Missile Hit ?

I don't think it's very funny either, and I don't like the rock sound track, but I work at an airport and watch 757s take off daily. There SHOULD be more debris. The wings and engines on those things are massive and there should be more damage on either side of the entry hole. The engines on a 757 are nearly big enough to ingest a minivan and should have pulverized the walls on either side of the impact point. I agree that I don't think a missile did this, but it doesn't look like a 757 did either. The engine cores don't just evaporate. Were they ever found on the grounds or in the building? If the flight suspected of causing the damage didn't do it, the question then would be, where are the passengers and the plane that disappeared? The conspiracy theory sounds like major BS, but something there doesn't add up.
I'm sorry for your friend's loss and don't mean to fan the flames, but something seems to be missing.
Scott McCrate
Reply to
Scott McCrate
Loading thread data ...
Yes, they were. Do a little research into real facts instead of relying on crackpots who post loony conspiracy theories.
Reply to
RayDunakin
Dear Poo Poo Head,
Please see my responses in line...
My wife is a US citizen, butt brain. She was almost
Mail Order?
She seems to have balls. We know who wears the pants in the relationship.
Does that cost extra?
Judging by the Nazi policies you drafted for Frontier Rocketry, this scares me.
I guess that puts her one step ahead of you. Your childish, irrelevant insults and name calling suck all credibility from your arguments. Do you use phrases such as "butt brain" and "vommit face" when you interact with these "world leaders". And just to clear things up, your Colin Powell GI Joe doll that you play with in the bathtub does not count as a world leader. Yes, that means your homemade voodoo doll versions of Chirac and Putin don't count either.
Please elaborate on your "reasons" for your positions. I'm curious how distorted your view of reality really is...
Dude Arnold you are whack.
Your Friend, Jamal XOXOXO
Reply to
Jamal
I intend to. Point me to some places that show more of the wreckage. I think it's most likely that it was the flight and plane in question that did the damage, just that on the face of it it doesn't look like it. I'm not supporting a conspiracy theory that the government itself was responsible (except in terms of disgusting bungling of intelligence). One thing that is hard to tell from the images, mostly from telephoto lenses which compress depth of field, is that the Pentagon is a HUGE building and so the visual scale of the destroyed area is hard to judge well. It could be that most of the plane including the engines could have penetrated into the front impact zone. I'm not trying to support cover-ups and conspiracy based on one flash animation, just that it is hard to believe a 757 would leave so little apparent wreckage. Prior to watching the animation, I had thought that the plane was a 737 like the ones that hit the WTC. A smaller plane would be more consistent with the external evidence.
Scott McCrate NAR 71680
Reply to
Scott McCrate
The WTC planes were 757 or 767. Not 737.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
I believe those two models were designed to have a consistent user interface between them, so that one set of flying lessons would suffice to get a pilot "type rated" in both... this seems to have been part of the reason that the hijackers selected flights using those particular aircraft for their plan.
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
Snopes has a page about this which provides a lot of good info rebutting the conspiracy claims:
formatting link

Reply to
RayDunakin
The planes that hit the WTC were, two 767 aircraft, not two 737 models. Also an airplane that hits a stationary object, such as a building, at flight airspeed, penetrates the building and breaks up into many small pieces. I remember seeing a picture of a main landing gear, I believe it was from the Pentagon, and it was definitely a 757 main gear truck assembly. Also I know at tleast one individual, that I talked to, who was driving by the Pentagon on I-395 and saw the plane right before and at impact. As for as pictures of the wreckage, out of respect for the families, you will not find much that was released, to the media. That's just the way it is.
Fred
Scott McCrate wrote:
Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace
They were also coast to coast flights near the beginnings of their trips. Thus maximum fuel load on board. If the two planes that hit the WTC were 'running on empty' the towers probably would have survived. But with all the fuel, the fire was intense enough to take out the sprinkler system. QED.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
I was informed in a quite nasty tone by a troll that used to live here that I didn't know what I was talking about since it was in fact 757s that hit the WTC. I then looked it up and found that they were 767s so the troll accusing me of talking out of my tuckus was actually talking out of his as well. If you're going to cream someone for their facts, you'd better have your own sorted out.
In my defense I was working from visual memory and 767s look like over-sized 737s while a 757 is a totally different looking plane. I knew the Trade Towers were huge, but the fact that the planes were 767s really blew my mind since the 767 is a truly huge airplane. I have to readjust my visual impression of the relative sizes of the tower compared to the plane in proximity to it before impact. All the more frightening when considering the impact energies. I still see the towers in short cityscape images in reruns of pre-9/11 TV shows and I get a sick feeling every time.
I'm going to just shelve this for now until I come up with more data.
Sorry for even thinking about this and having the gall to question the evidence.
Scott McCrate
Reply to
Scott McCrate
Um, no thanks. I apparently have given folks the impression that I jump on any half-baked paranoid idea that comes along when in fact I'm just trying to see if their claims have any merit. In truth the visual evidence does look odd, but my rational self knows that the dynamics of this kind of high-energy impact can have many counter-intuitive effects. As I stated in my response to Ray's polite slapdown, I think the relative scale of the building is much larger than the images would seem to indicate so it's hard to judge the actual size of the impact area compared to the size I know that a 757 is. Also apparently, thinking of possibilities outside that which is fed to you by the press or government gets you labeled a fringe character. Don't ask questions comrade...
Scott McCrate NAR 71680
Reply to
Scott McCrate
Scott, I'm sorry that my reply came across as a "slapdown". To me, the idea that this tragic event was really some pointless government conspiracy is so absurd as to be utterly beyond belief. But I could have been a bit more tactful.
Reply to
RayDunakin
Hey Scott,
I have no problem with questioning the standard media drivel. I just think this is a bit too OT for this group - though at least its about something flying through the air! ;^)
Also, I posted some refutation links earlier that (I think) shoot down the movie and the conspiracy theory promulgated by the French guy. I found those links after my neighbor sent me the same movie and then did my OWN questioning.
Reply to
bit eimer
Well the topic was Missile Hit, so it's almost on topic :0P. Anyway, I should have gone to Snopes first thing. Great info there.
Scott "a little wiser, a little less gullible" McCrate
Reply to
Scott McCrate

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.