Bamaga man wrote:Wow Emerald !
It does look suspicious could these photo's not be faked though ?
Why though Emerald would they possibly put a missile pod on a plane, surely the thing would explode and cause enough damage without one of these pods.
I havent really gotten into this theory of 9/11, but thats not to say I dont believe that there could be a conspiracy theory behind it. I'm pretty open minded about this stuff.
But What would be the reasoning behind blowing up and killing their own people and trade centers though ?
Actually, no. These images have certainly not been tampered with. They couldn't be. These were taken from the live footage shown on that day. To tamper with, would obviously put a massive dent in any theory surrounding the whole thing. These images have just been cleaned up. I've seen others as the plane is just about to hit the tower, and it's clear that the anomaly underneath the fuselage exists. No AA or other passenger aircraft for that matter, has any sort of equipment underneath. But, the military variation of the craft does, it it's often used to refuel jet fighters in mid-air, and sometimes carried a mobile missile pod that can fire a Patriot or another variation of a cruise missile, used for ground forces wanting to take out a single objective.
When you think about it, modern planes are fairly lightweight. The materials used would be lighter than most that make a standard road car. Sure enough, if a single man can pull one of these massive beasts, as it has been done, then the likes of the wings, fuselage, tail, etc etc, would simple just crumple up and shred, causing only superficial damage to the outside, and parts of the inside of the buildings. From other plane crashes that have indeed hit buildings, and one in NY in particular during war time there, it seems that the parts that cause most of the damage are the engine blocks and landing gear, seeing that these are the most well built and heaviest parts of the plane. Jet fuel is engineered these days to combust extremely quickly. So in the event of a crash, it quickly burns off. At the speed those planes were going at, the initial impact on the outer wall of the building would have taken most of the brunt, and sustained the most damage. From there on in, the plane would have simple been shredded as if it were in a giant cheese grater. Some of the steel trusses would have been compromised, if not flat out destroyed, but the supporting beams would not have, especially those in the Core. People seem to overlook the fact that this building had a huge central pillar, built with solid industrial concrete and fortified with iron beams. This thing, so they said when building it, could take the hit of a Boeing 747 and still have enough for more. People only seen the hollow-esque veneer of the buildings that looked critically damaged. You have to remember, that behind the outer walls, there were offices and halls, so a gaping hole there was always going to look bad. Worse than what it was. This is not to say that massive damage wasn't sustained. There certainly was. But not enough to topple a structure like that. Then again, I'm not an expert, but it's a fact that at least 80% of that building or more didn't take any other damage, at least non that we know of. The firemen inside those buildings, and people that were in it, have other views on that, though. There's actual documented recordings that you can hear of the firefighters inside reporting back that there were bombs going off from several floors inside the building, from above and below, and this was well after the first plane had hit.
Back to the planes hitting, if you look at the fireballs after they go in and think, how much fuel would those planes be carrying? Wouldn't it make sense if whatever fuel was left be contained within the building as it hit office walls, floors, furniture etc etc? Instead, it comes out at two separate angles for the second plane. That plane came in at a slight angle and hit one of the corners. How is it then that a massive explosion comes out directly in the middle of the face of the opposite side, and with even more energy than that of the projected exit point in conjunction to the planes entry? Surely it wouldn't continue off in another direction and through the core if it was an angle? Unless something else that had it's own trajectory and force behind it did. If the plane continued on and punched through the other side and cause that explosion on the opposite face of the building, wouldn't it make sense to at least see part of the plane come through and not just shards of it and other things like fax machines and office chairs?
Again, these are just questions being raised. Just some things, when examined, don't make sense and need answering.
by 72-1099179158 » Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:53 am
