9/11 – In Plane Site (Part 1)

If posting this makes me a wacky person who believes in conspiracy theories, then sign me up. While I’m not 100% sold on this myself, I’m sold enough to think that these questions and theories deserve further investigation. What this show alledges is scary, and something that people will attempt to deny cause to accept it as fact could shake someone’s faith in everything right to their very core. I did a lot of thinking after I watched this show. Should I post something about it, or stick my head in the proverbial sand and walk away from it.

As you can see from the post, I’m going to cannonball right into this poll of theories and see what comes out. Regardless if you believe them or not, I think this deserves to at least be discussed and debated. So here comes an interesting video that I think anyone who claims to know everything about 9/11 needs to watch and digest. Is it right or closer to right than the official story? In all honesty, I don’t to know the answer. What I do know is there’s at least enought evidence here to question the official story and think about what might have really happened.

I’m going to post all six parts of this program and then post comments at the bottom with each posted section of this program. If you disagree (I’m sure they’ll be a few) with what this video has to say, all comments are welcome. But if they are not polite or rational, they’ll be deleted and the user blocked from this diary. Dissent is welcome as long as it’s civil. So without further adue, let’s take a nice big bite out of this interesting conspiracy theory:

What I liked most about this video is that the commentator himself said that he started his investigation to back up the official story only to be sucked in and become part of the doubters in that story. I’ve seen these pictures in other videos and it seems highly unlikely that a plane the size they say hit the pentagon did just that. The lack of evidence that being video or pictures of a plane hitting the Pentagon only fuel these theories, as do a lack of parts from that plane being scattered upon impact. In New York, parts of the plane were seen on the ground in the form of wheels from the land gears, etc. So if parts like that were present in New York, why not Washington where the building didn’t fully collapse?

Does anyone remembers when the Concord crashed on take off in France a few years back? That plane left a streak a mile long and parts of the plane were scattered as it eventually skidded and slammed into a small hotel. This hotel was no where near as reinforced as the Pentagon, and yet no plane parts can be seen on the Pentagon lawn or in the rubble. The part about the heat from the rocket fuel is also important cause that flame would have been hot enough to reduce that entire section of the Pentagon to ashes in less than a few hours. The fact that this much damage never occured raises seroious doubts and questions whether or not the offical story about a plane hitting the Pentagon is true at all…

Continued in next entry…

I’ve been saying this for weeks now, there seems no evidence that a plane hit the pentagon.

September 14, 2006

I have tried to get people to look into these things for a couple of years..no one did, now it is all being called “disinformation”. And the problem with that is that the ones who have the truth have either distroyed it by now or have made sure that it looks like Alice’s rabbit hole where the truth will forever be distorted.

Arsenic: While some pics show don’t show wreckages, others do. Besides, if a plane didn’t hit the pentagon, where are all of those people?

September 15, 2006

Shukhevych: If you have access to a picture that shows a wreckage of the plane that hit the Pentagon, I’d sure love to see it cause as far as we know… one doesn’t exist. And I did address the issue of the people from the flight in other entries…

I googled, for example, “9/11 pentagon plane wreckage” and found a few shots.

Shuk: I had a look at those links you were referring to, and the pieces are to small too identify it as anything. Based on what they’re telling us supposedly happened, there should be parts bigger than that on the scene and there are not. It also doesn’t explain the lack of a scorching fire that should have resulted from all the fuel that was supposed to be onboard. That entire wing of thePentagon should have been a pile of ashes, yet some rooms right beside the crash are not even scorched. If there was no scorching fire, than larger pieces of the plane should have remained intact for us to identify… and there are none. A wheel or a small scap of metal could have easily been planted. I want seats, bodies, the black box and other parts that should have survived if the fuel didn’t ignite, which seems to be the case here since much of the wing was unscorched as it showed in the pictures. I’m willing to concede that these videos are not the end all be all of what happened, but they can’t be denied or disputed that quickly either. Those pics resolve nothing as they don’t answer any of the questions surrounding what happened at the Pentagon.

The Pentagon is a well-reinforced structure of 5 concentric rings. The wings, which I too thought would have done damage to the building, were in fact sheered off when the plane, flying so low to the ground, clipped countless street lights. So yeah, at thr last few seconds, the plane had no wings, at least shorter ones, make it look like a missile.

Shuk: It’s that true, than large portions of the wings would have been scattered infront of the Pentagon on the streets or just before impact. There are no large portions of anything from the plane intact. This would poke holes in the idea that the wings fell off before impact. It would explain how the plane managed to make a smaller than expected hole, but with no wing parts (and I’m talking massive parts like engines and flaps, etc) it doesn’t fit with your theory… Later,

Or the wings were shredded to such a degree by the impact so that non-engineers would start getting crazy ideas of cruise missile hitting the pentagon. BTW, that famous security footage video from the guardbooth, which gives that odd image of the “missile.” You do know that it’s a curved lens and therefore exagerrates images on the edges, such as the “missile.”

Shuk: I happen to think you’re onto something that would explain away the reason why there was a small hole in thie building. Seriously, I am impressed… but there is one problem: fuel. What happened to the 6000+ gallons of rocket fuel? The fact that it never ignited inside the Pentagon and reached the tempatures that the others it did in the World Trade center means either one oftwo things: a) there was little or no fuel in the plane on impact OR b) it wasn’t a plane that hit the building. This is fun…

Does anyone really think streets lights could shear off the wings of a 757? I would believe the street lights would be destroyed, but the wings of a huge plane? How many street lights does it take to shear off the wings of a 757? I don’t know, common sense tells me that is a stretch.

My question as well, if the plane did not hit the Pentagon, what happened to all the people who were allegedly on it? That part I don’t get. I’ve also read the plane that supposedly crashed in PA landed safely somewhere else. If so, what happened to those people? I tend to favor the idea that a plane did not hit the pentagon. There are too many holes in the story. But where are the people that were in the plane? That’s a big hole in that theory. ????????