The Titanic sinking conspiracy theory

[santaman2000]

Yes we have to take the word of the slippery CIA that all was in order at the scene of the crash.

Yet it's odd how an F4 Phantom can disintegrate against a concrete wall like that video shown previously but an fully laden Airliner make all that damage and the heaviest parts, two 6-ton titanium steel alloy engines and not punch any holes in the outside walls while the tubular fuselage and soft bodied passengers and crew could penetrate so deeply into the building... and then disappear somehow inside in the flames...

The CIA and the FAA. I didn't see the video in question but what you describe really isn't that odd. The pentagon isn't concrete and an airliner isn't flying at near the speed of an F4. The engines may be the hardest part of an aircraft but even so, the center of mass is the fuselage.

As to whether there was any wreckage left at the Pentagon...Well really we have to take theie word on that as well don't we. It would be as easy to remove the wreckage secretly as it would to fake the crash. Just how far can we take a conspiracy? In either direction?

 

[HillBill]

i find your attitude smug and boorish, and you're assertion that you aren't a conspiracy theorist is belied by your weighing in on almost any discussion related to one, or politics, or end of the world prophecies, or any global event, with an assertion that it didn't happen the way it was said, or people are interpreting it wrong etc. there's a point where thinking you have a nose for b.llsh.t becomes paranoia. my post previously was a direct response to your implied 'everyone who agrees with the official line is a moron' post, and yes, that is a condensed version.

This is the first thread like this i've said anything in for over 2 years mate. So once again, you are wrong.

Aint you the chap who tried to rip Tom off on UKBF?

 

[tinderbox]

You've invoked Godwin...

No! You're the one that just invoked Godwin.

 

[wingstoo]

I've never been to a crash site and I bow to the fact that you have, and certainly don't envy you, must be horrific, but this is about as confirmed a crash site as you're gonna get and look at the devastation and burning.

Lockerbie! :yikes:


Si

And that wasn't the whole aircraft, my Ex-inlaws went past that row of houses, two of which went missing when the crash occured, and they said that the photo's are not a true reflection of the devistation that occured, if you look at the car at the front of the crater it gives a bit of scale.

 

[santaman2000]

I've never been to a crash site and I bow to the fact that you have, and certainly don't envy you, must be horrific, but this is about as confirmed a crash site as you're gonna get and look at the devastation and burning.

Lockerbie! :yikes:


Si

Fair enough example. But remember I never said there aren't large craters (or fires). I said I'd never seen smoking "earth" and notice there's non in that photo either. All the fires, ash, and smoke are from the buildings. I also said that there aren't "always" large craters. It all depends on the circumstances of the crash; that's the whole point of crash "investigation."

TBH attending a crash site "after the fact" wasn't as bad as the one I witnessed crash.

 

[santaman2000]

And that wasn't the whole aircraft, my Ex-inlaws went past that row of houses, two of which went missing when the crash occured, and they said that the photo's are not a true reflection of the devistation that occured, if you look at the car at the front of the crater it gives a bit of scale.

No and it's probably best to remember that this wasn't a true "crash" either. The plane blew up in the air and scattered pieces (some larger than others) fell to earth seperately and to scattered locations.

 

[Urban X]

@ wingstoo Yep agreed, the devastation was horrendous and as you say that wasn't even the whole thing, kinda put's that hole in the ground the other 'phantom' plane is supposed to have made into perspective.

Glad you noticed the car it really does show the size of that crater. That was a tragedy that's often overlooked nowdays, absolutely shocking!


SI

 

[Urban X]

All the fires, ash, and smoke are from the buildings.

I just can't accept that all that ash and scorched earth at the end of that crater is purely from the buildings. And as that wasn't a whole craft, shouldn't the hole in the other pic be even more massive? I do not believe a plane crashed there and never will.


Si

 

[cbr6fs]

An example being the lack of plane wreckage at 2 crash sites in the same day. On both of which, damage caused by said planes was too small and localised to even be caused by the size of aircraft said to be in the crashes.

There is NO evidence that a plane hit the pentagon or crashed in that field, none whatsoever.

I can understand that there wouldn't be "much" debris, after something hit the pentagon. But none at all? Not even a scrap? Thats practically impossible. Funny how the only debris they found from any of the crashes, was the ID of the suspects or victims. Yet no trace of any aircraft?

If the debris from the other crash was spread out, why is there no evidence of it? no photos, no video footage, nothing. Just someone saying so.

End of the day people believe what ever they want to believe.
The evidence is out there if people can be open minded and bothered to look.

 

[santaman2000]

I just can't accept that all that ash and scorched earth at the end of that crater is purely from the buildings...


Si

So you believe it's from burning earth?

 

[HillBill]

Scorched earth isn't the same as burning earth though is it? Also jet fuel leaves a hell of a lot of soot, which will blacken any earth it has burnt on.

 

[Urban X]

@santaman2000 No from the piece of wreckage that fell into the hole aswell as the buidlings that were destroyed, I mean what are we saying planes don't burn?


Si

 

[Biker]

The CIA and the FAA. I didn't see the video in question but what you describe really isn't that odd. The pentagon isn't concrete and an airliner isn't flying at near the speed of an F4. The engines may be the hardest part of an aircraft but even so, the center of mass is the fuselage.

As to whether there was any wreckage left at the Pentagon...Well really we have to take theie word on that as well don't we. It would be as easy to remove the wreckage secretly as it would to fake the crash. Just how far can we take a conspiracy? In either direction?

Think you answered your own point there, based on this then some larger wreckage pieces would and should have been found. I would prefer not to take their word for it, especially if they can't be even trusted to follow even the most basic principles of an investigation. It was a whitewash from start to finish.

A conspiracy is only evidence presented by individuals who aren't employed by the powers that be, TO the rest of the world. The powers that be would prefer that not to happen but have total autonomy over what is said, thought printed and done. Personally I'd like this particular 911 conspiracy theory to be taken seriously by the courts around the world and the people who perpetrated it hung by the neck until dead.

Look how intensively the Locherbie bombing was investigated, the outrage it incurred, yet the whole 911 enquiry was a sham organised by yes men and cronies who ignored glaring errors and deeper ramifications of the motive behind the actions.

 

[santaman2000]

Scorched earth isn't the same as burning earth though is it? Also jet fuel leaves a hell of a lot of soot, which will blacken any earth it has burnt on.

TBH I've never seen scorched earth; only places where there was residue of whatever had burned on top of said earth; buildings, weapons hits (and yes aircraft residue)
They leave a lot of residue when the conditions are right and the combustion is incomplete. However when combustion is complete (such as what's being described by "vaporization) then there is little or no residue. At any rate I'm not sure now (1o+ years later) that there aren't any photos out there showing wreckage and /or other evidence.

 

[Huon]

I've never been to a crash site and I bow to the fact that you have, and certainly don't envy you, must be horrific, but this is about as confirmed a crash site as you're gonna get and look at the devastation and burning.

Lockerbie! :yikes:


Si

and lots of distinguishable aeroplane debris too.....

where?

Regarding the Pentagon crash. Here is an attempt to debunk by Popular Mechanics - that well-known mouthpiece of the CIA.

Despite the suspect nature of the publication they do seem to make some good points.

 

[rob.wakelin]

Lots of aircraft in WW2 hit the ground and pretty much left nothing to show as in the doomed craft which crashed on 9/11, like the aircraft that hit the Pentagon slewed in basically just leaving a hole in the wall.

 

[Urban X]

and lots of distinguishable aeroplane debris too.....

where?

What, like this?

Si

 

[santaman2000]

Think you answered your own point there, based on this then some larger wreckage pieces would and should have been found. I would prefer not to take their word for it, especially if they can't be even trusted to follow even the most basic principles of an investigation. It was a whitewash from start to finish...

Look at post #208 by cbr6fs. We both overlooked existing pix of wreckage (at least at the Pentagon)

 

[wingstoo]

But would the metal evaporate once vapourised?

If the plane nose dived into the field then the fire would melt the fuselage and skin of the craft, but would it get hot enough to make a lot of the particles blow away in the breeze.

This photo is said to show the impression left by the wings as it nose-dived vertically into the ground, which was an old strip mine apparently, IIRC the wings are generally the fuel tanks on aircraft, so there should be some scorching of the ground around those impressions

 

[Biker]

See that turbine?

Actual words from the http://www.911lies.org website:
This piece of wreckage looks real, not planted! But unfortunately, it is not from a Boeing 757!

Official reaction to this photo / part, was to claim it is a HoneyWell rotor from the rear 'APU' engine in a Boeing 757's tail-section.

But, after studying these high-resolution photos, HoneyWell, the manufacturers of the supposed APU engines, said: "there is no way that is any part of a APU engine we manufacture"

The ground was salted with wreckage. And those parts inside were investigated and found not to be from an airliner matching flight 77.

How odd