[Konkeler]

You woudl have to be a absolute idiot to beleive some crack-pots conspriacy theory like that. Where did the wreckage go? IT BURNED UP IN THE BIG EXPLOSION! You have a ton a jet fuel going off, it just burnt up.

Soem one posted this on anotehr board I frquent, so I can't tkae credit for it. However, I live in Virginia, and know people who knew people involded in the incident. Again, I didn't write the below, and if you're one of those idiots that beleive this pile of steaming BS, you should read it.



You know, I’ll admit, the above clip is a rather pretty package. But the more I think about it, the more I notice glaring flaws that don’t stand up to scrutiny or common sense. And no, I don’t claim to be an expert in aviation matters. But I do know a few things about it. I’ll also be honest and state that I didn’t watch the whole thing because I was getting a headache from rolling my eyes too much, so maybe I missed some grand conclusion. But I highly doubt that.

For example, an one point they ask “What happened to the 5,300 gallons (or was it pounds) of jet fuel?” I dunno… perhaps it went up in that BIG F***ING FIREBALL.

People are saying that the hole in the walls were too small to be caused by an airliner. They also said the same thing about the WTC towers, until someone came up with the footage showing that those tiny holes were, in fact, caused by an airliner.

Or that video footage taken by the parking lot camera where they zoomed in on the 757. Of course, because of the crappy resolution of the original picture, by the time they had it zoomed in, we were looking at about a dozen or so pixels. Right next to that they showed a picture of the 757 and said “Do these look the same?” Well, no, they don’t. In fact, I can’t tell what the h*ll those dozen pixels are. They could be a 757. Or maybe a missile. Maybe even Santa Clause. H*ll, I’ve seen similar things after sneezing on my monitor. The point here being that while the picture isn’t clear enough to positively identify it as a 757, it is also not clear enough to identify it as something other than a 757! You can’t just say “We can’t tell what it is, so therefore it can’t be what they claim it to be!” That’s just asinine.

And the quotes from witnesses? Meh… I’m sure we’ve all heard and seen quotes, soundbites and snippits of info that can say just about anything by the time you take them out of context. But assuming that they were in context, I can’t help but remember the people who said “It whistled like a jet fighter or a missile!” I’ve spent enough time at both airports and airbases to realize that while it is easy to distinguish between a fighter’s engines versus that of an airliner, they both still whistle at when at idle or low power. So, why would someone on a kamikaze run be back on the throttles? Hitting a building that is low to the ground, even one as large as the Pentagon, is very difficult. It would make perfect sense to go in off power to make sure you have your aim right and only throttle up with you are certain you’re on target.

Anywho, the big question here seems to be what happened to the remains of the airliner. The creator of the clip showed all kinds of pretty pictures of crashed airplanes and how there was debris lying around. If those are typical airline crashes, the Pentagon should be the same way. Except that the Pentagon crash site is completely different….

In every one of those pictured crashes (at least the ones I remembered, I haven’t looked at this since last night) you’ll notice that all of the airplanes crashed in a field and not into a building. What’s the difference? In a field, you will have an open burn, allowing the heat to escape. In the Pentagon, the aircraft crashed into a building, where most of the heat was contained (similar to the differences between having the top on your barbecue open or closed). In this incredible heat, spurned on by the 5,300 whatever’s of fuel, the aircraft simply melted.

It’s not that hard to believe, and even the pictures provided by the creator readily support that conclu