It's not about being successful or not bro (no one is born successful and hell I still consider myself a loser 
) and it's certainly not disrespectful to examine the other side and I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't look at anyone that brings up conspiracy theories as not being intelligent or being a terrorist sympathizer. I've said this many times before and I'll say it again, I like a conspiracy theory just as much as the next guy, but that does not mean I'm going to believe everything I see in a YT video or read about in a written piece as factual or the truth. The onus is on us to sift through the details and compare them to the official story.
On that note, you skipped over a very relevant and important FACT in my previous post about AA flight 77 to be saying still that "there is no way in hell that a person that trained in a Cessna plane can fly a huge plane into Pentagon." A person that trained in a Cessna DID NOT fly the plane into the Pentagon. Hanjour had his FAA Commercial Pilot License, meaning he was certified by the FAA to have received the theoretical and practical training to fly a commercial airliner - the was in the 90's. In the early 2000's he received extensive training from a multitude of flight schools in the US including simulator time flying a 737 and a terrain mapping run over the Hudson River. He had all the manuals for a 757 and was well versed in the systems of that particular aircraft. And he didn't exactly fly a plane into the Pentagon, he crashed it - even at that not so accurately as he came in very low at first and took out light posts and other objects on the ground.
If you're telling me that it's implausible for someone with an FAA commercial pilot license and so much training to make just two easy turns and then descend and crash, then I should not be getting on another plane for the rest of my life and expect the pilot to take off safely, make complicated maneuvers to align with the flight path, align with a runway at the end and land the plane safely - it almost sounds like that would take a miracle!
) and it's certainly not disrespectful to examine the other side and I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't look at anyone that brings up conspiracy theories as not being intelligent or being a terrorist sympathizer. I've said this many times before and I'll say it again, I like a conspiracy theory just as much as the next guy, but that does not mean I'm going to believe everything I see in a YT video or read about in a written piece as factual or the truth. The onus is on us to sift through the details and compare them to the official story.On that note, you skipped over a very relevant and important FACT in my previous post about AA flight 77 to be saying still that "there is no way in hell that a person that trained in a Cessna plane can fly a huge plane into Pentagon." A person that trained in a Cessna DID NOT fly the plane into the Pentagon. Hanjour had his FAA Commercial Pilot License, meaning he was certified by the FAA to have received the theoretical and practical training to fly a commercial airliner - the was in the 90's. In the early 2000's he received extensive training from a multitude of flight schools in the US including simulator time flying a 737 and a terrain mapping run over the Hudson River. He had all the manuals for a 757 and was well versed in the systems of that particular aircraft. And he didn't exactly fly a plane into the Pentagon, he crashed it - even at that not so accurately as he came in very low at first and took out light posts and other objects on the ground.
If you're telling me that it's implausible for someone with an FAA commercial pilot license and so much training to make just two easy turns and then descend and crash, then I should not be getting on another plane for the rest of my life and expect the pilot to take off safely, make complicated maneuvers to align with the flight path, align with a runway at the end and land the plane safely - it almost sounds like that would take a miracle!
It's not about being successful or not bro (no one is born successful and hell I still consider myself a loser ) and it's certainly not disrespectful to examine the other side and I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't look at anyone that brings up conspiracy theories as not being intelligent or being a terrorist sympathizer. I've said this many times before and I'll say it again, I like a conspiracy theory just as much as the next guy, but that does not mean I'm going to believe everything I see in a YT video or read about in a written piece as factual or the truth. The onus is on us to sift through the details and compare them to the official story.
On that note, you skipped over a very relevant and important FACT in my previous post about AA flight 77 to be saying still that "there is no way in hell that a person that trained in a Cessna plane can fly a huge plane into Pentagon." A person that trained in a Cessna DID NOT fly the plane into the Pentagon. Hanjour had his FAA Commercial Pilot License, meaning he was certified by the FAA to have received the theoretical and practical training to fly a commercial airliner - the was in the 90's. In the early 2000's he received extensive training from a multitude of flight schools in the US including simulator time flying a 737 and a terrain mapping run over the Hudson River. He had all the manuals for a 757 and was well versed in the systems of that particular aircraft. And he didn't exactly fly a plane into the Pentagon, he crashed it - even at that not so accurately as he came in very low at first and took out light posts and other objects on the ground.
If you're telling me that it's implausible for someone with an FAA commercial pilot license and so much training to make just two easy turns and then descend and crash, then I should not be getting on another plane for the rest of my life and expect the pilot to take off safely, make complicated maneuvers to align with the flight path, align with a runway at the end and land the plane safely - it almost sounds like that would take a miracle!
) and it's certainly not disrespectful to examine the other side and I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't look at anyone that brings up conspiracy theories as not being intelligent or being a terrorist sympathizer. I've said this many times before and I'll say it again, I like a conspiracy theory just as much as the next guy, but that does not mean I'm going to believe everything I see in a YT video or read about in a written piece as factual or the truth. The onus is on us to sift through the details and compare them to the official story.On that note, you skipped over a very relevant and important FACT in my previous post about AA flight 77 to be saying still that "there is no way in hell that a person that trained in a Cessna plane can fly a huge plane into Pentagon." A person that trained in a Cessna DID NOT fly the plane into the Pentagon. Hanjour had his FAA Commercial Pilot License, meaning he was certified by the FAA to have received the theoretical and practical training to fly a commercial airliner - the was in the 90's. In the early 2000's he received extensive training from a multitude of flight schools in the US including simulator time flying a 737 and a terrain mapping run over the Hudson River. He had all the manuals for a 757 and was well versed in the systems of that particular aircraft. And he didn't exactly fly a plane into the Pentagon, he crashed it - even at that not so accurately as he came in very low at first and took out light posts and other objects on the ground.
If you're telling me that it's implausible for someone with an FAA commercial pilot license and so much training to make just two easy turns and then descend and crash, then I should not be getting on another plane for the rest of my life and expect the pilot to take off safely, make complicated maneuvers to align with the flight path, align with a runway at the end and land the plane safely - it almost sounds like that would take a miracle!
But there are much more facts that are neglected:
[1] The size of the hole is small for a plane that big
[2] There are multiple cameras in Pentagon where they were replaced and the footage wasn't given to anyone
[3] There are no parts of the plane anywhere, where other crashes show that big part of planes still remains
At the end of the game, none of them are in 9/11 commission report
Even if Al Qaeda is responsible for all of this, shouldn't these facts be investigated in your opinion ?
Back to the documentary, please watch minute 49-51 -- even if the whole documentary is pure BS, that one minute is mind blowing, the fact that anyone in USA can be arrested without the right to lawyer and there is a secondary law that allows the president or anyone to kill you without considering your rights. Unwritten laws
These are all very good questions bro and there are answers for all of them. I typed up a nice detailed response for you last night but ISP crashed before I had a chance to press post, so Ill do the short version here. As far as 2 and 3, there were plenty of plane parts scattered across the site and although the security camera video was not immediately released, it was eventually released in 2006 under the Freedom of Information Act. You can get the short version of the official account on Wiki under American Airlines Flight 77 where you can also see a couple of pictures of the plane parts and watch the actual videos of impact from two different security cameras.
If you want to get a more detailed analysis of the official events, the following article is a GREAT read, although it can be very technical at times: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/
I also strongly recommend taking a look at the following link to compare the damage from a C-130 crash into a regular apartment building with the similarly sized 757 into a heavily fortified building like the Pentagon. This crash actually happened in Iran: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/c130crash.html
Another good video to watch is a test the US government did in the 80s crashing an F-4 Phantom into a concrete barrier to test the concrete walls around US nuclear facilities where the F-4 pretty much vaporizes on impact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
After reading/watching all of these, if you still have ANY doubts, ask yourself this simple question. If this was not a plane crashing into the Pentagon, then what was it? Is the damage consistent with an explosion from any known bomb or missile? The answer should be a resounding no because there's no sign of an explosion which sends energy waves in all directions, rather than a plane crash where the majority of the energy travels along the original path of the plane.
The only thing that is slightly unexplained in most of the unbiased analysis is the size of the hole that you brought up. To understand this, keep in mind that the cabin width of a 757, where the majority of the energy would have been focused) is only 12 feet. Also keep in mind that unlike a bullet, the cabin of a 757 is not solid. As the nose of the plane (which has a lot of mass and is even smaller than 12 ft.) punches a hole through the exterior wall, you're trying to push a larger non-solid cylindrical object which is designed only to withstand atmospheric pressure through that hole. This causes the section to collapse on itself, rather than creating a much larger hole. To visualize this, imagine drilling a hole in drywall slightly smaller than the size of a straw and then trying to push the straw into that hole. You're not going to make the hole bigger by doing that, rather the straw is going to collapse on itself as it passes through that hole. It's simple physics.
Add yourself and me to the list too and let's make it 1502!
As I said before, there's no question that all the facts were not released and there are lots of inconsistencies. There was a great program on the Passionate Eye (I think) on CBC that examined a lot of these. You may be able to find it if you look around on the web - highly recommended since it's done by real journalists doing real investigative journalism work for one of the best news outlets in the world.
But none of that changes the fact that if certain people in the establishment or outside of it went to such great lengths to set something like this up, they would have had a much easier time setting it up exactly the way it went down than faking or hiding missile strikes. There are so many places in the ME where you can set up a kiosk, offer people a few thousand bucks or just a chance to carry out jihad on Americans and you'll have lineups to Timbuktu - all you needed for this was less than 50 volunteers. don't you think that's a much easier task than to pay so many people on US government payroll to stay quiet or put a different spin on what happened?!
If you want to get a more detailed analysis of the official events, the following article is a GREAT read, although it can be very technical at times: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/
I also strongly recommend taking a look at the following link to compare the damage from a C-130 crash into a regular apartment building with the similarly sized 757 into a heavily fortified building like the Pentagon. This crash actually happened in Iran: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/c130crash.html
Another good video to watch is a test the US government did in the 80s crashing an F-4 Phantom into a concrete barrier to test the concrete walls around US nuclear facilities where the F-4 pretty much vaporizes on impact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
After reading/watching all of these, if you still have ANY doubts, ask yourself this simple question. If this was not a plane crashing into the Pentagon, then what was it? Is the damage consistent with an explosion from any known bomb or missile? The answer should be a resounding no because there's no sign of an explosion which sends energy waves in all directions, rather than a plane crash where the majority of the energy travels along the original path of the plane.
The only thing that is slightly unexplained in most of the unbiased analysis is the size of the hole that you brought up. To understand this, keep in mind that the cabin width of a 757, where the majority of the energy would have been focused) is only 12 feet. Also keep in mind that unlike a bullet, the cabin of a 757 is not solid. As the nose of the plane (which has a lot of mass and is even smaller than 12 ft.) punches a hole through the exterior wall, you're trying to push a larger non-solid cylindrical object which is designed only to withstand atmospheric pressure through that hole. This causes the section to collapse on itself, rather than creating a much larger hole. To visualize this, imagine drilling a hole in drywall slightly smaller than the size of a straw and then trying to push the straw into that hole. You're not going to make the hole bigger by doing that, rather the straw is going to collapse on itself as it passes through that hole. It's simple physics.
So what about 1500 engineers and scientist that say there should be an independent investigation about 9/11, by the way, this is what Americans are saying not me
As I said before, there's no question that all the facts were not released and there are lots of inconsistencies. There was a great program on the Passionate Eye (I think) on CBC that examined a lot of these. You may be able to find it if you look around on the web - highly recommended since it's done by real journalists doing real investigative journalism work for one of the best news outlets in the world.
But none of that changes the fact that if certain people in the establishment or outside of it went to such great lengths to set something like this up, they would have had a much easier time setting it up exactly the way it went down than faking or hiding missile strikes. There are so many places in the ME where you can set up a kiosk, offer people a few thousand bucks or just a chance to carry out jihad on Americans and you'll have lineups to Timbuktu - all you needed for this was less than 50 volunteers. don't you think that's a much easier task than to pay so many people on US government payroll to stay quiet or put a different spin on what happened?!
Last edited:
Bi-honar jan, with only doing 10 second search, there are debris in the flight crash in Iran, some should be inside and some outside the building.
Please click on the small links on the bottom for seeing the photos of the crash, somehow I can't upload the pictures any more !!
http://www.1001crash.com/index-page-description-accident-Iran_C130-lg-2-crash-8.html#bas
About the building hole, I think you are incorrect, the plane has wings and they should create damage on the building even if according to you it crumbled inside.
This is the picture that you sent me in the link provided:
But this is not what occurred, you can go watch the videos on youtube, when it crashed the building, the was only one hole in the building and the rest of it (the red region) occurred because of the later fire it caused and the building collapsed.
Also, If the videos were legit, why didn't they release it the same day ? why did they remove all the cameras ? They released it in 2006, the only obscure video. Come on man, if there was nothing on those videos, there is no way it would have taken them 5 years to release them + that is not in the commission report either.
Now I tell my side of story to you, in 1999-2000 I had the privilege to work on testing the air traffic control system of Canada as a co-op student. When I worked on this project, I always saw military guys from USA and England coming there and they were so restrict on the software testing, not only on the bugs but more importantly on the protocols. The protocols are uniform across both countries. So I tested the software for 8 months and I know a lot about air traffic controls. Within 1 minute of no response from a plane, the military in both USA and Canada are informed, within maximum 10 minutes (max max max more like 5 minutes) the plane is intercepted in the air by military planes. I also found the NORAD protocol so you don' think I am BSing:
http://physics911.net/noradfaa-hijack-intercept-protocols/
You don't understand how serious the army are about this and how many times the military have practices these scenarios. All the military airports in USA are designed to satisfy this protocol, Now I have seen this with my own eyes. Certain area such as white house and Pentagon have much more strict rules, something like 2 minutes interception. But in September 9/11 not a single of these protocols were executed, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Fucking BS. It even sounds stupid to the foundation of North America Military that was preparing itself for any object coming from any source including Russia for decades. No my friend, I can't accept that because I have seen the protocols and the execution of them myself. There was some help from inside, no doubt in my mind.
Please click on the small links on the bottom for seeing the photos of the crash, somehow I can't upload the pictures any more !!
http://www.1001crash.com/index-page-description-accident-Iran_C130-lg-2-crash-8.html#bas
About the building hole, I think you are incorrect, the plane has wings and they should create damage on the building even if according to you it crumbled inside.
This is the picture that you sent me in the link provided:
But this is not what occurred, you can go watch the videos on youtube, when it crashed the building, the was only one hole in the building and the rest of it (the red region) occurred because of the later fire it caused and the building collapsed.
Also, If the videos were legit, why didn't they release it the same day ? why did they remove all the cameras ? They released it in 2006, the only obscure video. Come on man, if there was nothing on those videos, there is no way it would have taken them 5 years to release them + that is not in the commission report either.
Now I tell my side of story to you, in 1999-2000 I had the privilege to work on testing the air traffic control system of Canada as a co-op student. When I worked on this project, I always saw military guys from USA and England coming there and they were so restrict on the software testing, not only on the bugs but more importantly on the protocols. The protocols are uniform across both countries. So I tested the software for 8 months and I know a lot about air traffic controls. Within 1 minute of no response from a plane, the military in both USA and Canada are informed, within maximum 10 minutes (max max max more like 5 minutes) the plane is intercepted in the air by military planes. I also found the NORAD protocol so you don' think I am BSing:
http://physics911.net/noradfaa-hijack-intercept-protocols/
You don't understand how serious the army are about this and how many times the military have practices these scenarios. All the military airports in USA are designed to satisfy this protocol, Now I have seen this with my own eyes. Certain area such as white house and Pentagon have much more strict rules, something like 2 minutes interception. But in September 9/11 not a single of these protocols were executed, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Fucking BS. It even sounds stupid to the foundation of North America Military that was preparing itself for any object coming from any source including Russia for decades. No my friend, I can't accept that because I have seen the protocols and the execution of them myself. There was some help from inside, no doubt in my mind.
Last edited:
You didn't look at any of those links, did you?!
Again, there's no shortage of debris from a plane and pictures of it inside and outside the building immediately after impact - as long as you're willing to look for them. And again, you're treating the plane and its wings and fuselage as solid objects, whereas in reality they're just thin gauge aluminum held together by rivets - otherwise a 757 would never get off the ground. If you take an empty coke can and throw it at a brick wall exactly what kind of damage do you expect to see in the wall that you would expect more damage from the wing tip of a 757? Forget all that, where's the gaping 100 ft. hole that you're expecting to see in the picture of the 10 story apartment building in Tehran after a C-130 crash? Can you even find a hole in that pictures as large as the one in the Pentagon?
Again, there's no shortage of debris from a plane and pictures of it inside and outside the building immediately after impact - as long as you're willing to look for them. And again, you're treating the plane and its wings and fuselage as solid objects, whereas in reality they're just thin gauge aluminum held together by rivets - otherwise a 757 would never get off the ground. If you take an empty coke can and throw it at a brick wall exactly what kind of damage do you expect to see in the wall that you would expect more damage from the wing tip of a 757? Forget all that, where's the gaping 100 ft. hole that you're expecting to see in the picture of the 10 story apartment building in Tehran after a C-130 crash? Can you even find a hole in that pictures as large as the one in the Pentagon?
You didn't look at any of those links, did you?!
Again, there's no shortage of debris from a plane and pictures of it inside and outside the building immediately after impact - as long as you're willing to look for them. And again, you're treating the plane and its wings and fuselage as solid objects, whereas in reality they're just thin gauge aluminum held together by rivets - otherwise a 757 would never get off the ground. If you take an empty coke can and throw it at a brick wall exactly what kind of damage do you expect to see in the wall that you would expect more damage from the wing tip of a 757? Forget all that, where's the gaping 100 ft. hole that you're expecting to see in the picture of the 10 story apartment building in Tehran after a C-130 crash? Can you even find a hole in that pictures as large as the one in the Pentagon?
Again, there's no shortage of debris from a plane and pictures of it inside and outside the building immediately after impact - as long as you're willing to look for them. And again, you're treating the plane and its wings and fuselage as solid objects, whereas in reality they're just thin gauge aluminum held together by rivets - otherwise a 757 would never get off the ground. If you take an empty coke can and throw it at a brick wall exactly what kind of damage do you expect to see in the wall that you would expect more damage from the wing tip of a 757? Forget all that, where's the gaping 100 ft. hole that you're expecting to see in the picture of the 10 story apartment building in Tehran after a C-130 crash? Can you even find a hole in that pictures as large as the one in the Pentagon?
I am not saying that whether a missile or a bomb exploded (which I don't dismiss it) but I am saying that the official story has so many flaws in them that were never even considered in 2003.
There's nothing in there about holes being created in walls by the wings my good man - in fact it explains in great technical detail why you would not expect to see a lot of damage to the walls (being heavily reinforces and lined with 5" thick limestone) from the wings - just remember throwing a coke can at a brick wall. I don't know if you saw this illustration in there (although I think they have it slightly offset to the right), but honestly as an aerospace engineer and someone who works with thin gauge metal on almost every project, I have seen absolutely nothing that suggests this was anything other than a large plane crashing into the building - whether it was AA flight 77 is another story, but this damage is consistent with a large plane flying into the building at a high velocity and not at all consistent with damage from any bomb or missile I know of or a much smaller plane as some have suggested (below is also a picture of damage from Cessna flying into a house):
Last edited:
There's nothing in there about holes being created in walls by the wings my good man - in fact it explains in great technical detail why you would not expect to see a lot of damage to the walls (being heavily reinforces and lined with 5" thick limestone) from the wings - just remember throwing a coke can at a brick wall. I don't know if you saw this illustration in there, but honestly as an aerospace engineer and someone who works with thin gauge metal on almost every project, I have seen absolutely nothing that suggests this was anything other than a large plane crashing into the building - whether it was AA flight 77 is another story, but this damage is consistent with a large plane flying into the building at a high velocity and not at all consistent with damage from any bomb or missile I know of or a much smaller plane as some have suggested (below is also a picture of damage from Cessna flying into a house):
FEMA's report gives an account of the final approach and crash of the jetliner with the following details.
[1] The 757 approached at about 780 ft/s (532 mph)
[2] During the approach the plane rolled slightly to the left.
[3] The left wing struck a piece of construction equipment that was about 100 feet from the Pentagon's facade, 0.1 second before impact.
[4] The left engine struck the ground at about the time the nose struck the facade.
[5] The impact of the fuselage was centered at about column line 14.
[6] The left wing passed below the second floor slab, and the right wing crossed the slab at a shallow angle.
[7] The impact removed first floor exterior columns from column lines 10 to 14.
[8] The impact severely damaged first floor exterior columns on column lines 9, 15, 16, and 17.
[9] The impact destroyed the second floor exterior columns on column ine 14 and its adjacent spandrel plate.
[10] Facade damage extended to the fourth floor on both sides of the impact area, but did not extend above the third floor over the central impact area.
[11] The E-Ring structure deflected downward from an expansion joint on column line 11 south to the exterior column on column line 18.
[12] All five levels of Ring E between column line 8 through column line 18 collapsed about 20 minutes after the impact.
So in your expert opinion, does this match with your theory ?