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.

 

Let's put the claim that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the towers to bed.

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: bigyin




The planes that flew into the towers had hardly any fuel left on them they had traveled so far. So still a mystery what brought towers down.

Sorry but their tanks were mostly full as they had just taken off.
Check your time line for the event.

Quite right.
The flights were chosen by the terrorists because they were long flights from East Coast airports, meaning full or nearly full tanks.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
One thing is the Aircraft Body and another are the Engines, one is Aluminum/Plastic and the other is Steel Alloys



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

WRONG !!!!!

Pentagon walls are made of brick. Outer most ring (E RING) has a facade of limestone over the brick

Also 2 lowest levels have no walls between E and D rings

Floors are made of concrete

Interesting thing - when doing renovations found that several layers (courses) of brick were laid without any cement
between them



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well I've inadvertantly derailed this thread more than I would have liked. I jumped the gun because I couldn't fathom that some people years and years ago thought boeings would just collapse in on themselves against a skyscraper.


No, the mass and velocity was enough to ensure that the plane penetrated the barrier, although total destruction of the light tube and it's contents into little pieces was assured, and there was no nose cone poking out the other side, though the heavy engineering parts of landing gear and engines had a free ball park to do whatever they were going to do, just the same as an engine in the B-25 managed to emerge from the Empire State building on the other side, and other parts of the aircraft like landing gear or engine, damaged lift cables but the rest of that plane was mash once the collision occurred into what is a relatively small compartment of the Empire state building.
Seen here,


Interestingly enough, the Empire State crash was the final spur for the proposed TORT legislation, and you can bet NIST would have that in the back of their minds when they did their wacky report on the Towers. Something to think about, and something else to think about, if those towers had just been built, would they have survived the same crash?
edit on 30-12-2015 by smurfy because: Picture.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




So is the Empire State Building, but a much smaller aircraft, a B-25, traveling at a much lower airspeed went all the way through that building and out the other side.


Actually Empire State exterior is made of cut limestone about 11 inches thick

Limestone from same quarry in Indiana was used as outer facade of Pentagon ......



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642
There is an old argument that the Boeing aircraft couldn't put a hole through the steel frame of the building. Let's have a look at the history books.

In the above picture we can see where a single Kamikaze aircraft was crashed straight through the side plating of the USS Hinsdale in 1945. It went on piercing right through the engine room where one of the bombs detonated inside the ship. It was double layered steel.

Also in 1945 another kamikaze hit the USS Enterprise. It smashed through the top deck and carried on through another five decks inside the ship. The explosion sent an aircraft elevator flying through the air. That's not just inches of steel. That's a few ft.



You're comparing apples with oranges. The pentagon construction was a steel framework combined with concrete and other elements, sitting upon solid underground foundations. Not a sheet of steel plates designed to float on water.

And comparing the Pentagon attack with an example of an aircraft headed downwards breaking through 5 decks of a ship? Yeah, that'd be decks made of either wood or steel, with lengthy voids between each layer. Again very different to an aircraft hitting the side of a steel framework which is wrapped in concrete and sits upon solid underground foundations

If you wish to put the Pentagon claim to bed by the magic of examples, then you're going to have to begin by comparing like with like. That means finding another example of a civillian airliner punching a hole through a steel-framed concrete building. Not a military fighter plane, specifically loaded to perform as a flying torpedo, punching a hole through the steel-plated side of a ship.







edit on 30-12-2015 by Motorhead because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Nm.
edit on 12/30/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: sg1642

But the pentagon is made of concrete.




So is this kerb stone. That's a piece of wood driven through it by a tornado.

OMG Kinetic energy. Who would have thought!



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Motorhead

originally posted by: sg1642
There is an old argument that the Boeing aircraft couldn't put a hole through the steel frame of the building. Let's have a look at the history books.

In the above picture we can see where a single Kamikaze aircraft was crashed straight through the side plating of the USS Hinsdale in 1945. It went on piercing right through the engine room where one of the bombs detonated inside the ship. It was double layered steel.

Also in 1945 another kamikaze hit the USS Enterprise. It smashed through the top deck and carried on through another five decks inside the ship. The explosion sent an aircraft elevator flying through the air. That's not just inches of steel. That's a few ft.



You're comparing apples with oranges. The pentagon construction was a steel framework combined with concrete and other elements, sitting upon solid underground foundations. Not a sheet of steel plates designed to float on water.

And comparing the Pentagon attack with an example of an aircraft headed downwards breaking through 5 decks of a ship? Yeah, that'd be decks made of either wood or steel, with lengthy voids between each layer. Again very different to a steel framework wrapped in concrete.

If you wish to put the Pentagon claim to bed by the magic of examples, then you're going to have to begin by comparing like with like. That means finding another example of a civillian airliner punching a hole through a steel-framed concrete building. Not a military fighter plane, acting as a flying torpedo, punching a hole through steel-plated side of a ship.



I never mentioned the pentagon once in that post you just quoted. But since we are on the subject. Yes you can compare the decks to the rings of the pentagon. Just as you said. Voids in between. Do you think the pentagon was just a solid mass of concrete and steel with no space in between?

As has already been pointed out, a B25 flying much slower and made of a less sturdy design punched straight through the empire state. You dismiss steel plate like its butter. Its double layered solid armour. Its very design is to stop things penetrating it. That's the whole point in it. The velocity and mass of an airliner is going to do much more damage than something smaller.
edit on 4061642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
If you were to say to me why didn't he just plunge straight into the pentagon rather than pull off crazy manoeuvres just to present himself with a smaller target then I'd tend to agree with you. But this notion that the planes couldn't penetrate is just nonsense.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Most of the kamikazes were ordinary aluminium aircraft like A6M "Zero" and D3A "Val" dive bombers

Their were also a number of wood/fabric "stealth" kamikazes using obsolete aircraft or trainers - the non metallic skin gave
poor radar returns allowing them to sneak in flying low over the water

Here is picture of USS Sterret (DD-407) after hit by Zero

www.navsource.org...

Kamikaze which hit USS Hinsdale (APA-120) was a twin engine Ki-45 (can see the scars left by engines)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Because in a 757 that would almost guarantee he would miss. Again, going back to WWII, look at the modifications to dive bombers. They had dive flaps to slow them down, larger tails to help keep them under control, and still missed more than they hit. It's extremely hard to control an aircraft in a dive, even when they've been modified for it. It's one of the reasons that so many Kamikaze attacks missed.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
Dear me. Do people still think 911 was a hologram? The more time that passes, the more likely the plausible explanation stands due to a crumbling conspiracy i.e. death bed confessions of one of the thousands who would be involved in an alternative.


where did this hologram thing come from?....I've seen no serious "truthers" talk about it....only the debunkers



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: bigyin




As I understand it the towers were designed so that a plane could penetrate them but not fall down as a result.


Not exactly right ......

Calculations were done to see if plane striking side of building would cause it to topple over

Found that aircraft hitting side would generate force of 13 million ft-lbs

It would take 17 million ft-lbs to topple building



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

Because in a 757 that would almost guarantee he would miss. Again, going back to WWII, look at the modifications to dive bombers. They had dive flaps to slow them down, larger tails to help keep them under control, and still missed more than they hit. It's extremely hard to control an aircraft in a dive, even when they've been modified for it. It's one of the reasons that so many Kamikaze attacks missed.


So the large looping descent actually gave him more of a chance of hitting? I thought it would present a much harder target going in low?



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

It goes from, "borderline impossible" to "much harder". The best attack would have been a shallow straight in descent into the side of the building, but he apparently didn't pick the building up visually until he was too close for that to work, so he had to do a looping descent.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Insolubrious

The kamikazes did indeed fly the okha/baka rocket plane. But generally speaking the planes were mostly current model war planes. Piston driven.

The plane that damaged the Enterprise was, if I'm remembering correctly, a single seat attack aircraft. A D4Y Judy, or one of that ilk.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

It goes from, "borderline impossible" to "much harder". The best attack would have been a shallow straight in descent into the side of the building, but he apparently didn't pick the building up visually until he was too close for that to work, so he had to do a looping descent.


What are your views on the pilots who doubt his ability to pull it off?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join