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.
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: choos
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: choos
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos
You claimed 30% of the engine.
The engine I showed you went through the tower and landed a bit away. That is what you asked for, remnants of engines at the site.
Now explain to me how a tin can pokes a hole in reinforced concrete, but solid chunks of metal disintegrate doing zero damage.
now about the survival of this one engine.. is the outer wall of the WTC built like the outer wall of the pentagon
Is the outer part of the pentagon built more solid than an entire building and the concrete below it?
after a quick search the pentagon had walls about 5 inches thick.. the WTC was about 3/4inches thick.. or are you trying to suggest that the inside of the WTC was solid like the pentagon walls?
I'm suggesting the ENTIRE building was more solid than the wall of the pentagon. The engine flew through the building and down on to the concrete and didn't disintegrate. Explain that.
originally posted by: choos
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos
The WTC was almost a full city block wide. I'll let you translate that into feet.
that isnt solid is it??
what do you think is easier?
a karate chop to break 5 wooden planks each 1cm thick
or a karate chop to break a 5cm thick block of wood?
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: choos
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos
The WTC was almost a full city block wide. I'll let you translate that into feet.
that isnt solid is it??
what do you think is easier?
a karate chop to break 5 wooden planks each 1cm thick
or a karate chop to break a 5cm thick block of wood?
Bad comparison, more like 150 1cm planks to a 5cm plank.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos
It came out the other side, so you tell me.
Lets also mention the planes disintegrated in the towers, but the engines survived. In the pentagon situation, the plane survived and the engines disintegrated.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos
I like how you twist and manipulate words, but it's not clever. I never said the engine sliced through 150 beams of steel, and you never explained to me how an aircraft managed to penetrate reinforced concrete in such a manner that the weakest part of the plane does ALL the damage, and the strongest parts do nothing.
I suppose you will never answer that though.
originally posted by: choos
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos
I like how you twist and manipulate words, but it's not clever. I never said the engine sliced through 150 beams of steel, and you never explained to me how an aircraft managed to penetrate reinforced concrete in such a manner that the weakest part of the plane does ALL the damage, and the strongest parts do nothing.
I suppose you will never answer that though.
you were suggesting that it did slice through 150 beams.. so then i ask you how many beams did the engine slice through??
and i did give you my opinion on how the fuselage was able to penetrate the pentagon walls and not the wings. i guess you werent paying attention so again..
which has more penetrating power the blade part of a knife or the knife point?
if you slammed the fuselage sideways into 5 inches of reinforced concrete, there would be no hole. longitudinal impact is the difference. you are concentrating the entire mass of the aircraft in one relatively small area.
the wings and engine in comparision is lighter in mass and spread over a larger surface area.. its force distribution.
And if you do your homework you will find many NIST believers believe a missile hit the pentagon,...
... flight 93 landed in Canada,...
... and the planes hitting the towers were elaborate holograms like the one used to make Michael Jackson seem alive again.
originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Vector99
And if you do your homework you will find many NIST believers believe a missile hit the pentagon,...
No one reported seeing a missile strike the Pentagon, but many people described an airliner in the colors of American Airlines strike the Pentagon and add to the fact that I have identified B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon.
In that respect, you have no case.
... flight 93 landed in Canada,...
That would have been impossible because United 93 was tracked on radar to its crash site near Shanksville.
... and the planes hitting the towers were elaborate holograms like the one used to make Michael Jackson seem alive again.
That would have been impossible because there was no background in place to generate a hologram.
The aircraft crashing into the pentagon was the equivalent of an aluminum can being crushed, not a knife being thrown. THAT is where you are completely wrong.
originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Vector99
That won't fly. You lost the case because even American Airlines announced the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon.
originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Vector99
FIRST HAND WITNESS
FIRST HAND WITNESSES have proven you wrong.
you never explained to me how an aircraft managed to penetrate reinforced concrete in such a manner that the weakest part of the plane does ALL the damage, and the strongest parts do nothing.