to believe because it gives them ample cover for all sorts of things.

how lucky for them. stop getting tetchy theres no need for it. we'll leave it there because i for one won't let an online chat end up a slanging match, get a grip.

There's also the moral question here - if someone had top quality footage of your relatives dying, would you want it all over the news?

don't go into writing credible analogies mate, jesus!
 
the truth will out in the future and then we can all catch up with old friends from this thread and see who's man enough to eat humble pie
 
plus how did they manage to get through that 16ft hole and into the inside of the pentagon - guess ill just have to accept the official version of events and forget about the whole thing, sorry all

The 16 ft hole is the final exit point is it not? The plane didnt just make a 16 ft tube style tunnel all the way through :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top