egafd.com

Sounds like MrMcFister has all the answers.

I wont discount what I have read but nor will I discount theories because the day happened so fast, the programmes that followed offered many theories and "supportive" evidence that you have no choice other than to have an open mind about the whole thing.

The good thing about conspiracy theorists is that they don't just accept the evidence they are spoonfed by a media that are no more in the know than a mna on the street making this shit up as they get their info from what theyve been spoonfed as well.

You could get 100 different accounts of what went on from 100 people who were interviewed that survived the attack. Put together the common elements and there you would have your "truth"

Just keep an open mind but I'll agree you can hear so much shit that sounds convincing you cant tell fact from fiction unless you were there to witness it with your own eyes.

I personally don't believe that America was caught with its pants down on that one but I have no proof to support this so see no point even discussing it since I wasn't even there and only saw what the rest of the world saw that day, the images of the planes striking the building and the subsequent collapse and carnage that followed

Another thing...the huge numbers of people that believe that it was a government plot (and loads do),prove that mankind are not half as bright as we may believe and no wonder the world is often a shitty place.

If it was a government plot then there would be a whistle blower by now but if the secret services knew something that we didnt about it before it happened it wouldn't surprise me but i certainly dont think the government was in on it though I can imagine the effects after could be beneficial to invade privacy with the war on terror ruse.

Might as well make something shitty work for you right? Cuts through a lot of red tape if the people dont argue

To Jimslip, re. andy's comment about the buckling steel. The heat went upwards from the fire, causing the steel to lose its rigidity and the weight of the concrete floors falling created an unstoppable chain of events. I saw where one structural engineer calculated that an upper floor need only drop 2 feet to have enough force to displace the one below it, so image what happened when each floor fell at least 10 feet.

To RoddersUK, re. the helicopters.
1. there was a fucking great aerial on top of tower 1 that prevented helicopters getting close.
2. the thermals and smoke from the fires raging below would have made any attempt to approach the building by helicopter damn near impossible.
3. the doors to the roof were kept locked for safety and security reasons as no one except maintenance workers had any cause to go up there, so no victims could have got to the roof in any case.

"The Pentagon refused initially to release the video because they had handed it over to the Justice Department as part of criminal proceedings."

I can see the point of that, but then when it is released, why, with state of the art cctv coverage, should the images be so poor.

Interesting link though, at least some eye witness accounts. I do think though that there are still some odd things about the event.

I am quite happy to accept that the size of the "entrance wound" in the Pentagon was caused by a comercial airliner, but looking at that point of inpact, it is completely at ground level and whilst yes there are a few damaged lighting colums around, there do not appear to be any surface marks.

This gives the impression of a very very skllful and accurate bit of flying, as was the flying of the aircraft in the impact on the second of the twin towers. Which does not appear to be commensurate with the amount of flying instruction which it is said that the hijackers had on Cessna light aircraft, a completely different world in flying terms.

Review the facts

?Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)

?Rims found in building match those of a 757

?Small turbine engine outside is an APU

?Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine

?Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos

?Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo

?Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211

?Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes

?Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object

?Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion

?Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner

?Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon

?60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

All of the points you list are accepted by my:

"I am quite happy to accept that the size of the "entrance wound" in the Pentagon was caused by a comercial airliner"

But do you know anymore about or have links to known facts regarding the remarkable flying skills of these guys?

I am not sure why you describe it as "remarkable, flying skills of these guys"

How much flying skill is required to hit a building the size of the Pentagon as stated by a number of eye witnesses?

And I also don't see how remarkable it is to hit the second tower at the WTC. I had a similar question from Lizard here which I answered

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i ... ply_249790

Cheers
D

Quite a rich source of material for debunking a few misconceptions there DJ. Ta.