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: 40
62
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: D8Tee

Did you and Zaphod notice my "before 1990" remark.?


Explain further.

Why are you speaking about Carbon Fiber?




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Which is about as relevant as comparing it to a B-52. The 757-200 wing stress test was performed in 1982, long before they were saving them or posting them online. Or are you claiming they changed the wing to a composite wing in 1990?

If you are, then prove it. The first largely composite wing used by Boeing was the 787 wing.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux

What my point is.? Playing dumb again.?
WINGS ARE FLEXING UP at that crazy speed, and especially when forced to come out of a shallow dive at min. 3.5 G to be able to cross that lawn, while flying parallel to it.
It's ALL over this thread, my remarks about that, and the quintessence of my argument is, that not one of all those 9/11 researchers has taken that in consideration.
Therefor this following diagram again, which you all seem to have trouble with understanding, especially you and D8Tee.

And D8Tee has not even noticed that I even took Larson's pole 1 and 2 heights of 34 feet as my pole heights, because it's not important to put that extra 6 feet lamp truss on, what's important is the cut height FROM ground UP.
The REAL 40 feet height only comes in play when we would like to show how high halfway up really is.....Btw, I took all drawings from the CIT site, NOT from Larson's site, I even had not realized nor remembered, that they took these diagrams from his site, until you pointed me to his name and blog. I miss him posting here, it were some good civic debates with him.



Larson drew its right wing far too high.
The light blue poles were inserted by me on their right spot, and pole 1 to his wrong scale height of 34 feet.
And I placed the two green bands on both of them in their right Larson-based positions, pole 1 cut at 17 or 23 feet up, pole 2 cut at 14 to 16 feet up from ground level.
I even gave him lots of slack at pole 2, if you draw a parallel line to a line through my real 40 feet top and his too high top, starting the parallel line from his 16 feet green line downwards, you end up at my 14 feet green line, which is thus in reality the 16 feet cut-line and my real 14 feet line drops even lower. Resulting in an even lower left wing, and an even heavier impact with that overpass bridge.
Then I drew two possible wing configurations in orange color. Two moderate wing flex ups, at that crazy speed, in reality they will bend up more.
Just compare MY pole 2 its top height at its correctly drawn spot/length, with the other white pole visible just to the right of my light blue pole 2, on the other side of the road.

Larson however, drew it much too high, while he seemed to have understood very well that that photo is quite distorted by angle and used lens. Because he also drew his plane (with straight wings) with a shorter left wing, to compensate for photo-distortion. Why he got then the length of pole 2 so wrong.? It seems he realized that his drawn-in plane then ended up higher, since if he would have drawn it at its right position, it would have cut through the trees at that left side of the overpass bridge.

It's also very clear that he took that picture he saw of the seemingly circular cut off tree top, behind his pole 1, for granted as been formed by the right jet engine nacelle, which it clearly was not, when you note my correct placed pole and its cut minimum 17 and maximum 23 feet green lines positions on them.
He smuggled with his right wing, placing it 3 feet above his maximum 23 feet cut position, solely to show, that in his mind, that right engine nacelle must had cleanly clipped out that photographed rounded bite-out from the tree top, which it however never did.
That right engine would have cut off the whole tree. And the fuselage would have impacted the stone wall of the overpass railing and some more stones and concrete under it, while the left wing would have shaved off the whole top of that tree in its trajectory.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


I am only arguing large jet strike at the pentagon. More intellectual dishonesty on your part.


Anyone that doesnt support your views is "intellectual dishonesty" as you continue to demonstrate it.


Care to state what hit the pentagon. Or you just going to avoid the question.


My "opinions" to what did happen at the pentagon are not what readers are interested about. However most readers are not interested in the OS of the Pentagon disaster and that's is all you are shoveling in this thread.


Again. Want to talk about the truth movement and dustification, termite ceiling tiles, fuzzle no flash bombs and talk about explosions at the WTC with the same sentence , holograms and lasers, holograms and missiles, stolen missiles, or nuclear bombs. How about the insuring, maintenance, and building office buildings that are designed to self destruct.


No, because I have never made any of those claims, and never supported such nonsense. You believe you can discredit me as a poster, by lumping me in your ridiculous rants that everyone that disagrees with you, believe in these silly accusations you are claiming.

This is vicious "intellectual dishonesty" on your part, but what does one expect, when one is supporting a no evidence fairytale narrative, in my "opinion".



What to talk about the cause of the WTC 7 collapse was already taken to court by the insurance companies to get out of the payout?


So you believe the court judges did some kind of scientific test that proves to the world that the building just fell down all by itself without any help?

I wasn't aware there was any discussion about demolition in these court hearings, are you? Can you show me in these court hearings that the court judges were handed scientific documents proving there was no demolition of WTC 7?


edit on 17-4-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

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.


They : meaning all the video examples I could find online, and posted.
Why don't you take the effort, and read back my posts when I gently ask you to do that.? Why lay the burden of searching 3 pages back to find that post, always on my shoulders, and then having the audacity to complain about my long stretched posts, meant to exclude as much doubt as can be.?

Zaphod : of course not. And I took your 3 m flex, you guessed in your earlier post.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop




Btw, I took all drawings from the CIT site, NOT from Larson's site, I even had not realized nor remembered, that they took these diagrams from his site, until you pointed me to his name and blog.


Link please.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

I'm aware of where you got it from. But you're sitting here comparing wings that are totally different from each other and trying to tie them all together somehow. You have the B-52, which is an all aluminum anhedral wing, which causes more flex than a dihedral wing. Then you have an aluminum alloy with composite panel dihedral wing on the 757, followed a mostly CFRP wing on the 787, designed to flex as much as possible.

This wasn't apples and oranges, it was apples to oranges to strawberries.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958

Typical Truth Movement rambling.



Most of the twisting of facts are from the leaders of the truth movement to stay relevant and financially afloat in the conspiracy marketplace. Sorry, you are a consumer of the truth movement. Not a truth hero.



Want to talk about nuke bombs, lasers and holograms, missiles and holograms, fizzle no flush bombs, thermite ceiling tiles, rebar covered in C-4. Dustification? Stolen saltwater damaged Russian Missiles? The impossibility a missile or cordite caused the damage at the pentagon?



It seems to me the only argument left for the OS supporters to desperately cling to and lump everyone who doesnt buy into the 911 OS fairy tail is, the Dead Truth movement and little to nothing else.

Yet we none believes of the OS are ridiculed that everything we say are nothing but tin foil ramblings.

Funny how that door swings both ways, Pot calling Kettle. Not to mention, it is also off topic.




What fairy tale are you talking about. Quote were I buy into every bit of the official narrative. I am just saying a large jet hit the pentagon. Your arguments cannot be substantiated, quantified, are intellectually dishonest, and are a straw man.

It's not my fault the product of the truth movement is more about target audience and consumerism than truth.

Are you ever going to answer what caused all the damage at the pentagon on 9/11?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

It would appear that your only trusted eyewitnesses are the ones who support this very complicated theory and all contradictory eyewitness reports are thrown out as well as declaring the physical evidence as faked (miraculously somehow). Despite there being a similar, or even greater, number of witnesses to the lamp poles being hit and the pieces pictured as actual evidence of that.

Apart from the 'how to' secretly plant the fractured lamp poles, a bigger mystery would be 'why' when the object of the exercise was to impact the building, not poles that just got in the way. The simplest answer to me is that the official story is basically correct in terms of the physical events of the day. I'm still open to any evidence to the contrary but, by now, it will take something sensational to negate all I've seen - I hang around ATS because this is the place I'd read about any new developments first.

The sun was ESE at approx 30 degrees elevation and the sky was clear btw



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

It's the first time every time.....

Here is the metabunk link to the WTC 7 court case and public records again. I am pretty sure I have provided this link for you more than once. I have definitely provided this link numerous times in threads you were involved in. More intellectual dishonesty or just forgetful?



By: benthamitemetric
www.metabunk.org...

www.metabunk.org...


The reports as follows:
Analysis of the Impact of a Fire in the Mechanical Room (5th & 6th Floor) of the World Trade Center 7 Building by Jose Torero.
World Trade Center 7 by Joseph P. Colaco (same file as above)
Response of WTC7 to Standard Office Fires and Collapse Initiation by Colin Bailey
Expert Report by Frederick Mowrer
Report and Summary of Findings: Global Collapse Analysis, World Trade Center 7 Investigation by Guy Nordenson (Report 1, Report 2)



www.metabunk.org...


edit on 17-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

edit on 17-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Specified WTC 7



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Again.... If you are not going to supersede a large jet strike at the pentagon with a more credible event, what is your point?



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


What fairy tale are you talking about. Quote were I buy into every bit of the official narrative. I am just saying a large jet hit the pentagon. Your arguments cannot be substantiated, quantified, are intellectually dishonest, and are a straw man.


So the OS said so. Yes, we all know everyone that disagrees with you is allegedly dishonest. As far as straw man, you demonstrate that very well in your rants.


It's not my fault the product of the truth movement is more about target audience and consumerism than truth.


No one gives two cents about some dead truth movement but you. Your truth is only the OS of 911 and nothing else, your truth is full of holes, missing evidence, lack of investigation, hearsay, no videos of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, nada, nothing.

Are you ever going to produce the video of a plane hitting the Pentagon?



edit on 18-4-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Nm not worth it.
edit on 18-4-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Quote were I said said the official narrative is gospel? A false argument by you. I am just saying a large jet hit the pentagon as testified by large numbers of independent individuals. Backed by DNA and family members of the dead passengers. Still not going to answer what human remains were released and buried by the surviving family members of flight 77?

It's been outlined and cited the released pentagon video shows a jet.

It been shown by cited sources and referenced freedom request acts there is no more flight 77 footage to release.


What? If something is not recorded it didn't happen. That is disjointed logic. What does lack of video have to do with eyewitness accounts, flight 77 wreckage, flight 77 passenger DNA and personal items, pentagon damage, death certificates, released human remains.

I have cited sources by individuals aligned with the truth movement who are cornered with jet deniers hurting the truth movement's credible that a jet hit the pentagon.

If you cannot supersede the pentagon was damaged on 9/11 by a commercial jet with a more credible theory, you have no point.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958

No one gives two cents about some dead truth movement but you. Your truth is only the OS of 911 and nothing else, your truth is full of holes, missing evidence, lack of investigation, hearsay, no videos of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, nada, nothing.




You have been involved in threads were:

One, individuals have given personal accounts of the pentagon security cameras, what cameras were new, which cameras were working, when the system was scheduled to be online, and which cameras captured what angle and why.

Two, lawsuits and freedom request acts have resulted in the release of the pentagon flight 77 video and requisitioned video.

Three, In 2001 the military was still coming to terms with security video. The military has a history of using manpower, gates, checkpoints, and 24/7 man coverage to provide security.

What other missing evidence and hearsay do you want to discuss.

Why do you mention hearsay? How would it apply?


edit on 18-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Are you sure there are no accounts of a jet hitting the pentagon in court?



At Moussaoui Trial, Recalling Lives Stolen by 9/11
www.washingtonpost.com...

As jurors wiped away the occasional tear and Moussaoui watched impassively, a parade of victims and family members said the horror of the assaults on the World Trade Center and Pentagon...



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:11 AM
link   
A reply to: Zaphod58

You're right about that, that was also quite obvious not meant as strict comparison, while since there were no tests to be found for planes before 1990, online or offline, I was left with the ones I could find. It was difficult to impossible to find the figures for the 757 series, that's why I gave my guess from experience at leveled cruising speed and then asked you, what their max flex COULD have been in straight flight, in a dive or not, and you carefully guessed 3 meters, and because of that, that moderate figure was used.

Trying to give the reader at least insight how these stress test are/were done, those more modern examples were offered. Especially to give them insight in the fact, that at heavier wing loads, the flex values go up quite some more.
Which counts for every, later than f.ex. 1960, modern aluminum or composite wing.

And yes, we can be quite sure that the more than moderate values came at play, in a dive and level off maneuver from somewhere above the last Annex roofs, at 825 KMH, in those last 2 DFDR-seconds. It's quite clear by now, I don't have high hopes for their reality level.

And the higher that somewhere, the steeper the dive and the greater the dive angle, and the resulting G-forces, while trying to correct, just before pole 1, that dive angle to a level flight above the lawn.
Btw, don't forget this is all fairy tale land, it didn't fly there at all, it flew NoC.

I will try to get the specifics at different loads for those 757 wings from my local sources, or delving deeper in online sources, because I get the feeling that we touched a nerve somewhere.

Could you, Zaphod, also try to do the same, or are you not interested to see if my moderate 3 m flexed up right wing arrival at 20 feet up from light post 1 its base, based on your careful estimate, is valid at all.?
Perhaps you, Zaphod, with your access to much more sources than I, could find viable figures that put this whole exercise to rest.?

Is there a flight sim pilot left here, that could get those figures from his sim.?



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:24 AM
link   
A reply to: D8Tee

Got it from here : www.abovetopsecret.com...
It covers 12 years.

D8Tee, can't you let go when proved wrong?
Not 34 feet, but 40 feet was the proven pole length.

What has scale AND total length to do with his measurements? He concludes that that broken lower pole part is between 20 and 23 feet long, that's cut halfway up of 40 feet, and even if that pole would have been 100 feet long, that wouldn't change his original 14-16 ft AGL for pole 2 and his 17-23 ft AGL (above ground level) for his pole 1 its lower piece-cut calculation.

He clearly compares VISIBLE lengths in that photo, to the known dimensions of the Lincoln. Where does he write in his photo, the by him -estimated 34 ft- total length of that pole 1.?
Nowhere, because it's not important for his lower pole piece lengths comparison calculation.
And he smuggled already +3 feet up on pole 1, so what's your problem.?

And a flexed-up wing tip that cuts at 20 feet/6.1 meter up from that pole 1 its base, when alleging even a very moderate 3 meter flexed up wing tip, is devastating for the OS.

That's why everybody on my opposite bench gets so riled up and starts an ants fornicating tour again, totally neglecting the just above given meat of the matter again.
It's quite telling again, that you do not attack my overpass bridge situation drawing, nor its core figures.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Prove one wing was not dipping, or the jet rolling side to side. The jet wasn't bouncing from terbutaline. The ground was flat and level between light poles. So many faults in your logic.

Would you actually quote from the reference source.
edit on 18-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Wanted better wording.

edit on 18-4-2017 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



D8Tee, can't you let go when proved wrong?


Proved wrong about what?

I simply asked a question as to why the claim was made that the poles were 40 feet tall when the graphic showed 34.

You tend to make things difficult for all involved, I'm not expecting you to give me the link to the CIT site where you originally got the graphic from, thats fine.



It's quite telling again, that you do not attack my overpass bridge situation drawing, nor its core figures.

Don't even know what you are talking about, once again.

Why must you take everything as an attack?

Contrary to what you may think, I have an open mind.

It's just that I tend to be realistic and deal within the confines of the data and evidence that exists, I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.



edit on 18-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join