9/11 thread disappeared?

So where is the plane? The remains of everyone on board were found, and the block boxes were found (all supposedly at the crash site). Is the theory that the US hijacked the plane, kept it off radar, took it someplace and crashed it without any witnesses of any kind, then transported the remains and the black boxes to the Pentagon and spread them around in the wreckage?

8.jpg
 
JunkPunch said:
So where is the plane? The remains of everyone on board were found, and the block boxes were found (all supposedly at the crash site). Is the theory that the US hijacked the plane, kept it off radar, took it someplace and crashed it without any witnesses of any kind, then transported the remains and the black boxes to the Pentagon and spread them around in the wreckage?

8.jpg
No but they could have easily painted up any plane to look like a american airlines. Also the govt has the most to gain from the sept 11 disaster, think about it. After 9/11 every branch of the govt had their budget increased, cia, fbi, nsa, fema, and all the rest. So thats one example, number two is war. War is the biggest money maker of them all for corporations that is, especially defense contractors like the carlyle group. So these people had everything to gain and nothing to lose form these attacks. What did the terrorists have to gain by doing this? Scaring us? taking our freedom? The only people taking our freedoms are the people in washington DC. Thanks to them the terrorists have won and we have less freedom then we did before 9/11. Its a complete oxymoron guys. The terrorists attack us cause thye hate our freedom so the govt turns around and does it for them?
 
Yeah, I know what the arguments are for the goverment being behind this. My question is still unanswered: WHERE IS FLIGHT 77?

There is a hole in the entire theory though. If the "goverment" is behind the Pentagon attack, why NOT use the American Airlines flight? Why hijack the plane and ditch it someplace, then shoot a cruise missile into the Pentagon? It would have been a lot easier to just fly the AA plane into the Pentagon, wouldn't it? The whole theory doesn't make sense.
 
you're right that the theory has holes and doesn't make sense in certain areas, yet its the same with 'the truth'. I dunno one way or the other but there are so many gaps and holes in what is generally accepted as truth that I don't hold a grudge against anyone looking into it/at it from a conspiracy angle...
 
There are also hundreds of people that SAW the American Airlines plane coming in. You won't find their eye witness accounts on any of the conspiracy sites though.
 
im not saying i believe one thing over another... i was simply saying there were some holes to the supposed truth... thats my beef
 
JunkPunch said:
There are also hundreds of people that SAW the American Airlines plane coming in. You won't find their eye witness accounts on any of the conspiracy sites though.
Yeah, PLENTY of people saw the plane. I work with many people that saw it. Anyone on or around 395 on their way to work saw it.


Another Question: is acetylene (Sp) a hydrocarbon fuel? Because I know that can melt steel.

Answer:
Acetylene is simplest member of unsaturated hydrocarbons called alkynes or acetylenes. Most important of all starting materials for organic synthesis. Usefulness of actylene is partly due to the variety of addition reactions which its triple bond undergoes and partly due to the fact that its weakly acidic hydrogen atoms are replaceable by reaction with strong bases to form acetylide salts.

_______________________________________________________________
Pure acetylene is a colourless gas with a pleasant odour; as prepared from calcium carbide it usually contains traces of phosphine that cause an unpleasant garliclike odour. Acetylene can be decomposed to its elements with the liberation of heat. The decomposition may or may not give rise to explosions, depending on conditions. Pure acetylene under pressure in excess of about 15 pounds per square inch or in liquid or solid form explodes with extreme violence.

Mixtures of air and acetylene are explosive over a wide range, from about 2.5 percent air in acetylene to about 12.5 percent acetylene in air. When burned with the correct amount of air,
acetylene gives a pure, white light, and for this reason it was at one time used for illumination in locations where electric power was not available, e.g., buoys, miners' lamps, and road signals.
The combustion of acetylene produces a large amount of heat, and, in a properly designed torch, the oxyacetylene flame attains the highest flame temperature (about 6,000 F, or 3,300 C) of
any known mixture of combustible gases.

The hydrogen atoms in acetylene can be replaced by metallic elements to form acetylides--e.g., acetylides of silver, copper, or sodium. The acetylides of silver, copper, mercury, and gold are
detonated by heat, friction, or shock. In addition to its reactive hydrogen atom, the carbon-carbon triple bond can readily add halogens, halogen acids, hydrogen cyanide, alcohols, amines,
and amides. Acetylene can also add to itself or to aldehydes and ketones. Many of the reactions mentioned here are used for the commercial manufacture of various industrial and consumer
products, such as acetaldehyde, the synthetic rubber neoprene, water-base paints, vinyl fabric and floor coverings, dry-cleaning solvents, and aerosol insecticide sprays. Acetylene is
produced by any of three methods: by reaction of water with calcium carbide, by passage of a hydrocarbon through an electric arc, or by partial combustion of methane with air or oxygen.
 
Last edited:
I didn't ignore it...

Rism is simply wrong about hydrocarbon based fires not being able to melt steel...I pointed it out too, that steel melts lower than what even a natural gas flame can create...He still insists that he is right though, so I think he ignored us...oh well...
 
yeah, I've argued with him before... my real-world experience vs. his interweb knowledge
 
Also note the fact that even if it doesn't melt, metal gets WEAK from exposure to high temperatures. Planes, IIRC are made of aluminum, whic melts at a lower temp than steel. Which would make finding pieces quite difficult.
 
yeah that was my argument in my first post...it probably didn't turn into liquid steel, as melting implies...But from your article it noted that support steel loses over half its srength when heated to 1200*F...And after it heated just one beam enough to not be able to give support, a domino affect started that caused the entire building to collapse...
 
JunkPunch said:
Yeah, I know what the arguments are for the goverment being behind this. My question is still unanswered: WHERE IS FLIGHT 77?

There is a hole in the entire theory though. If the "goverment" is behind the Pentagon attack, why NOT use the American Airlines flight? Why hijack the plane and ditch it someplace, then shoot a cruise missile into the Pentagon? It would have been a lot easier to just fly the AA plane into the Pentagon, wouldn't it? The whole theory doesn't make sense.
It wouldnt be easy at all, I have read many interviews with pilots who have said it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to fly a plane into the pentagon like that, especially with it flying feet above the ground going 100s of miles and hour. Supposedly these terrorists did this though yet all the pople who knew them at the flight school said these guys were the worst pilots they have ever seen.

Also us not knowing where the real flight 77 went does not = a hole in out theory. But from what I know about the plane dissapearing in ohio I would suggest that it landed in ohio and who knows what happend from there. But I do know it did not hit the pentagon.

Also Im still waiting for that one shred of evidence that a 757 hit the pentagon.
 
Last edited:
Most believe they weren't aiming for the pentagon, they were trying to get the White house or Capitol. Anyway, it's not hard to crash.....
 
Well think about it. Planes hit the WTC towers at 845 and 905 AM. This "plane" hit the Pentagon at 940 AM. I'm sorry, but the instant they said planes hit the WTC, fighters were in the air, and I know for damn sure that one of the F16's or F22's from Langley here could have easily gotten to DC by then. Why didn't they shoot it down? Obviously it was not responding and acting very erratically, it would be a prime target for them.

Also, would you rather tell the American public that a plane hit the Pentagon, or confess that terrorists or a rogue state acquired a cruise missle and hit the Pentagon with it?
 
Wow, there's been some interesting replies on here. I think it's very arrogant of anyone to claim to KNOW what happened to flight 77, on either side of this story. We don't know, we weren't there. There are people who know, but for some reason they won't show us the videotapes of the pentagon from that day. What are they hiding? Why are they hiding it? There is ALWAYS a reason. I will not claim to know what happened, I just want to be able to analyze the data and make my own conclusions. I will not simply believe something because someone told me it's true without backing it up. I've seen evidence for both sides, but it seems like most of the evidence for the pro-plane theory is "classified." How many of us have actually seen enough proof, either way, to prove their theory? None of us.

I don't think anyone is debating the fact the place could have melted part of itself, but the whole thing just vaporized? Come on. Maybe part of the thin fuselage, but BOTH engines just melted and aren't there any more? What about the landing gear, it's huge? The most interesting piece of evidence I've found so far is this: According to the government report, while the plane itself was completely consumed in the fire, the bodies inside of it were not. In fact, 184 out of 189 bodies were identified by DNA testing. This site (put out by the military) calls it a "Forensic Feat":
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6_48/national_news/12279-1.html
Ok, I can see why that's impressive. The problem is, I've found on several sites that that DNA remains intact only below 100 degrees celcius. Here's a link:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-12136
So here's my question: If the fire was so incredibly hot that it vaporized the plane, where did the DNA come from to test? Obviously, the bodies of the people never reached an outrageous temperature for an extended period of time. Therefore, the plane never reached an outrageous temperature for an extended period of time. This begs the same question I've been wondering. Where the heck is the plane? There should be HUGE pieces of it left.

Again, I'm not saying that I KNOW what happened since I'm so damn smart, but there are just so many holes in the reports that I can't believe it. I refuse to be lead to accept a theory as reality without some kind of supporting evidence. The anti-plane theorists have given their evidence. Can someone give us some solid pro-plane evidence? The government's on trial here, and if we are to convict those supposedly responsible, they have to prove to us beyond a reasonable doubt that a plane hit the pentagon. They have not.
 
There are holes in the entire 9/11 story. Have you investigate WTC 7 yet mach? There are about 10 times more holes in that one than there are with the pentagon.
 
Back