Originally posted by Killtown
Um, this thread has nothing to do with my Penta-Lawn 2000! page. Although with the look of the undisturbed pavement right in front of the Pentagon
where the NIST said Flight 77's left engine hit the ground, this thread may become The Amazing Penta-Pavement!
Yes, it has everything to do with this thread. Aircraft are designed to be able to survive a belly slide or gear up landing. The angle of approach
would be the same, unlike a normal crash that occurs at a steeper angle, thus no permanent damage to the runways, grass, snow, and dirt in my photos
same as the lawn, cement, and dirt in yours.
Originally posted by Killtown
That is so nice. What in the &@%! does that have to do with this thread? Please go back and read the title.
Since a 757 has its engines slightly lower then the rest of the fuselage, when it has to belly slide the engines hit the ground before the rest of the
body would. At some point, the weight of the plane is being supported on those two engines. The engines, if they remain attached, would most likely
crush in at the bottoms since they are mostly empty space rather then dig into the ground, and would slide like the aircraft above did.
Originally posted by Killtown
Now it's really becoming hard to take you seriously. Where did I say that pic of the Boeing's left engine was from a 757? I posted it because it it
is a similar size of a 757 and it's left engine and for it's scale purpose. Do you disagree?
Thanks for the post though, I had a good laugh.
Since the photo is labeled
757eftengine3vt.jpg, And I am sure that the next set of question is going to be how it could leave such a small hole
in the building. You see I have danced this dance before, repeatedly.
Yes it is true that the engines on a 767 are the same or very similar to those on a 757. I would have to look at the specs on the plane to tell you if
they are exactly the same.
Originally posted by Killtown
Where did Flight 77's left engine (not fuselage) hit the ground near the building as the Pentagon Building Performance Report claims?
Where are the scrapes from the construction equipment moving around that area?
Unless you are there in person and can look at it up close, what do you expect to see?
How do you even know that the engine passed over that exact location that you are showing in your picture?
Can you definitively prove to me that the engine was in contact with the ground at that exact point, and that it had not hit earlier, skipped into the
air, and passed over this area?
Originally posted by Killtown
A perfectly good explaination of something that had nothing to do with this thread.
In what way does an explanation of how a belly slide works not involve this thread?
Or is it that you just don’t want to acknowledge that it does because it debunks your theory and that is why I got a U2U from you asking me to
remove my pictures and trying to tell me this was not relative to the thread?
All that U2U told me is that I hit too close to the mark and you don’t care for my honest post on the subject, since others obviously see the
connection.
It’s a moot point anyway since I cannot change my post over 2 hours later anyway. Even if I could change it at this point it would only be the
oversized pics, as a courtesy, not the rest since they are relevant…
As you said in your U2U, Wink Wink…
I am not a member of this site because I want to propagate BS, no matter how popular it may be, but because I want to let truth be known.
Originally posted by Killtown
The plane was said to have traveled at 530 mph. The engine is the heaviest and strongest part of that plane.
Actually, to my knowledge the landing gear assembly is the heaviest strongest part of the plane…
Originally posted by Killtown
It "scraped the ground"? A "half a second of lightly rubbing the floor"? Did you not see this pic of theirs showing the engine BURIED HALFWAY
UNDER THE GROUND???
Or its halfway smashed flat.
Obviously, ihatescifi was being sarcastic with this remark, he obviously realizes the same thing that I do, and that is the angle of attack would not
allow it to make a crater. It was like a stone skipping across a pond, not like dropping a stone straight down into a pond.
Originally posted by Killtown
It makes perfect sense if we were talking about Flight 77's fuselage. Since this thread is about Flight 77's left engine, it makes no
sense.
It has to do with a heavy cylindrical aircraft aluminum object skidding across both the grass and cement at the correct angle of attack. Whether that
cylinder is the engine, or the body makes no difference, now does it?
Originally posted by Killtown
Such as the Purdue one that is not how gov't officials said it came in?
Funny I looked at their site and they seem to agree that a 757 hit the building, not a missile, drone, or UFO.
[edit on 12/16/2005 by defcon5]
