|
Post by Wes on Mar 7, 2010 13:24:49 GMT 10
Ok,Ok,Ok, I think they could have, and did for that matter, fly the planes into the buildings, thats pretty obvious. My understanding is that the computer controlling the planes had built in safety features that stop abrupt maneuvers. The computers would have to be reprogrammed to allow sharp turns. I think that this has to be done while the plane is on the ground. Can these big planes fly without a computer? Maybe, I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Rareclan on Mar 7, 2010 15:16:23 GMT 10
My problem is that no evidence of a plane exists,witnesses can say what they want.Not even fake footage of a plane because maybe that would disprove it possible to fly into the Pentagon.
|
|
|
Post by Wes on Mar 7, 2010 16:41:51 GMT 10
Only Aired Once About PENTAGON on CNN.
|
|
|
Post by Wes on Mar 7, 2010 16:53:57 GMT 10
Why is the hole so small and fire damage different than at the WTC?
|
|
|
Post by Wes on Mar 7, 2010 17:07:05 GMT 10
Ok, you almost have me convinced, so why when the planes hit the towers we got footage from a few different places and angles. Why have they not released more surveilance fottage from in and around the Pentagon, which must be one of the most heavily covered CCTV areas on earth. I would just like to know why they dont release the footage, or is it an attempt to foster crazy conspiracy theroies?
|
|
|
Post by shatnerswig on Mar 7, 2010 17:42:20 GMT 10
Why is the hole so small and fire damage different than at the WTC? not all buildings are built to the same standard in the usa the pentagon is designed way differently that wtc1 & 2 wes it is a military bldg , it is built to higher strenght than a commercial building .... different design different damage its really just that simple .
|
|
|
Post by shatnerswig on Mar 7, 2010 17:49:08 GMT 10
hey wes check out this vid see how the plane is completely destroyed and you can see some of the wall being reduced to dust? well think of this but on a bigger scale with a huge passenger jet and the small wall being a renforced military building and you will understand a little better why we don t have alot of big debris pieces at the pentagon..
|
|
|
Post by Wes on Mar 7, 2010 18:02:15 GMT 10
Yeah shatner this video is good evidence that the plane would have vaporized. I see the point that you are making about the difference in the damage as compares to the WTC.
|
|
|
Post by shatnerswig on Mar 7, 2010 18:02:40 GMT 10
that is the million dollar question. why they won't release them makes no sense. i will not defend that. I'm also perplexed by the lack of amateur video of the plane on approach to the pentagon. we have amateur footage of the aftermath but nothing else. this is just an idea but I don t think a far as civilian video is concerned that the pentagon is really high on the home video my vacation to Washington list its pretty much just a huge office bldg , not like the white house or other touristy type places where average people would be videotaping it before the attack .. it was kinda the same with the 1st of the tower attacks , much less video of the 1st plane hitting , by the time the 2nd one hit lots of cameras were rolling so we have much more video of that plus wtc while being a huge office bldg was also a landmark bldg and a symbol of the USA so tourists were taking vids all the time every day and even at night most likely they were really something to behold ..... as for government cams , don t have a clue ... maybe they don t want people to know the locations of the cams??/ but thats just a guess .
|
|
|
Post by shatnerswig on Mar 7, 2010 18:07:14 GMT 10
heres something interesting that i just found maybe its not new to everyone but here goes look out below
|
|