Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

The 757 plus bomb theory

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 08:33 PM
Original message
The 757 plus bomb theory
The 757 plus bomb theory


This theory is the nearer to the official version. It would probably be the only one presented if there had not been an attempt of covering up something from the authorities. It's also the simpler to describe and understand.

The Boeing 757 of American Airlines, registered 644 AA, fleet number 5 BP, is prepared during the night of september 10, for it's flight of the morning.
A broach technology bomb, as the one seen on the following image, is loaded in the luggage compartment. The front part, knowing that the guiding sytem is not necessary, could be replaced by something smaller.

On 11 septembre morning, this Boeing embarks sixty passengers and crew members and takes off from Washington Dulles.
The plane is remotely piloted and / or it is hijacked by Hani Hanjour and fellows.
This plane is crashed on the Pentagon.
The wings go forward in the crash, folding along the fuselage, thus limiting the size of the damage on the front to an extend smaller than the wingspan of the 757.
The bomb inside explodes while the plane is entering the building, creating some important damage near the entry point and shreading the rear part of the plane into small pieces.
The uranium mass penetrates the building, making tremendous but limited in size damage, and exits the building through "punch out" hole, ending it's course in the A-E drive.

Arguments for the "757 plus bomb" theory

It's the more coherent with the witnesses accounts. Some of them, having a good point of view and / or familiar with airplanes, described this folding of the wings.
The damage on the light poles are coherent with the wingspan of a 757.
The damage on the fence, generator, small wall of the ventilation structure, fit exactly the position of the engines of a 757.
The damage on the pentagon's front fit well the size of a 757 if the wings folded along the body. The plane, rolled slightly to the left (as witnesses accounted) touches the building with it's nose at the first floor level (3 m above ground) between pillars 13 and 14. The left wing, touching the ground, extends it's damage, ripping the wall, up to pillar 8. The right wing damage the limit first-second floor, the tip striking the second floor wall and window up to pillar 20.
The damage inside the building is coherent with the assumed trajectories of the two engines (knowing that the wings folding movement deflect them), and with the trajectory of the uranium mass.
The explosion of the bomb was probably clearly visible on the images, which pushed the authorities not to show them and, therefore, publish faked images from the cctv camera.

Arguments against the "757 plus bomb" theory

The noise of a 757 is not specially strident. This perception by the witnesses could be due to the fact that some were close from the plane and this one was at full throttle, a not so frequent situation for people who don't work in airports.
The tip of the starboard wing should have damaged the front between pillars 20 and 21.
The letters of the "American" logo found on some debris and shown on pictures have no reason to be smaller after the crash than they were on the fuselage of N 644 AA plane. If the "757" hypothese is true, the pictures showing these "too small" letters must be fakeries of the same sort than the cctv camera images.
The conspiracy couldn't be the fact of Al Quaeda alone : one of the states having the technologies of depleted uranium and / or broach bombs must be party to it.
Loading such a bomb inside the luggage compartment of a plane on Washington Dulles airport requires a high degree of complicity on the airport's technical personnel.
If the target was the Pentagon and the attacked programmed in a raze to the ground flight, it's not clear why an uranium bomb was added inside the plane, except if we credit the thesis that this attack had for target a meeting room located deep inside the first floor of the west aisle of the Pentagon, where a meeting was held with the top officiers of the "Naval Intelligence". It would be more realistic if the initial target (missed) was the White House, the attacked programmed in a steep descent, and the target of the uranium bomb was the underground bunker under the White House. As Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice were directed to this bunker "manu militari" by security personnel during the attack, they were close to experiment what an uranium attack on a bunker does, as could some of the personnels of the Navy inside the Pentagon, or hundreds of iraqis who had found a shelter in a parking in Bagdad during the first gulf war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HawkerHurricane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. The question remains...

Why bother going through this complicated bomb stuff when the very act of flying hijacked planes into buildings would provide them with the excuse they needed?

It's like claiming FDR put a bomb on the Arizona, so that when the Japanese attacked it would blow up bigger. No need to make the Arizona blow up bigger, the fact of the attack is enough to get the declaration of war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
objection Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Perhaps

hijackers would carry explosives.

The trouble then is that no explosive residues were found; human remains were tested.

It is then the same silly old story. To make the theory work you have to suppose that a large number of people willingly played along with a terrorist hoax albeit their motivation would have been exactly opposite to any such complicity. Everybody around was terrorised.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. play along?
They didn't play along.They were probably conveniently eliminated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
objection Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. "Probably"?


If you're just going to make it all up as you go along why waste the time and the talent? Write something for Hollywood. You may get some money for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. What do you believe?
I'm not making anything up. The original flights were probably brought down and probably replaced by drones and the passengers were probably disposed of..that's my educated hunch and I think it is a damn good one. There is solid photographic evidence(contrary to what you think) to back my ideas up. What do you believe?...let's hear some of it..and back it up. Come on...give it a go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-04 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. The planes never landed.
None of the planes landed. Only Flight 77 was ever lost for a while by the ATCs, and even it was discovered to have been airborne the entire time upon examination of the primary radar signals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Speak for yourself ... and your fellow apologists for the "Cavemen Did It"
If claiming that a sick man living in a cave in Afghanistan could have possibly been able to plot and carryout the events of 9/11 isn't a Hollywood fantasy, I don't know what is.

Wait. That WAS a Hollywood fantasy. But, Osama had nothing to do with it. He has always and only been a CIA asset & Patsy for 9/11. Can you say framed? Think Lee Harvey Oswald & James Earl Ray.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
objection Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-04 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. I spoke for myself.

The problem is your terrible assimilation of plain English, hence ever increasing detachment from reality.

I never made any claim about a sick man in any cave in Afghanistan.

The idea is your own.

Does it affect your brain to live in cave?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. bump
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 19th 2018, 03:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC