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.

 

A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

page: 37
65
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

I am just saying a large jet hit the pentagon.
Quote were I am pushing every bit of the official narrative. Prove I use only "offical sources".

Your on the hook for light pole data inaccurate due to being broken at the base and pushing a straw man argument I am pushing all of the official narrative. How many times have you said the light poles were cleanly cut?


One thing comes to mind reading your posts. If you cannot be clear and concise to prove a credible point, dazzle them with techno BS. And loads of it to create a false reality.

I have found papers written by people that want to increase the credibility of the truth movement to protect their gig on proving CD at the WTC. People that are rational enough to understand a large jet hit the pentagon, people that provide credible proof a large jet hit the pentagon, and people with the common sense to see and state how individuals like you are killing the truth movement.



Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016 | Editor's Picks, Essays, Science, US
www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...



John D. Wyndham (PhD) studied under two Nobel Prize-winners in physics at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, U.K. and, in his early career, was a Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology. He is currently Coordinator of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. His research papers on 9/11 can be found there and on the website Scientific Method 9/11 for which he acts as Moderator

Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement. Public feedback shows that the false Pentagon hypotheses undermine public acceptance of other highly credible scientific findings, such as the demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC7) in New York City.



edit on 15-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that




posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop


Standard VDOT light poles lengths, as placed around the Pentagon was/is 40 feet / 12.2 meters high from top of lamp to base.
You have a source for the actual height of the poles in question?

You claim 40 feet here, Your diagram indicates 34 feet.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Just amazing how a simple skim reading brings out blatant discrepancies in the long manifestos?



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

A challenge for you.

Make a simple thesis paragraph.

Make a simple supporting argument paragraph.

Then one paragraph for cited works.

Can you keep it under three paragraphs and a thousand words.

Or do you become impotent when you cannot weave post after post to create your own reality? And lose the ability to act superior when people cannot follow your long winded and disjointed logic.

When talking about 757s, why mention any other jet design. Example of false logic.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop


Yup. Or a sample light pole clamped in a huge lathe, and then rotate it 180 degrees at full speed, until it hits a sharp knife-formed piece of steel, fixed 20 feet away on the shop floor.

Not a practical theory in my opinion, do you have anything that would change my mind?



Or, when I want a nice bend first, and then cut a clamped-in pole, fix the sharp knife-formed piece of steel 20 feet high up above the huge lathe and use half of that lathe's force /speed.

Again, you can't just strap unbalanced items into 'a huge lathe'.
Have you any experience with big iron and rotating equipment?


If I want to cut light poles like in some of the pictures can be seen, then I use a fire fighters and police piece of emergency-cutter equipment, they use to cut out stuck drivers after a car accident.
Some one that knows about how these pieces of equipment operate will be able to answer you as to if they are capable of pinching off a light standard. First we will have to know what light standards we are dealing with.

The ones at the pentagon, can we find the engineering specs?
Height and materials of construction?



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Saying what a 757 can and cannot do based off other aircraft designs is like what? Stating humans cannot run a 4 minute mile and then using a 500 pound person as your control sample and proof?



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I thought light poles were made to breake away in a crash?


youtu.be...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I'm sure they were.

I actually collided with some kinda frangible based aluminum light standard, skidding on the ice to a stop. I didn't stick around to inspect the pole lol.

2008 GMC truck, barely bent the bumper, but did knock the pole over.
edit on 15-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Glad you were ok 👍



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
A reply to: LaBTop

Standard VDOT light poles lengths, as placed around the Pentagon was/is 40 feet / 12.2 meters high from top of lamp to base.

You have a source for the actual height of the poles in question?
You claim 40 feet here, your diagram indicates 34 feet.


If you had taken the time to read this whole thread, you'd have saved yourself some precious time, AND 9 posts of patting each others shoulders for a nonsense interpretation of my posted diagrams and photos of light pole specifications you had not the common sense to check upon them ALL.
It's been posted by me pages before.
Precisely reading and interpreting offered good information is too much of a task.? :

34 feet up to the top of its straight pole length, NOTE the position of the two blue 34' texts written beside the tops of both poles in this photo :




D8Tee : Some one that knows about how these pieces of equipment operate will be able to answer you as to if they are capable of pinching off a light standard. First we will have to know what light standards we are dealing with.
The ones at the pentagon, can we find the engineering specs?
Height and materials of construction?


40 Feet from base to top of lamp head, the lamp holder truss arm is an extra 6' high, just READ and comprehend :



D8Tee, for several decennia, I was the owner of several construction firms, which you should have known when you read my posts. And yes, if I would have got the task to fake, some cut by plane wings, aluminum light poles, I would have used one of my huge lathes (5 meter/yards long).
Because then I can make it look nearly like the real thing.
Even better, fix the pole parallel to the work floor, and let my lathe bend and cut it, with some much shorter, blunt piece of steel clamped in its claws, mimicking the front of a plane's wing. And no, the lathe can not be allowed to rotate 360 degrees or more, to avoid damage, only a short on/off, to mimic a pitchers or tennis player's arm.
There are also real big pipe benders and pipe cutters. There exists a lot of real big construction equipment. The bending can be done in a huge bending machine.
Faking this kind of damage is EASY.

And imagining such faking becomes much easier, when you study all those 25 NoC witnesses their video and audio interviews.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
D8Tee, did you ever consider the light poles their well known break away base construction to its full importance.? Also considering the mass inertia of the pole, and the wing's own mass and immense speed.? And mass, elasticity, and friction involved.?

Imagine a plane's wing tip (so not its wing root), hitting such a break-away pole in its middle, 20 feet up point, at 825 KMH, so not at your GMC truck's 10 times less, 50 to 80 kmh speed while hitting just above ground, at its base.

Then explain to me what you think really happens in time, from the first pole touch to the break away point of the base. That's a few milliseconds in total, no more.

You can start by hitting a fixed thin aluminum pipe with a baseball bat (V = slow) and slowly working your way up to some equipment that can hit a light pole diameter at its halfway up length of 20 feet, with V = 825 kmh.
Then observe and report what really happens.

A tennis player and Guinness world record holder (Samuel Groth from Australia) threw a ball with his racket at 263 KMH / 163.4 MPH.
So, you only have to construct an equipment setup that can throw a three times faster blow to an upright fixed aluminum light pole, of course with the same break away base.
TIP : fix the baseball bat horizontally onto a huge electromotor, and let that one rotate with 825 KMH, then shove the setup with the light pole attached in its upright normal position, into the rotating bat. I assure you : Big adult fun.
After repeating this several times, report to me for each test, if :

1. the pole was cut, fell backwards
2. the pole was cut, and catapulted forwards
3. the pole was cut, kept first standing, than fell slowly to : WHERE?
4. the pole base was broken, or not broken away at all, or did the pole break somewhere else.?
5. the pole was bended at all, or not.
6. were you still OK.?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

neutronflux : When talking about 757s, why mention any other jet design. Example of false logic.


Because they all use the same design : composite carbon fiber skin and internal aluminum wing spars covered by CF. And be my guest, find such wing stress tests online for a B-757-200 build before 1990.

And I gallantly took, to please the OS trusters here, just a moderate wing tip flex of 3 meters upwards at 825 KMH while trying to level off in dense air, just before allegedly hitting light pole 1 and 2.
Which is by far not the maximum flex possible at those immense wing loads, when coming out from even a shallow dive maneuver AT THAT SPEED in that dense air.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   
One thing always stands out from answers by ATS members, clearly critical to my posts, and especially those who for sure have an immense short attention span :

You never ever touch the REAL meat of the matter in all my posts.

You directly go on a witch hunt to find some tiny typos, flaws or whatever other parts you can think of, to use to go on a rampant page-filler tour. And are mostly wrong on them too.

While totally neglecting the real answers for the real questions, since you guys do not have them at hand, EVER. Or have the guts to get into a real debate about them.

Since you know far too well, it has been done to death in numerous threads here and at other forums, and no one has ever had the guts to go and visit personally those two Pentagon Police NoC flight path witnesses, after their 2006 interview by CIT.
Or those 4 ANC workers, or Christine Peterson or Penny Elgas, or any of the other NoC witnesses.

Only that PumpItOut forum owner Jeff, telephoned a few of them (but not Brooks and Lagasse.! ), but he masterfully avoided any questions on the exact spot on Route 27 where Penny Elgas and the others I mentioned, stood at a standstill in the northerly going HOV lanes, while that plane, from a NoC flight path, came thundering that low, over their heads and cars. Penny stood a few cars behind where the plane passed over Route 27, and Christine Peterson was very clear on the position where she stood, namely right in front of the helicopter landing pad, and she was also very clear that the plane came right over her head.
Thus Penny stood also very near to that white, concrete landing pad on the Pentagon lawn, making the official story a right out lie. Including all these 5 cut poles.

Be a man, answer the real questions of Life after 9/11.!
Because everything we and you experienced after 9/11, is still caused by that huge false flag operation on the day of 9/11, and by its preparations from before and by its damage recovery efforts that are still going on afterwards.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   

neutronflux : Or do you become impotent when you cannot weave post after post to create your own reality?


You will find out if you ever reach my age, that sex is not at foremost interest anymore.
Thank you for asking.
Yep, I just really got tickled from your infantile remark. Well done. It helps.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

One thing always stands out from answers by ATS members, clearly critical to my posts, and especially those who for sure have an immense short attention span :

You never ever touch the REAL meat of the matter in all my posts.

You directly go on a witch hunt to find some tiny typos, flaws or whatever other parts you can think of, to use to go on a rampant page-filler tour. And are mostly wrong on them too.

While totally neglecting the real answers for the real questions, since you guys do not have them at hand, EVER. Or have the guts to get into a real debate about them.

Since you know far too well, it has been done to death in numerous threads here and at other forums, and no one has ever had the guts to go and visit personally those two Pentagon Police NoC flight path witnesses, after their 2006 interview by CIT.
Or those 4 ANC workers, or Christine Peterson or Penny Elgas, or any of the other NoC witnesses.

Only that PumpItOut forum owner Jeff, telephoned a few of them (but not Brooks and Lagasse.! ), but he masterfully avoided any questions on the exact spot on Route 27 where Penny Elgas and the others I mentioned, stood at a standstill in the northerly going HOV lanes, while that plane, from a NoC flight path, came thundering that low, over their heads and cars. Penny stood a few cars behind where the plane passed over Route 27, and Christine Peterson was very clear on the position where she stood, namely right in front of the helicopter landing pad, and she was also very clear that the plane came right over her head.
Thus Penny stood also very near to that white, concrete landing pad on the Pentagon lawn, making the official story a right out lie. Including all these 5 cut poles.

Be a man, answer the real questions of Life after 9/11.!
Because everything we and you experienced after 9/11, is still caused by that huge false flag operation on the day of 9/11, and by its preparations from before and by its damage recovery efforts that are still going on afterwards.


All of the discussion on radar, flight characteristics, light poles, is superfluous distraction. You need a coherent theory. Obfuscation and misdirection via long-winded posts does not cut it. The "I-don't-know-but ...." answer is unacceptable.

Were bodies of passengers found inside the Pentagon?
If they were, how did they get there?
If they weren't, what happened to the passengers?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: pinch1435

Pinch1435, your snidely approach in page 34[/url] doesn't hide a blunt dis-interest to at least READ the already offered links in the former pages. Just bursting into a 30+ pages long thread and launch a quick but flawed opinion, without checking up the details first, does no good to anyone's professional reputation.
--more--



My Lord. You must get paid by the word. That was the biggest waste of non-informational blathering gish-gallop of dead trons I've seen from a Truther in many a moon. I must congratulate you on at least that.

I don't really care what you come up with or find or digitally gerrymander or obfuscate or misinterpret or pretzel-up or whatever. Nobody who knows anything - *anything* - about weapons status nomenclature and verbiage and standards would ever use the term "weapons freeze" for the reason I and others outlined. Again, I don't care what you found or what you think discovered or what. You are an amateur diving into areas you have absolutely no clue about and seem to take joy in spouting off on things you also have absolutely no clue about - in other words, a typical Truther. I've had a Navy Air Warfare Commander say, into *my* helmet, "Warning Yellow, Weapons Hold" during an event 70 miles north of eastern Libya. I had to study and learn and know and use and make decisions based on those standards. You have not. I don't really care whether you believe that or not - you are a truther and your concurrence with or claimed credibility in these matters mean absolutely nothing to me.

As far as ATS is concerned, I was very active years ago during the previous iteration of the Conspiracy Theory forum. I have been active on a number of fronts and fora over these past many years, engaging Truthers as a form of entertainment rather than on any sort of holy quest. Truthers are...well, I'd probably get into trouble if I said what I really felt, so we'll just go with the fact that its been over 15 year now and the Truther world has gone from ridiculous right through absurd and are now in full-blown mockeryland. Keep it up. It just gets better and better.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

No, they don't. The 757 uses aluminum alloys in the wing skin, as did most aircraft before the 787. The 787 uses CFRP. The B-52 certainly didn't use CF in the wings. They didn't start using CF until long after they were all built. The first aviation related use was in a Rolls Royce engine in 1968.

The 757 has some panels that are reinforced carbon fiber, but the wing itself is aluminum alloys.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: rayjoh
In dense air near ground, at that same speed, its wings will bend up to over its maximum allowed angles, especially when trying to level off from a shallow dive from over the last, 8th Wing of the Annex roof :

How many G was used during level off?


How many G is max load? Answer is 2.5G, 150% is 3.75G




By the way, the right expression should have been this :
""The wings bending up (flexing up) depends on the total weight of the airplane

Yes

And on its wings construction, wings surfaces and wing tank"s configuration

Yes

and the air density and airplane speed.""

No


Now ask yourselves, which wings would flex up more, from :
1. A plane that falls down as a leaf, so, in a horizontal level, in the 10 km high region, where there are sparse air molecules (thin air),
or
2. A plane that does the same, but now near the ground level region, where there are a maximum amount of air molecules (denser air).

If the wings feel the same G load, there is no difference in wings flexing.


At excessive speeds of around 825 kmh, in dense air with more drag/air resistance than at cruising speed in thin air, and a LOT more LIFT at that speed and low altitude, and an impressive amount of extra G's when leveling off from a dive, AT THAT crazy high SPEED.

How many G during level off?


That test plane HANGS through cables and pulleys and orange weights in that test system, it's not standing on the floor.

How can the wings be bending up with 3.75G if the fuselage is holding them down with 1G? Where is the extra 2.75G if the plane is not strapped to the test jig?


In simpler terms : a B-757-200 was hanging with its full weight on both its wings and wing tips while its wings were "braking" on a bed of densest possible air molecules, at 825 kmh near ground level, while trying to level-off, which resulting G-forces maneuver caused its wing tips to flex up and perform at its near maximum load design values.

Still no information about how many G during level off. Do You assume they level off with 3.75G? What is the angle of attach for a B757 at that speed at ground level to achieve 3.75G?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Forgive me for my ignorance but I imply from your story that you were driving too fast on ice and couldn't stop due to your reckless driving and knocked over a light pole then you decided to take off instead of reporting it. I imagine you didn't call anybody to offer to pay them. Do I have this correct or am I missing something? I try not to read your posts because they seem to have an agenda but I accidentally read that one.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop


State proof the light poles were cut cleanly in half!


Only two of them, 1 and 3. You tend to add things which I do not write ( "the" ).
Don't you guys have any grasp on geometry, trigonometry, calculus and logic, and btw, those 4 stars throwers too, when I offer photos with calculations, just a few posts above this one?
Or are you playing intentionally dumb, to force me and others to spend endless hours to rebut your nonsense.? :



How come Adam Larson, the person who seems to have been the author the above graphic comes to a different conclusion than you do?


There are also smaller parts visible (top shot, left: truss arm and lamphead, as well as another small straight piece further to the left, but for now I'm interested in the length of this prime piece of history; the '40 foot pole' that could not have fit in the cab – how long is it really? Unfortunately I can only get a range on original pole dimensions; Pickering says 28 feet, other say 30, and some say 40. After measuring photos back and forth with different numbers, ratios, I’ve decided on these proportions as a best fit, though still approximate:
Pole height: 32 feet
Base height: 16 inches
Full height to cap: 33.333 feet
Pole diameter at base: 8 inches
I also found the proportions of 1990s model Lincoln Town Car, which this seems to be: 77x219.” With al this, rough ratios were set, roughly averaged, estimated, and the apparent length of fragment on the roadway is 20-23 feet - perhaps a bit longer - about 14-16 feet of that straight.

It's probably not even new, but I've decided the part of pole 1 seen by Lloyd's cab is about 20-23 feet long, missing perhaps ten feet off the top, including the parts where the truss bolts down. Where that top part wound up is something I haven't looked into, but they could be simply the pieces on the road nearby, depending if the straight piece measure out right. It's also possible that a sizable chunk disappeared into the jet's engine (see below), causing the gray smoke visible trailing behind Flight 77 at impact.




edit on 16-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
65
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join