Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinity  Alright, but noone has addressed the points made by the video I have in my OP. That video raised up many valid points like : |
IMO, these are not valid points, as they lack real solid research and a practical application of critical thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinity 1) Where is the wreckage on impact? Parts of the plane Boeing 757 and its fuel that it was carrying? No evidence of either r anywhere after impact and vids showing the collision area show none of either plane parts nor burnt fuel on ground. |
Perhaps inside the pentagon? A Google image search shows plenty f wreckage pieces from fuselage to wheel/engine parts, to anything else. The video was low quality, and 1 frame / second, not something good for getting something flying in from far away.
[quote=Trinity;1057657344 ]The plane was 60 tonnes and it was carrying 5300 gallons of diesel on impact so where r all of it? [/UOTE]
First, your numbers are way off.
The 757 weights around 160 tons, not 60.
A trans-con flight requires tens of thousands of jet-a fuel, not diesel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinity How can the ground be cleared of it all (even if there is a cleanup job done so quickly) u would at least see a diesel soaked ground and grass... |
If the images are cropped properly, as proven with the "Spot the Plane" crocka crap, it is easy to not see much at all.
2) Airplane crashes leave wreckage.... they mess up the ground ... where r those wing parts? even if u remove those wing parts, those wing parts will show on collision impact with the walls of the Pentagon, or show on the ground and grass as it was broken apart.
[quote=Trinity;10576573443) The Boeing 757 was flying 530 mph 2 feet above the ground? How can it fly that low? Just thinking about it is absurd. It seemed more like a missile that hit the Pentagon. So many witnesses said they heard a whoosh sound like a missile rather than a plane. Noone saw the Boeing 757 of any evidence of a plane that hit it as well.[/quote]
1. There was evidence of a 757's presence, and 2) Many witness testimony support it either being a 757, or an American Airlines plane.
[quote=Trinity;10576573444) The hole shown in the video made by a circle r pretty small, not like those made by a wide-diameter Boeing 757, more like a missile made those instead of a plane, besides where r the wing part entry at collision? For the plane to hit the 3rd concentric ring of the Pentagon, logic assumes that the wings also hit the outer ring of the Pentagon and r left outside. So where r the wing part collision into the walls of the Pentagon?[/quote]
The hole was roughly 16 feet wide, and something close to 14 feet tall. The 757's fuselage is only 12.6 feet wide, and like 13.5 feet tall. Fitting in is not a problem. The wings are aluminum, and are not strong enough to stay together in a full force impact like at the pentagon. The fuselage is the same, but it also had more inside that was still moving, like the galley/lavatory components (modular parts), 188 seats, bags, cargo, bins, people, etc, etc, wiring and electrical parts, and more etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinity Would appreciate if u guys can address these points and convince me that a plane did that not a missile. |
Simple. Since when did a missile have landing gear?