Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
so this is amazing to watch:… - don't let the bastards grind you down.
so this is amazing to watch:


it's apparent that it was not a large commercial liner. it was a commuter jet, most likely that slammed into the pentagon.

and man...there are still tapes of the impact that haven't been released. we've seen the world trade center get hit how many times? but nothing of the pentagon.
10 comments or Leave a comment
citizengwen From: citizengwen Date: September 2nd, 2004 09:57 am (UTC) (Link)
this is the first link posted that i can actually watch. all the other ones won't work. very interesting....
tamisevens From: tamisevens Date: September 2nd, 2004 10:21 am (UTC) (Link)
wow. very eye-opening.
flavobean From: flavobean Date: September 2nd, 2004 10:31 am (UTC) (Link)
It almost gives the impression that some sort of missile did this.

Very very chilling.
christy_p From: christy_p Date: September 2nd, 2004 10:40 am (UTC) (Link)
hmmm...makes ya think...
(Deleted comment)
taumeson From: taumeson Date: September 2nd, 2004 06:51 pm (UTC) (Link)
has a lot of people saying it sounded like a missle, and that the hijacker's flight trainers said the guy wouldn't fly for a damn, so there's no way he'd have been able to hit the pentagon and not leave a gigantic scorch mark on the ground like we saw happen in pennsy.

also, that all the walls of the pentagon were still standing immediately after the impact, and that there was just a single hole punching through 3 of the 5 rings. it was about 15-20 feet across.

and no wings were found, nor signs of wings hitting the building.
christy_p From: christy_p Date: September 2nd, 2004 07:29 pm (UTC) (Link)
i'd like to see the other videos...
swolfe From: swolfe Date: September 3rd, 2004 08:15 am (UTC) (Link)
2004-09-03 10:52:01 AM InfamousG

The slideshow makes no claim that a fully intact 757 should have been sitting in the hole in the Pentagon. Planes also don't vanish when they hit structures. It says there should be more wreckage than a shard with a poor paint job.

2004-09-03 11:01:45 AM Teekno

I watched it... yeah, that was the assertion. Of course, it does ignore the "well, where is the plane and its passengers and crew" argument that comes up, because that tears is to shreds.

Anyway, I'm not a pilot, but my thought on the lack of wreckage is this: A lot of air crashes happen long enough after the problem is detected to allow the crew to dump fuel in order to reduce the size/risk of explosion and fire. Also, when a pilot is crash-landing a plane, he attempts to do it in a way that causes at little structural damage to the plane as possible.

But this case was totally different. The plane was completely loaded with fuel. The terrorist pilot did not want to minimize the size of the explosion; he wanted to maximize it. So, he dumped no fuel, and he crashed landed the plane in a way you are specifically NOT supposed to.

The real proof of this is the WTC. We had live video coverage of the burning buildings. Both impacts were caught on video; the second impact was even on live, nationwide TV. Yet we didn't see an airplane sticking out the side of either tower.

If it hadn't been caught on video for all to see, I am sure the nutjob who did this slideshow would claim that planes didn't hit the WTC either.
christy_p From: christy_p Date: September 3rd, 2004 08:24 am (UTC) (Link)
what i remember from watching the 2nd hit on the WTC was that the plane did peak out the other side of the building...

*shrug* but anyway.
swolfe From: swolfe Date: September 3rd, 2004 10:23 am (UTC) (Link)
10 comments or Leave a comment