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: 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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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... ).
596
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.
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.
Cordite? The thing about cordite- it is a [British] gun propellant, not a high explosive.
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.