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.

 

The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

page: 59
292
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Because passenger gets are designed to fly in thin air at 35000 feet. Air, not concrete.

Which is to say that passenger jets are not designed to burrow through concrete walls.




posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Because passenger gets are designed to fly in thin air at 35000 feet. Air, not concrete.

Which is to say that passenger jets are not designed to burrow through concrete walls.



Do you have any idea of the materials of construction used for the Pentagon walls?


edit on 27-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

What about the B25 that crashed into the Empire State Building , smaller slower lighter yet one on it's engines went right though out the other side landed on another building and caused a fire. So how did that happen



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Because passenger gets are designed to fly in thin air at 35000 feet. Air, not concrete.

Which is to say that passenger jets are not designed to burrow through concrete walls.



How does a passenger jet land?

Or, ok? It crashed into the pentagon.

It's the old question? Would you rather be hit by a bag of feathers weighing 150,000 pounds or a passenger jet weighing 150,000 pounds made to takeoff and land repeatedly. A jet made to hold passengers and up to I think 60,000 pounds of cargo. And don't forget fuel.
edit on 28-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Thought the reference was to jet could not fly low. Mode answer more relevant to quote.

edit on 28-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Because passenger gets are designed to fly in thin air at 35000 feet. Air, not concrete.

Which is to say that passenger jets are not designed to burrow through concrete walls.



Do you have any idea of the materials of construction used for the Pentagon walls?



It was built in the 40's as an office building to 40's building code. I also think it was originally build as fast as possible.

It's an office building. Not a bunker! With large windows in the walls! Most armored glass has a hard time against a 50 cal bullet much less a 150,000 plus pound jet flying around 500 miles per hour.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Brick and mortar with a limestone facade. The section hit by Flight 77 had just undergone a renovation with steel beam reinforcements, kevlar netting to reduce fragmentation, and blast resistant windows. During the clearing of the site, they discovered that in the haste of the original construction, the bricklayers would stack two and something three bricks before a layer of mortar, the original thinking being, apparently, that between the facade, interior bracing and sheer weight, the bricks would remain stable. So, two takeaways, the exterior wall, was not as resistant to a penetrating object as you would think and, its a damned good thing that Flight 77 hit that wedge. Any of the other wedges and the damage/loss of life would have been much worse.

Anticipating those who question the "luck" of hitting the reinforced section to bolster your theories...it was the section of the building with the fewest obstacles to hit....giving a greater chance of success.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Because passenger gets are designed to fly in thin air at 35000 feet. Air, not concrete.

Which is to say that passenger jets are not designed to burrow through concrete walls.



Do you have any idea of the materials of construction used for the Pentagon walls?



If you ask me intelligent questions, I will do my best to provide an honest answer.

For wmd_2008: FWIW, the B-25 was a very tough war plane. Passenger airliners are not built to the same standard, and they are certainly not designed to bore through 3 rings of the pentagon.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Because passenger gets are designed to fly in thin air at 35000 feet. Air, not concrete.

Which is to say that passenger jets are not designed to burrow through concrete walls.



Do you have any idea of the materials of construction used for the Pentagon walls?



If you ask me intelligent questions, I will do my best to provide an honest answer.

For wmd_2008: FWIW, the B-25 was a very tough war plane. Passenger airliners are not built to the same standard, and they are certainly not designed to bore through 3 rings of the pentagon.


No worries, NeutronFlux and Cardinalfan stepped up and answered the question.

The Pentago walls were not an impenetrable barrier.

btw, what was your issue with the question I had asked, other than it didn't support your narrative?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

The point is that it really doesn't make much difference what the building was made of. It wasn't made of Legos, and it was not a wooden framed structure, and it really doesn't matter. It supported the structure above it, it kept out the rain and kept in the air-conditioning, it had windows and doors. Who cares?

The point is that airliners are not designed to bore through such things. That it could bore through however many rings were involved, and in the process retain enough structural integrity to make a nice round exit hole is an absurd claim, especially considering that some would have me believe it was shedding selective parts on the lawn before it struck the building, all the while being piloted by a guy described as a really bad pilot in Cessnas.

The building may very well have been struck by something, but it sure as hell was not AA77. Explosives were planted, many of the military personnel present described the odor of cordite, and the pesky auditors working to find some missing funds, along with the records, were all taken out. Mission Accomplished.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: djz3ro

Okay gang when start making things up ... even to make a point. ..the confusion can easily get deeper.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Hey that a cool fact. I did know that had happened

My theory on the engine; the aircraft happened to hit nicely level mid floor. The engine skipped off the concrete floor hitting only small office furniture and crashed out the window on the other side.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Because passenger gets are designed to fly in thin air at 35000 feet. Air, not concrete.

Which is to say that passenger jets are not designed to burrow through concrete walls.



Do you have any idea of the materials of construction used for the Pentagon walls?



If you ask me intelligent questions, I will do my best to provide an honest answer.

For wmd_2008: FWIW, the B-25 was a very tough war plane. Passenger airliners are not built to the same standard, and they are certainly not designed to bore through 3 rings of the pentagon.



A B-25 is not even half the plane of a modern passenger jet. A modern passenger jet is almost a whole magnitude bigger.




BOEING 757-200 SPECIFICATIONS
www.b757.info...
max take-off weight (PW2037 & RB211-535E4) 99790 kg (220,000 lb








www.911myths.com...

The maximum weight of a B-25 ranged from 27,100 lb to a limit of 41,800 lb, for instance (see www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/b25mitchell.html). A 767-200 ranges from 179,080 lbs (empty) to 395,000 lb (maximum takeoff load) (www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b767), and FEMA said the 9/11 planes had “an estimated gross weight of 274000 pounds” ( www.fema.gov... ).


edit on 28-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

edit on 28-3-2017 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: SmilingROB

Engine which punched through building is recorded as penetrating 7 walls in its path

Also consider would have to penetrate 2 solid masonry wall 11 inches thick in entering and exiting building....



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander
Agency records show that Hanjour was certified as an "Airplane Multi-Engine Land/Commercial Pilot" on April 15, 1999.



The point is that it really doesn't make much difference what the building was made of. It wasn't made of Legos, and it was not a wooden framed structure, and it really doesn't matter.


Yes it does matter. NIST did a report, it's good. I'd link to it, but you're not the type interested in learning.




The building may very well have been struck by something, but it sure as hell was not AA77. Explosives were planted, many of the military personnel present described the odor of cordite, and the pesky auditors working to find some missing funds, along with the records, were all taken out. Mission Accomplished.
Cordite? The thing about cordite- it is a [British] gun propellant, not a high explosive.

Stop watching Loose Change and do your own research.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Again with the falsehood that all the auditors and all the records were taken out??

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2002 -- As part of military transformation efforts, DoD Comptroller Dov S. Zakheim and his posse of accountants are riding the Pentagon's financial paper trail, seeking to corral billions of dollars in so-called "lost" expenditures.

For years, DoD and congressional officials have sought to reconcile defense financial documents to determine where billions in expenditures have gone. That money didn't fall down a hole, but is simply waiting to be accounted for, Zakheim said in a Feb. 14 interview with the American Forces Information Service. Complicating matters, he said, is that DoD has 674 different computerized accounting, logistics and personnel systems.

Most of the 674 systems "don't talk to one another unless somebody 'translates,'" he remarked. This situation, he added, makes it hard to reconcile financial data.

Billions of dollars of DoD taxpayer-provided money haven't disappeared, Zakheim said. "Missing" expenditures are often reconciled a bit later in the same way people balance their checkbooks every month. The bank closes out a month and sends its bank statement, he said. In the meanwhile, people write more checks, and so they have to reconcile their checkbook register and the statement.

DoD financial experts, Zakheim said, are making good progress reconciling the department's "lost" expenditures, trimming them from a prior estimated total of $2.3 trillion to $700 billion. And, he added, the amount continues to drop.

"We're getting it down and we are redesigning our systems so we'll go down from 600-odd systems to maybe 50," he explained.

"That way, we will give people not so much more money, but a comfort factor, to be sure that every last taxpayer penny is accounted for," he concluded.


web.archive.org...://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2002/n02202002_200202201.html



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Then there should be no issue there was only a small crater at Shanksville?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Never mind if there was off site back up, audits by other government agencies of pentagon contracts and expenditures, the records of tax revenue paid from the treasury to the pentagon, records of contacts between vendors and the pentagon, banking records of vendors and the treasury, the vendor records of contracts, and tax records of vendors and dealings with the pentagon. I guess also the records of competing bids from vendors and who won what contracts.

Thinking knocking out one section of the pentagon would wipe out all financial records is really ridiculous.
edit on 28-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed finger fumbles.



Ps. And don't forget all the records to be a vendor to the government. Submitting forms to prove able to handle sensitive information, documented safety records, proving you are technically competent, documented quality control, documented penalties and bonuses for being late or on time, documented as an equal opportunity employer, paying federal minimum wage, and that you are not employing dishonorably discharged persons.
edit on 28-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Added last paragraph

edit on 28-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed another finger fumble.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

How do you use enough cordite to blow holes through walls, but not blow up surrounding windows, not bust eardrums, not create a rain of shrapnel, and only leave bent/snapped steel columns with no blast fragmentation.

How was cordite used to blow up into the pentagon for the passenger jet entry hole. As in no broken windows other than the hole made by flight 77. As in the outer wall and windows were pushed into the pentagon, and not push into the lawn?
edit on 28-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Added snapped.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: SmilingROB

The thing is the Empire State Building was not open plan it had internal steel columns unlike the towers another thing that may interest you is the pilots body was not discovered for a cuople of days it traveled through part of the building and fell down a lift shaft. The real issue though is that salander doesn't understand. the physics of collisions..




top topics



 
292
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join