9/11 Tape to be Released

nikebee said:
any body fancy posting a link to this stuff :-/

been searching the Sky News site and can't find a damned thing
As requested link

Doesn't really show anything that we haven't seen before. I'd like to see the pictures from the petrol station that allegedly show "shocking" images of what happened.
 
ballistic said:
goma01.gif
HAHAHA :D awesome job :D
 
Hmm if it wasn't a plane then what was it? Think about how difficult/impossible it would be for a terrorist to get a bomb into the pentagon. If it's a missle then what type of uber missle and where from?
Not meaning to criticise the conspiracy theorists, tbh i agree that the damage photos hardly look like the results of a fast moving passenger airliner crashing into a building, however if a plane didn't hit it then what really happened is pretty vague tbh.
 
Zip said:
The main part of the plane went inside the building.
Then the fuel tanks ruptured as it was going through room after room and they sprayed fuel everywhere(because the speed it hit the fuel sprayed as mist particles) and bang, there is is the fire and the explosion
But the fuel tanks are in the wings, the ones that disintegrated into dust when they hit the walls remember? The ones that didn't break windows and didn't leave gaps for the fuel mist to enter the building. I'm also wondering why the wings are so flimsy as to disintegrate, but the fuselage is built like an armour piercing round?

Or as someone said, the pilot managed to shear off both wings by the impact with the ground?

I'm trying to imagine that. A nice flat lawn, a plane whose wings are angled up above the horizontal by a few degrees and whose belly is lower than the wings. How does the pilot manage to touch both wings, one after the other, onto that nice smooth lawn and break them off? And wouldn't that leave two large, wing-shaped chunks of metal flying off somewhere? As well as scrape marks?
 
Zip said:
To take out the more secure part of pentagon it would require a pretty big explosive missile to penetrate the inner walls.
And if that happened the cameras would probably be taken out from all the shrapnel

You are talking out of your arse.
 
Nelson said:
As requested link

Doesn't really show anything that we haven't seen before. I'd like to see the pictures from the petrol station that allegedly show "shocking" images of what happened.

I believe the FBI have the petrol station footage so be a different case probably to get hold of that.
 
Atomic said:
So that they can record objects hitting the pentagon. Had this been a missile it would be worthwile having video footage of it for various reasons. If the Pentagon lacks *** abilites to record a aircraft, then it wont be able to record a missile.

I would have thought a place like the Pentagon would have some of the most impressive security in this world, but turns out my local Netto is more secure than Pentagon.
As if they would expect a rocket or aircraft to hit the building. It's a security camera, nothing more. It watches people, and cars, none of which are fast enough to avoid being spotted. Heck, it can't record a bullet, so why not attack with a rifle? Or would you complain about that too?
 
Zip said:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8116136404949691010&q=plane++concrete

Look, can you see how the wings of the planes would have disappeared now??????

The main part of the plane is bigger which would have created more force and surface area to be able to penetrate the walls of the pentagon.
But the wings are small with less surface area so wouldnt have created as much force so would have just turned to dust.

I thought that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon had engines on/underneath the wings. So while the wings may disintegrate as is clearly possible from the google video, the engines would be too great a mass to disintegrate and would leave holes in the wall upon impact.
 
Also if you see the tip of the "nose cone" wouldnt the under belly of the plane be hitting the ground



< Nose
-----------Ground


<Nose



--------Plane on the runway
 
Though it's quite difficult for people to imagine what happens to a plane in a crash, it's entirely possible for a plane to be fully absorbed into a building.

You don't see many plane crashes, but the ones you do are generally ones that have crashed into the gound and not at a 90 degree angle to a wall / building, where the concentration of impact and explosion will be magnified somewhat. Therefore as the whole thing is collapsing inwards and into the building, the wings will kind of try wrapping backwards, though would still wonder how the engines get into the factor myself. Remember what planes are made from, aluiminium, and that'll melt at rather low temperatures, though not all or everything would melt, just some bits would probably deform quite a lot. Unless you have some sort of ultra computer simulation of what would happen to a plane in those circumstances, people aren't going to believe much, or a decent video of it to at least stop the conspiracy theories.

I've not seen any of the new vids, as they don't seem to be on the web at least. Just hoping it spreads a little more light on it, with more than just a couple of freeze frames.
 
Last edited:
Reppyboyo said:
Its a shame to see people still beleive all that the gov & media tell them.

I'm sorry but this is just funny...So you're telling me we should think the opposite of whatever the government or media tell us? You don't think they could be telling the truth sometimes?

Believe me I'm not naive, I don understand governments lie, but c'mon some stuff they say is true.
 
cheets64 said:
Also if you see the tip of the "nose cone" wouldnt the under belly of the plane be hitting the ground



< Nose
-----------Ground


<Nose



--------Plane on the runway
No wheels, no flare, no argument.
 
Enfield said:
You are talking out of your arse.

To prove my point just watch the video.
You see small fragments of shrapnel land just infront of the camera.
And thats just a bloody plane!!!
 
Carlos_S said:
I'm sorry but this is just funny...So you're telling me we should think the opposite of whatever the government or media tell us? You don't think they could be telling the truth sometimes?

Believe me I'm not naive, I don understand governments lie, but c'mon some stuff they say is true.

Read his post again, it says that it's a shame that we think we believe everything they tell us.
 
Roduga said:
No wheels, no flare, no argument.

But look how close the "nose cone" is to the ground.

And I think it would be very hard to get the nose that close on that alignment to the building.
 
Last edited:
Zip said:
To prove my point just watch the video.
You see small fragments of shrapnel land just infront of the camera.
And thats just a bloody plane!!!

A plane is considerably bigger than a missile so there is probably more shrapnal.
 
Back
Top Bottom