AND? So now you're flipflopping yet again, abandoning the "wings and tail should still be around", and going back to "it should have left a mark"? Wow. Let me ask you this. Do you think it is plausible that the explosion from the fuel that would have occured before the tail got to the building might have had something to do with there not being much of a mark?
No flipping flopping. If there is no mark or wreckage left at the alleged speed, then maybe there was no wing. IIRC the explosion occurred after the majority of the aircraft entered into building...so no. Also the fuel ignited is not in the realm of C4 or any other high explosive, it is more like a woosh and some high heat for a few seconds, no high speed pressure wave.
Not an insult, just a tag for government supporters of the 9/11 BS...you know kinda like "truthers" or "twoofers"
Wow the responses I am getting, this must be one of the details you all don't want people thinking about or doing any research. Kind of like the lack of jet fuel at the alleged flight 93 crash site. 1000s of gallons of jet fuel soaked into loose backfill would have been there for quite a while. Or the jet engine that bounced to 4 different locations, and no evidence it even existed.
Impossible for a plane to fly that close to the ground to enter the building. Its called ground effect!!!!!
On the contrary, your claims have no substance. I encourage everyone to research the events. In your own words, based on your own research: 1) How much jet fuel was not ignited (we know it was ignited because of the witness of the mushroom cloud), and soaked into the ground? 2) Cite your source for the engine 'bouncing to four different locations'. 3) Finally, show your evidence for no marks of the left wing entering the Pentagon. The report does not make that statement.
That's a whole lot of maybes backed up by nothing. So how can you say there was no wing? There WERE impact marks from the wings. Not only that, but you have hundreds of witnesses that said it was a plane. Not a missile. Not a drone. Several pilot witnesses even identified it as a 757. And the tail of the aircraft is on WHAT part of the aircraft? The explosion plus the debris from the rest of the plane impacting the building is still more than enough to obliterate the tail section before it reaches the building with enough force to make an impact mark. BTW, the energy released from the impact is FAR more than what you would get from the amount of C4 needed to obliterate the tail.
So now we're switching to flight 93? You say there was little fire? What burned out a whole section of very green forest? Someone with matches and a whole lot of gasoline?
Why are you just playing dumb? The explosion witnessed by many when AA77 impacted the Pentagon. What exactly to expect to be able to identify in photographs when a commercial airliner impacts a steel reinforced concrete wall at better than 500 miles per hour?
No actual plane parts! AGAIN??? Common theme for the "official BS story". Great missile landing though..
The first moments of the "incident' are the most telling. (You know, that blackened exterior with the little hole about a tenth of the size of an actual passenger plane that nobody here has an answer for either).
you mean 20? the claim was that a jet flew through 3 rings and made a punchout hole, but like everything else regardign 911 putely bull(*)(*)(*)(*) as you can see there is no first floor through hole in my previous post.
