|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:00 am
phsycoticsniper does it really matter??? i mean plane or bomb it caused damge didnt it? well but i did come here to discuss it so *sighs* okay... It could have been a plane because in the video they said something like 6400 gallons of fuel?! or something like that i mean thats enough to cause a explosion from a missile. and missiles are programmed to explode on impact so if it hit the first wall it would have blown up and if uve ever seen a missile blow that close to the ground it will and does create craters so it could be both or none who knows it really is irrelevent i mean something blew up in the pentagon do u really need to know anymore? not quite true, missles can be programmed in any numbers of ways, putting a timer so it can punch through a few layers before the explosion, or the use of satalites to say 'don't blow up untill you stop or are at 'this' location'
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:31 pm
The problem is that they recovered less aluminum than would be used in a plane of that size. then theirs the fact that a cruise missile sized jet engine turned up. have none of you heard of concussion waves? if a jet was low enough to hit the poles yet fast enough to shatter as would be nessicary given the debris scatter the concussion would have turned the cracks in the concrete into full depth cracks which would have required near immeadate patching yet they remain unpatched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:40 pm
Well, that argument assumes that you know exactly how much aluminum was recovered from the crash site, and how much would be needed for both a plane and a missle, and how much should be there at the site, taking into account unrecovered aluminum from vaporization, miniscule particles, and other such reasons.
Basically, we only have very shoddy evidence to work with that the government hasn't classified, so we don't have enough to make assumptions one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:50 am
i believe that it was a missile. although their is no solid evidence either way. i do find the fact that there were no plane engines, wings, tail fins.... or indeed anything strewn around a mite worrying. and also the only cctv footage was 5 frames long. the other cctv sources were promptly removed from a nearby gas station after the incident. why has that never been released?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:22 pm
I Wacthed a show yesterday thats about a possible conspiracy about 9/11 where bombs were used cuz if you look closely to when the towers fell, you can actually see smoke suddenly blow out of windows about 50 floors below where they plane crashed. And that the pentagon was hit by a missle, but covered up. Becuase it was a Hole, and the damage where the wings and engine of the plane were suppose to crash into were not seen. And also on Flight 93 there was no debris of a plane in the field at all, and that the Cell Phone calls made on the flight were all fabricated becuase the flight was above 33,000 feet in the air which is IMPOSSIBLE for cell phone usage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:22 pm
I don't suppose you have source material to back up your claims? As far as I can tell, there's nothing that says that cell phones stop functioning above a certain height, simply that most airlines don't allow them due to potential interference that might arise from their use. This alone shows that they are able to be used if they're banning them for that reason, otherwise there would be no point. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:15 pm
dboyzero I don't suppose you have source material to back up your claims? As far as I can tell, there's nothing that says that cell phones stop functioning above a certain height, simply that most airlines don't allow them due to potential interference that might arise from their use. This alone shows that they are able to be used if they're banning them for that reason, otherwise there would be no point. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.html my sources are not the sort one ought go boasting about but given all factors you have named and a few you havent my numbers are right to .01% margin of error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
