It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bird "destroys" Boing 737-800

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   
This big bird was probably hit head on...by a little bird.

link

I'm putting this here, for comparison sake.

How many walls and concrete pillars did the Pentagon "plane" punch through again ?

I propose that the future Pentagon building be built entirely from stuffed birds.



A bird did this. Really.

And not some giant hulk of a bird. Just a regular bird.




‘The damage of the nose area (radome) by bird hit is a common incident on civil aeronautical operations,’ said a spokesman for Turkish Airlines.

‘The radome area of a plane is constructed of soft materials to minimise the impact of such hits.



I'm guessing they introduced this after 2001....'cos in 2001...those noses could do some real damage




posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Kinetic energy? You hit something at 570mph, no matter how small, it's going to leave a dent.

As for the Pentagon, well, you see planes are pretty big...and traveling at those speeds, with all that kinetic energy...you see where I am going with this.....pretend the Pentagon is the plane and the plane is the bird.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Never forget how twa flight 800 was hit by a missile from US government.

Not saying things don't happen but I don't trust anything that I don't verify 4 times over.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

yes...kinetic energy...I get that...

however...kinetic energy would get mostly absorbed by the first wall...after that...it's a miracle that the pieces left after the hit would punch through additional 2 walls....not to mention circumvent all the columns in between to reach the other section walls.

Anyway...I realize it's not an adequate comparison...I just found it interesting to observe...how soft planes really are. THough we knew that all along...the pic kinda puts it into perspective for me.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


I'm guessing they introduced this after 2001....'cos in 2001...those noses could do some real damage



Nose, fuselage, wings, engines, luggage, wheels, people, fuel..

But you knew that, you were just being clever, right?



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   
apples and oranges.....



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Boing?

Don't you mean Boeing?




posted on May, 8 2015 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

"Bird "destroys" Boing 737-800"

Shouldn't that be "Boing 737-800 "destroys Bird"?

Or do you think the bird was OK and it's the plane that will never fly again?



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: nerbot
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

"Bird "destroys" Boing 737-800"

Shouldn't that be "Boing 737-800 "destroys Bird"?

Or do you think the bird was OK and it's the plane that will never fly again?


That wasn't a bird

it was SUPERMAN!!!



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I've seen worse..

I know the poster wad trying to be cute but we have a number of people on this board that have worked in the airplane industry for some time..

A bird can absolutely ruin a planes day.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Anybody who has been around aircraft will tell you that the Radome is typically light materials because of the radar package underneath

There's a small percentage of getting a strike like that on the radome, and most portions of the aircraft would just need to have bird guts scraped off and return to service.

A plane never hit the Pentagon. There was way to much of the Pentagon still standing



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Boing?

Don't you mean Boeing?




LOL...you are right...pardon my french



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: nerbot
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

"Bird "destroys" Boing 737-800"

Shouldn't that be "Boing 737-800 "destroys Bird"?

Or do you think the bird was OK and it's the plane that will never fly again?


status of the bird is unknown at this time



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly




status of the bird is unknown at this time

The bird has been sleeping since the accident.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


I'm guessing they introduced this after 2001....'cos in 2001...those noses could do some real damage



Nose, fuselage, wings, engines, luggage, wheels, people, fuel..

But you knew that, you were just being clever, right?



It's casual Friday...and yes..I was trying to be clever...it's kinda boring in 9/11 forum lately.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   


It's casual Friday...and yes..I was trying to be clever...it's kinda boring in 9/11 forum lately.


I can fix that if you want....

emmm any ideas though, give me a few days put up one of my usual threads.

how about one on the pentagon been thinking about that for a while.

Ok, I am joking (half joking)

but i do agree with you, this forum has been very dull this last month, and I get really fed up with this comparison threads (like this one, sorry) and they "hey hear is a video you have all probably seen" threads. I suppose it is inevitable that after all these years things are going to dry up and become repetitive. But I, like you, am very interested in this topic, even though we have different beliefs it is pretty dull when we don't seem to have anything new or interesting to debate.
edit on 8-5-2015 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-5-2015 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-5-2015 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
apples and oranges.....



yes...



...they mix so well together



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
although there is something to be said for comparison videos. I can't find it on my video history but not too long ago someone posted a video of a test where a plane was secured to something at ground level and rammed at ridiculously high speed into a concrete wall trying to show how a plane will shatter into tiny tiny fragments as proof of the Pentagon OS. Mission accomplished on the fragmentation point but one major problem: the wall suffered only a minuscule dent. This isn't to rehash a pentagon argument at all, and the type of plane and wall make it apples and oranges like you said. I just found it interesting that an OSS also needed an orange to masquerade. a reply to: MarioOnTheFly



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

That video was done by the NRC and Sandia Labs many years before 9/11. It was a very inaccurate representation of an aircraft hitting a nuclear power plant outer wall.
edit on 5/12/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Yes! Thank you for the refresher. I agree. Extremely different example that proves not very much either way. Another apples and oranges example. a reply to: Zaphod58



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join