Planes do Not Vaporize

[Jester_11218]

http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=355

Talk all you want about a single frame of film...never in aviation history has a plane vaporized. We lost space shuttles and were able to piece them back together. Where are the crime scene images and video? Why was this crime not completely documented on film or video?

I'll tell you why...all the EVIDENCE points to an inside job.

Forget the theories...just focus on the evidence. There is little evidence to support the official version and there is a TON of evidence pointing to other explanations.

When will we simply match the evidence to the official story? All you have to do is compare their version of the events to what is in the public record and their story falls apart!

Aaaarg!

[i miss america]

1. WTF???

The government felt THAT footage was sensitive? It was total bullshit!

[Missy M]

2. They do when they hit a fortified brick or concrete wall...

going 300 mph or whatever it was. When will people stop with the no airplane hit the pentagon nonsense.

[karlrschneider]

4. The REAL magic was hypnotizing the hundreds of eyewitnesses

who just -thought- they saw an airliner!!11!!1!

[petgoat]

5. Seeing somebody two blocks from a strip joint and seeing them

IN the strip joint are two different things.

[karlrschneider]

14. Could you possibly think of a more arcane analogy?

:eyes:

[walkon]

6. I challenge you to find

100's of quotes from eyewitnesses. Washington is awash with video surveillance - this is all they got?

[karlrschneider]

11. I don't need more than one...from a good friend of mine who saw it.

He is a Bird Colonel who I taught to fly in 1965 after which he joined the USAF and now works in the Pentagon. He was an active pilot for 20+ years and knows what airplanes look like - he saw it. That's plenty good enuf for me.

Edit: To be excruciatingly accurate, he does not NOW work at the Pentagon, he retired 2 years ago.

[Jester_11218]

16. Fine...WHERE IS THE PLANE?

Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...Show me the plane...!!!!!!!!!!

Please...just show me the plane! I don't trust anyone in our government anymore. They lied about everything! They wanted a new Pearl Harbor and they got it. Show me the plane!

[enough already]

44. You can't see a plane in that footage

All you see is an explosion. There is also a car in the background driving AWAY from the Pentagon. Human nature to me would be to stop or slow down an look. This video only further convinces me that this was an inside job.

[vincent_vega_lives]

63. Parts will have to do.

[bmcatt]

70. Ah, but parts from what?

Those are great pictures. It's a shame they're not conclusive, though.

Picture 1: Only shows shearing, not any burning or scorching.

Picture 2: Lots of nice burning rubble... No plane parts here.

Picture 3: More lack of plane parts. Plus, oooh look - *intact* windows pretty much adjacent to the charred areas of the building.

Picture 4 and 6: Very interesting. It's definitely part of an engine. What I find most fascinating is that the configuration of the ports on around the circumference are too close to the edge, pretty much *disproving* that it's the same part.

Picture 5: Turbine hub - based on analysis, it's too small to be from the Rolls-Royce (or Pratt and Whitney) engines on a B757.

I personally like looking at 9-11 and the Impossible - the Pentagon which covers a lot of this, plus more. Between the damage configuration, parts of the aircraft that were recovered, etc., it just adds more to the speculation.

Going back to pictures 4 and 5, those are large portions of an airframe. They *would* have serial numbers which could be used to track *exactly* from which plane they came. Pretty much every part, down to and *including* things like cotter pins, have serial numbers so that accident investigation can track them back to the manufacturer, etc. Why has there *never* been a discussion about the specific serial numbers of these parts?

One thing that continues to fascinate me is how, with relative ease, it would be possible to settle many of the outstanding questions:

a) Release confiscated video from the gas station, the hotel, or the DoT - if there was a B757, those would show it.

b) Release the serial numbers of the parts found on scene. These could be tracked, through the manufacturers, to determine the specific plane in which they were installed.

If both, or, I'd even suggest, either, of these was done, it would resolve most of the questions that continue to plague people. The lack of release is, in itself, indicative that this information *cannot* be released because it would be incriminating.

[truth2power]

69. Thanks, jester. You're right...

I came to that conclusion long ago. No passenger jet impacted the Pentagon. I trust the evidence of my own senses. Those on this thread who want to ridicule can do so. Whatever.

No plane. End of discussion.

[frylock]

21. oh, well. if a friend of yours in the military saw it..

well then, I'm convinced. Thanks for clearing that up.

[karlrschneider]

30. I believe him and I know him to be an expert aviator since

I taught him to fly in the first place. I sure as hell put more credence in what he has told me than some tinfoil hat idiot who wasn't within a thousand miles of the event.

[walkon]

23. Uh,

"hypnotizing the HUNDREDS of eyewitnesses" is explained by your one bird colonel? Challenge not met - not even close.

[Bouvet_Island]

56. A friend of mines parents saw the plane as well,

they are ex military as well but I know this guy aint kidding. Both him and his parents suspect foul play that day and state so, they only don't beleive there was no plane.

As me they believe the no plane theory aint but giant and perfect distraction from the fact that the maneuvering ahead of the plane's crash is far ahead of what most professional pilots could manage, on a good day. I has been debunked over and over, and it still is picture perfect propaganda almost too good for The Bushistas to have made it.

About every real and good question are backed off. A people's movement to see the black boxes as an example would put focus in a place where it would hurt, sending people on sideroutes from the black boxes would educate them about the kind of peculiarities about the official story it is feasible to communicate to normal people. Sending them sideways from the no plane story will either send them into vacum, or into cuckoo land. People will not be very successful as neither activists nor communicators, hurting their case rather than advancing it.

[Bouvet_Island]

57. A friend of mines parents saw the plane as well,

they are ex military as well but I know this guy aint kidding. Both him and his parents suspect foul play that day and state so, they only don't beleive there was no plane.

As me they believe the no plane theory aint but giant and perfect distraction from the fact that the maneuvering ahead of the plane's crash is far ahead of what most professional pilots could manage, on a good day. I has been debunked over and over, and it still is picture perfect propaganda almost too good for The Bushistas to have made it.

About every real and good question are backed off. A people's movement to see the black boxes as an example would put focus in a place where it would hurt, sending people on sideroutes from the black boxes would educate them about the kind of peculiarities about the official story it is feasible to communicate to normal people. Sending them sideways from the no plane story will either send them into vacum, or into cuckoo land. People will not be very successful as neither activists nor communicators, hurting their case rather than advancing it.

[Big Kahuna]

12. That's one explaination

I just saw the video, watched it loop over and over. The first frame contained what I saw as a white blur. Could be anything. Others claim that they "clearly saw an airliner". I think there's some major cognitive dissonance going on.

[frylock]

20. positive id of an object flying 500 mph at ground level

yuh-huh.

[m0nkeyneck]

34. exactly

[vincent_vega_lives]

62. I have pos ID' plenty of Aircraft flying at 500mph + at low alt

They are called Thunderbirds and Blue Angles.

[casual hex]

9. FORTIFIED WALL

The fact that the plane hit a fortified brick or concrete wall, as you say, all the more means that almost the entire plane should have been outside the building in a big lump near the wall.

Where are the photos and videos of this wreckage near the fortified wall?

[karlrschneider]

17. Fortified so well it failed to stop an airplane from penetrating it?

Sorry, but you debunked your own argument.

[casual hex]

19. Uh oh...

:thumbsdown:

[Popol Vuh]

42. Then if the whole plane penetrated the building

Can you explain why the hole it left was way too small to accommodate the size of the airplane?

Can't have it both ways.

Either the plane had to make a hole big enough to accommodate it's size (which it didn't), or you have to have plane wreckage of the parts of the plane laying around outside that didn't penetrate the building.

[vincent_vega_lives]

61. How bout all three?

Plane penetrated the building, left tons of debris on the lawn (figure of speech not the measure of weight) AND left a hole that will accommodate a 757.

Do some critical analysis.

[Zynx]

25. Take a physics class.

[casual hex]

26. That is quite funny actually...

Since I have a degree in physics from a university in England.

[karlrschneider]

27. You should demand a refund.

...

[casual hex]

28. Where is the plane?

Where are the videos of the plane approaching the Pentagon? Where are the photos of some pieces of the plane. The Engines? Wings?

Keep drinking it if you must

[karlrschneider]

29. I could ask you the same question...if you don't believe 100s of

eyewitnesses, you'll need to let us in on where the mysteriously missing 757 and 60-odd humans that embarked on it, are now.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

[Pacifist Patriot]

45. I'm in the undecided camp, but I have to ask...

'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex. 'Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards,' he said."

This isn't exactly compelling eye witness testimony. A cruise missle does have wings, doesn't it? It looks like a plane. In fact a lot of this testimony says, "plane." Not jet, not commercial airliner, but just plane. I noticed in one of the quotations that whoever recordered the witness testimony adds "saw United Airlines flight 77" when someone in the area would have had absolutely no idea what the flight was. That makes me wonder about leading questions.

I too know someone who claims to have witnessed the event and he flat out says he hasn't a clue what happened because it all happened so fast. He was on the highway and then "boom!" all hell broke loose. We cannot conclude from his testimony that no plane hit the Pentagon simply because he never saw one.

I'm afraid I'm too much of a skeptic when it comes to eyewitnesses (or in a number of the cases sited at the link, earwitnesses). I explain that based on my own personal September 11 experience here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=89221&mesg_id=89221

[Zynx]

49. Planes are hundreds of times bigger than cruise missiles.

Really not plausible someone would confuse them.

[Pacifist Patriot]

51. Granted, but a Cessna isn't a commercial airliner either.

If you read the link to my other post you'll know why I say that. I think it is plausible to confuse an object hurtling over your head at 500ft per second. Hell, I'd be ducking and probably wouldn't see a thing! ;)

[Pacifist Patriot]

52. I wish your link had quoted Walter in broader context.

I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon.

That's a key context I would think.

[m0nkeyneck]

54. seems like an object of any size/shape traveling @ 500+ mph..

and smashing into a nearby structure would seem like nothing more than a blurred streak and an immediate explosion..

[Zynx]

50. You clearly did not learn anything.

[frylock]

22. so did it vaporize on impact, or break through the fortified walls?

It has to be one or the other.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Broke through the walls

Most of it, anyway, like the fuselage. Some of it was torn away on impact and blown all over the place in the ensueing explosion. You can see parts of the plane sailing over the Pentagon roof, along with smaller pieces flying everywhere. The second, closer video from the security cams shows that vividly.

Vaporizing has only ever been a metaphor to describe the absolute destruction involved in both the WTC and the Pentagon attacks.

[StealthyDragon]

74. When will people stop with the no airplane hit the pentagon nonsense.

When the laws of physics change.

Or you start to understand them

[GregD]

3. That footage they are showing on CNN

shows a nose section of the aircraft that is very pointy - like a military or small passenger jet and not the blunt rounded shape of an airliner.

Where is there a photo of the aircraft that was supposedly to have crashed into the Pentagon?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. I agree. There should be something left of the plane. After the crash,

fire and collapse of the WTC, bits of the planes were found in the area.

This "film" is yet ANOTHER distraction from the real issues of the day.
Guess what the papers and MSM on TV will be talking about today?

This is just another way for Dimson to shout "TERROR! 9/11! Terror! 9/11!"
It brings it back everyone's mind.

[petgoat]

8. Planes don't normally vaporize. This could be a different

case because it hit a reinforced wall and the fire was
confined in an enclosed space. Most plane fires are
out in the open.

[Jester_11218]

15. All the more reason

Closed space...less air...cooler fire.

Space shuttles exploded...we have parts. Show me parts. There are titaniim engine parts.
Where are the engine holes in the building? Where did the wings and tail go?

110 tons of parts...vaporized? Show me the vapor!

[karlrschneider]

18. If it wasn't the airliner, WHERE THE FUCK IS IT?

I better go away, I'm getting really pissed.

[StealthyDragon]

75. I think that's pretty simple to figure out.........

it never existed.

[Jester_11218]

10. It was a plane - Not a Boeing

From everything that has been discovered it seems that the plan was a Skywarrior...not a 757.

Again...where is the plane?
How could it have fit into a 60 foot hole, which was the size of the hole beofer the fron collapsed 22 minutes later.

WHERE IS THE PLANE??? WHERE ARE THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOS OF THE PLANE?
Show me the plane...not quotes of people who said they saw the plane because MANY people claimed that they saw a small commuter jet.

Here is a film that has the original footage: Watch it for free. Forget the conclusions...just examine the evidence.

http://tvnewslies.org/html/watch_loose_change_2_on_line.html

[MervinFerd]

24. YES THEY DO!!!!! Spontaneous Airframe Combustion (tm)!!!!

"It's like Spontaneous Human Combustion, only with aluminum." (tm)

The military has been working on weaponizing this phenomenon for decades.

Everybody knows this.

[Sinti]

31. Watch this video - the body of a plane will turn to something like glitter

upon striking a concrete wall at 500 mph.

http://www.break.com/index/concreteplane.html

[laruemtt]

32. just incredible how

they were able to get dna from body parts in the "glitter."

[KFC]

33. That pretty much sets it to rest

Of course planes will vaporize. Nice find.

:thumbsup:

[TomClash]

39. Except that . . .

the concrete wall in the video was built for a nuclear reactor. The Pentagon was built in 1943. The first nuclear power station was built in the US in 1957. Was the Pentagon built to withstand that kind of impact?

"The pilot walked away unharmed" was worth a chuckle though.

[Sinti]

53. The plane at the Pentagon actually penetrated

Additionally, that part of the Pentagon was undergoing refurbishing and hardening, so they say... so lucky, to get hit on the protected side, yes?

[karlrschneider]

36. Hey...that wasn't a jet, it was a missile remotely controlled by

Saddam Hussein, painted to LOOK like a plane! They made up several just like that one, and used #2 on the Pentagon!!!11!1!1!!

[Sinti]

38. Psst...we're after Iran now, with an "N" - didn't you get the memo? n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

40. To bad they never show you the back side of the wall

which in one clip you can see the nose of the plane coming through before they cut it.

Nor do you get to see the results after the crash. How much of the plane was recognizable after the test? Were there big recognizable pieces left or was it all dust? Hard to tell since the film is carefully crafted not to show the results of the impact.

[Pacifist Patriot]

48. I'd also be interested in an impact pattern left on a larger wall.

Do the wings leave a gash in the wall or do they collapse back and go through the nose cone hole giving the impression of a single point of entry like the head of a missile?

[savemefromdumbya]

73. some holes

http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackDamage.shtml
http://pentagon.batcave.net/hole.html

[greyl]

82. Too bad you're imagining that.

Nose of the plane coming through? Absolutely not.

[StealthyDragon]

76. You can't expect the same out come

one wall is two feet. There other ten. Plus a 757 has more kinetic energy.

[veracity]

35. kick

important enough

[ediedidcare]

37. Planes don't vaporize...

especially if they have to make a 16' hole 3 rings in.

Hey guvmint story people-explain the hole punch from vapor???

[Maru Kitteh]

41. Planets - Hell, STARS vaporize

with the proper forces. One little plane? Not so hard to vaporize. Just run it screaming into a seriously fortified building at hundreds of miles an hour.

[Pacifist Patriot]

46. Self-delete. Never mind. Sorry, dumb question.

[rman]

58. yeah, but the dna survives...

[StealthyDragon]

77. Comparing stars to jets...........

Do you believe in miracles?

[theboss]

43. Where did the bodies come from?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61202-2001Nov20

[Pacifist Patriot]

47. It's not just the bodies....

This takes us back to one of my hang ups. "A team of more than 100 workers at a military morgue at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware used several methods to identify remains..."

Way too many people are involved. Both before and after the fact. Surely a thread would have come unraveled via the human element.

For the record: I don't know what happened. Official story AND conspiracy theories all have too many holes for my taste.

[coalition_unwilling]

55. Ditto here. I've always called myself an "agnostic" on 9/11.

I would strongly recommend everyone read David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor." In it, he makes the cogent (I think) point that the official 9/11 narrative is itself a conspiracy theory of sorts (al quaida, osama bin laden). When I read that, I felt liberated to keep an open mind and not buy everything the government was telling us.

To wit, remember how various and sundry members of BFEE said "No one could have predicted . . .?" Then subsequently it was revealed that, while date and time were not predicted, there were very highly specific warnings in the system in early August, 2001. That right there ought to lend credence to LIHOP theories.

I see it possibly as an intel black ops run amuck, with incompetent foot soldiers perhaps. But the framers of the black ops created (a la Oliver Stone's "JFK") an external frame (al quaida, osama bin laden) and within that, probably smaller frames in case the larger one became too widely discredited. All with an eye to deflecting people's attention from the real spooks pulling the strings. In that, the framers of the black ops were all too successful.

[StealthyDragon]

78. Actually.....

not enough people were involved.

233 people on four cross country flights?

Whoever created Operation Neowoods screwed up big time.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. Thay make a lot of the same arguements I have been

making here for years.

[rman]

66. contradicting arguments

[vincent_vega_lives]

67. No contradiction in the ones regarding

a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. Nope

Some researchers claim that a 110 ton Boeing 757 hit the building, leaving only a 16 foot hole in the facade (prior to its collapse some 22 minutes after the initial impact.)

16'x 16' in the middle. 124' x 10' at the base of Pentagon, centered on the hole. Hmmm wonder what made that?

Some say it was an unmanned Global Hawk armed with depleted uranium missiles, :wtf: Sorry been around Military hardware for a long time, new one by me.

Planes do not simply vaporize Nope, thanks for that...but they do disintergrate.

Where's the 747 in this picture? MUCH bigger than a 757, must have been a missile:

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w921004.htm

Sorry this guy is way less smart as he thinks he is.

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. If it WAS a cruise missile

It would have been a lot bigger than the 16' hole people here are claiming...and there would have been peices of the pentagon scattered everywhere. A 2,000 lb HE warhead would have had a much different effect than thousands of gallons of jet fuel. Less heat/fire, much higher detonation velocity.

[StealthyDragon]

79. plus a missile........

would have the same problem a 757 would have.

Suddenly flying horizontally after navigating the overpass.

Not likely. (actually impossible)

[savemefromdumbya]

71. if it vaporized the plane why are the trees still there?

[StealthyDragon]

80. easy...........

the trees were genetically modified just like the lawn!

;o)

[leftofthedial]

72. planes do too vaporize

when one is using that "fact" to "debunk" wacky conspiracy theorists

[StealthyDragon]

81. They do in Bushzarro world.

In the real world...........never happens.