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.

 

NIST: Flight 77's left engine hit the ground

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
The picture you show has the engine hitting the tarmac, not 'the dirt' *chin trembles*




posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   





www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

Here take a look at this Nasa Controlled test crash of a 707 (note: what I am talking about can only be clearly seen in the video!). Please note that this would be the angle of impact for the 757. Also note that this was done on loose sand. If you look closely you will see that the left engines hit right before the fuselage does and they do not scoop in like your coffee cup but actually have a somewhat upward angle, the wing flexes and they slide acting like sleds. The fuselage then hits, then the plane hits the wing cutters which are about the equivalent of hitting the pilings at the front of the Pentagon. Once the wing cutters are hit the fireball starts (This is why there is no black charring on the grass out front). At this point the #3 engine on the right side explodes upward as though its going to go over the wing, just as posted that it would (Weaker rear engine mount). It does not make it because the fire consumes it first.

Before the fireball all you have is sand and white smoke as the aircraft is sliding as though making a gear up landing. If you watch the wide angle shot of this crash you will notice that the aircraft does a nice smooth slide on the sand, across the first area of gray cement, then it hits the wing cutters and the fireball begins and the plane starts to roll over. The fireball is quite similar to the one in the pentagon footage. So basically this is as close as you are going to find to what happened. Simply imagine that the wing cutters are the pilings for the building, and that the sand was instead grass that would not fly up in the air as much.

If you will please also note that this plane only went through a couple of wing cutters, not a wall and a thousand pilings inside the building which would have further cut it to little pieces. Also important is the fact that a 707 is a somewhat sturdier plane then a 757, it has 4 engines and no composites like the newer 57’s do. Size wise it is somewhat comparable to a 757 in length and wingspan, though I believe that a 57 has a thinner fuselage.

If you study this video and the others of this crash all your answers lay within it.


www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

Perhaps someone with the correct equipment/software can capture a snapshot of the engines hitting just before the body and post it so that we can clear this all up…



[edit on 12/18/2005 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown
However, if an engine hits the dirt with it's front angled down, hey guess what? A trench would have been dug in the dirt!
img218.imageshack.us..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


In the above video you can see quite clearly that the engines are designed to angle upward and not scoop into the dirt, they do that on purpose, as I have been saying. A plane is designed to gear up land and slide. So considering that and that the engines are angled more like your coffee cup with the fuselage label, are my earlier pictures still not applicable?

You see this is part of the problem with these threads, you have a lot of people out there that look at this stuff and come to what seems like logical conclusions. For instance the engines are pointing somewhat down and are shaped like a cup so they must scoop up dirt. Then you have a few folks here that have been around this stuff and know that things don’t always work in what seems the logical way, and for a reason. That is what I have said from day one, that unless you have worked around this stuff and seen a few things, misconceptions abound.


[edit on 12/18/2005 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5




Riddle me this.

The above photos and the many photos, and videos of other crashes, of remotley controlled aircraft show a pretty obvious fact:

It's possibly to remotely controll a plane and crash it exactly how you want at a precise location.

Why is it not possible this is exactly what occured on 9/11?
The plane could of been empty, or it could of been full of people.
It could of been remotely taken over and crashed exactly where it was ment to be - the re-enforced wall of the Pentagon.
The crew and passangers, even patsy hijackers could of all been dead when the plane is depressurised as it's flying silent to radar for a while after it was remotely hijacked and changed course.

Would you really think that would be something hard to do from the worlds biggest military and intelligence complexes? In 10 years of planning, they couldn't adapt a plane to be remotely controlled, depressurised and flown to a GPS location, similar to the numerous test crashes they perform?

We all ready know they can:
a) remotely fly planes and take over plane controlls
b) they can crash planes with precise accuracy with remote control

All they really need to do then is work out how to depressurise the plane without the oxygen masks falling down and the rest has been performed plenty of times in field tests.

The biggest mistake they made on 9/11 was making it too perfect. If, for example, the plane had clipped something and cartwheeled into the Pentagon, a novice terrorist pilot behind the wheel would of been a lot more believable.



[edit on 18-12-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   
See that is the thing.
I never said that RC was not possible. You can check every one of my posts. As a matter of fact they could do that even simpler then using the escort plane as in this old video, nor having a big radio control pod underneath and that was 5 years ago. These theories come from ignorance of modern aviation and people pushing an agenda, mostly to sell a book or video. Desperate enough to show that there is a conspiracy that they are making nonsense up.

If your 4 inch I-pod can communicate with a satellite GPS, and your car can be controlled by On-Star, why in God’s green acre would they need a 10 foot long pod to control something from a C-130 a mile away?

Answer: because it sells books and videos…Think folks...


There are things I refuse to go into for fear of giving some radical weirdo out there any bright ideas about*. As a matter of fact I have personal photos that I discussed using with Catherder for his post, but decided not too for fear of what could be gleaned from them. My only argument has ever been that a 757 was in fact used. So I am not a debunker, nor am I an Administration defender, I am simply telling you what I see from my perspective.

My perspective is that the building was hit by a 757, not a missile, and not a different aircraft, period…

I also find it rather convenient that the Enron stuff that was all over the news got thrown out the window, same as the china spy plane incident as a result of 911. That info seems to have been put under control, amongst other things as a result.

I can only speculate on the RC part, and that is all that any of us can do. I can only speculate on why the flight was not intercepted. I can only speculate on the rights that got taken away and things that got swept under the rug as a result of this. The only thing that I can definitively say is that I see nothing inconsistent with a 757 hitting the pentagon, and 767’s hitting the WTC and bringing them down. I think that is all any of us can do at the moment, and the sooner we can get off all these way out theories, the sooner we can get into the real nuts and bolts of what went on.

Your above theory could be100% accurate, but how would you prove it without making up BS about remote control pods and the like?
So if you were selling a book on the subject, what would you do to try and show this?

Now, I hope, you all kind of get my perspective…



*Let me edit this to also add that there is one thing that I have found in common with anyone that has, or does work in that field. They fear more then anything making a mistake that can kill a whole lot of people. Imagine being 20’something and if you simply had an off day you could kill 100-400 people and affect their friends and families. That type of care is taken on a daily basis by people that work in aviation, even after they leave that job. You cannot always expect one of us to provide detailed information on something. Sometimes you simply have to take our yes for yes and no for no. Sometimes in that scenario explaining something in detail comes second to what might happen if you do.



[edit on 12/18/2005 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The picture you show has the engine hitting the tarmac, not 'the dirt' *chin trembles*


Are you absolutely sure it's all pavement behind the little wall area?



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
www.dfrc.nasa.gov...


I see what you are talking about in the video, however, a couple points:

1) I'd bet the speed is a lot slower than 530 mph

2) trajectory is more level than 77 had to be in my opinion, so less likely to dig

3) engines are longer and look smaller diameter, so one could argue the probability to "dig" would be less the 757 engine

4) If 77's engine hit and slid, then where is the proof of this? Sorry if I don't buy your "ash and mud covered it up" theory.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

The angle of approach would be the same, unlike a normal crash that occurs at a steeper angle


Beg to differ, 77's nose HAD to be pointed downward to make it into the 1st floor as claimed.



Since a 757 has its engines slightly lower then the rest of the fuselage


I'll let everybody judge if "slight lower" is an appropriate description:






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.


I'm still having trouble that the engine got crushed and slid yet left no evidence of this.



Yes it is true that the engines on a 767 are the same or very similar to those on a 757.


Thanks, so me posting the scale pic was accurate then.




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?


1) because it follows the trajectory path.
2) Well if it busted that small section of the very low wall that every is saying it did, I would safely assume that's around the exact point it hit.


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


If the engine hit going 530 mph at a downward angle and slid, it would leave evidence of this.



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?


Did I ask you to remove the photo's links?



Actually, to my knowledge the landing gear assembly is the heaviest strongest part of the plane…


Ok, 2nd strongest.



Or its halfway smashed flat.


And left no evidence of this.




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?


Angles, speed, and diameter is not correct I would argue.





Funny I looked at their site and they seem to agree that a 757 hit the building, not a missile, drone, or UFO.


I could make a graphic with a 757 in it too, doesn't mean it happened in real life. Also, their angle of the plane is level which contradicts the official angle version. I wish they'd all get their story straight.



PS - You might think that I don't respect your arguements. To the contrary, I think they're very insightful and I have been enjoying the debate so far.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Your above theory could be100% accurate, but how would you prove it without making up BS about remote control pods and the like?
So if you were selling a book on the subject, what would you do to try and show this?

Now, I hope, you all kind of get my perspective…




I guess that's the genius of the day and why in some circles it's called an intelligence success. I'm not on any side about if it was a plane, a missle or a bomb, i just think what ever item was used, it was completely controlled on the inside and hit exactly where it was expected to hit.

A good covert operation that is designed to change the face of the nation or even the world, shouldn't be black & white and this one certainly has many black and white parts but also a lot of gray inbetween - that's what makes or breaks a good operation, creating the gray areas.

I personally think it's much more logical to believe remote control was used than some arabs got extreemly lucky and extreemly skilled. RC is not hard to do at all let alone with years of planning and billions of funds that don't need to be accounted for.

Proving it thou is near impossible without some major whistle blowing but that should never mean it is impossible.

No one can 'prove' that the planes were flown by 'terrorists' either but that's where the all mighty voice of the government comes in.

Personally, i think there were people on board who thought they were hijackers but they were just patsies who had no power and were killed/unconscious in the early stages along with the passengers. 9/11 was planned for years, the 'terrorists' plans were known about for a long long time and they were monitored and followed the whole time. I think Atta was a double agent or was a hijacked identity working for the terrorists and the maestros.

Like a lot of these small terrorists groups, they are fed radical religious propaganda and believe what they are doing is for the good of their religion but in reality, they are mearly puppets on strings being controlled by those who feed and fund them.

The history of the Assassin is pretty much what terrorism is today - a bunch of people who have been led to believe one thing in order to be used by another group. This is who al-Qaeda is today, a group that doesn't exist but is rather the name given to operations ordered by the West and put into practise by the East through sympathetic channels that deal with both.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown
1) I'd bet the speed is a lot slower than 530 mph

2) trajectory is more level than 77 had to be in my opinion, so less likely to dig

3) engines are longer and look smaller diameter, so one could argue the probability to "dig" would be less the 757 engine

4) If 77's engine hit and slid, then where is the proof of this? Sorry if I don't buy your "ash and mud covered it up" theory.



1) Yes, I am sure that it is, but in what way would that effect the outcome? As far as I can see it would have simply made the plane have less time in contact with the grass and cement and would make it more prone to skip longer distances if it bounced.
2) Not at all, check the official video. The plane came in at almost a straight line.
3) It has nothing to do with the length nor the width of the engine, but the shape of the cowling underneath and their mounting angle.
4) Well then prove to me that your skid marks are not under the area that is covered with brown mud? Yep there they are, but neither you or I can see them… I do not see any cement damage under the fireball in the photos I showed, so the logical conclusion is that aircraft do not make huge skid marks in the cement.


Originally posted by Killtown
Beg to differ, 77's nose HAD to be pointed downward to make it into the 1st floor as claimed.


Sorry but this is incorrect. If the nose was on the ground with the gear up, it will fit very neatly into the first story of an industrial building.


Originally posted by Killtown
I'll let everybody judge if "slight lower" is an appropriate description:


Well I am about 76 inches tall, a 757 engine hits me a bit above my waste and I can touch the belly by putting my hand about 24 inches above my head. So we are talking about around 4 foot, so yeah, that is slightly lower. Believe me that wing will have no issue with bending 4 foot over the distance between the engines.


Originally posted by Killtown
I'm still having trouble that the engine got crushed and slid yet left no evidence of this.


Cowlings are mostly empty, it is possible it might have crushed down some, it might have only disintegrated on building impact, I do not know. Either way though look at all the above photos, at the evidence that pre-exists and is not 911 influenced that show this to be the way that it works.


Originally posted by Killtown
Thanks, so me posting the scale pic was accurate then.


It is deceptive in the fuselage size, and since you have found other pictures of 757’s I have to wonder about your motivation in showing a much larger aircraft. Same as all the conspiracy sites out there that show incorrectly scaled photo’s to push a point. To be honest I cannot even tell if that is a 767 from that picture, if its not then, no the engines may not be the correct size. If it were a 777, for instance then the engines would be almost half as large over again.


Originally posted by Killtown
If the engine hit going 530 mph at a downward angle and slid, it would leave evidence of this.

There is no evidence that the angle of attack was any steeper then the photos I have shown. If there is any, please show it to me.


Originally posted by Killtown
Did I ask you to remove the photo's links?


No, but you know that links do not have the same impact that pictures do.


Originally posted by Killtown
Also, their angle of the plane is level which contradicts the official angle version. I wish they'd all get their story straight.


I am not sure what the angle discrepancy is about, please enlighten me on this.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I think that the whole credibility of conspiracy theories surrounding 911 would be better served if people would focus more on the types of aspects that you mention then on this other stuff. Most of this other stuff can be argued either way, or is totally inaccurate to begin with, no matter how many retired officers and supposed ex-pilots they try and get to sign off on their theories. Any pilot that would sign off on a theory like the POD stuff needs to have a secondary income coming in from book sales since he does not belong in a cockpit anyway…


[edit on 12/20/2005 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Here is a wider angle and better picture than the one that started this thread.

pics.soohrt.org...

(a BIG picture.
Lots of detail)

This picture was taken on November 29, 2001.

Note that considerable movement of dirt and debris has already taken place. Note that they have brought in considerable material to provide a road base for the movements of the construction trucks, cranes, etc.

Any gouge in the earth would have been filled in by that process.

This appears to have been taken shortly after 911.



Note the amount of debris in the air intake vent area.

note that this next photo, this area has been cleaned up a bit and a caution tape run around it .



But it is still a lot different from the first photo.









[edit on 20-12-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Okay... I've got some questions about that 727 engines and about rest too...

Let's say that this plane struck Pentagone flying like this:



If so...........
Why those engines didn't left any marks/damage on the face of Pentagone ?
Why there was a hole ath the ground level ? Looking at the picture I've posted it's imposibble that after plane hitted Pentagone like this it would leave hole at ground level. If it could then where are marks from engines on the pentalawn ? If it wasn't flying straight only like this:



Then again... Where is damage form the right engine on the face of Pentagon and where are some marks of left engine on the pentalawn ?

Just asking... :>



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Just out of curiosity have you read the rest of this thread?

Go back and look at my posted images from the test crash and watch the video. The wings would flex and the body and engines would be in contact with the ground just before contact with the building. As to the marks, look at the other pictures of slid aircraft and show me where any significant marks are left by them either.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Just out of curiosity have you read the rest of this thread?

Go back and look at my posted images from the test crash and watch the video. The wings would flex and the body and engines would be in contact with the ground just before contact with the building. As to the marks, look at the other pictures of slid aircraft and show me where any significant marks are left by them either.

I've read whole thread just to satsify your curiosity......
As to the makrs........ Yeah right. Don't tell me that this plane left no marks on the pentalawn because of that: "'...look at the other pictures of slid aircraft and show me where any significant marks are left by them either...". That' realy great proof.
So what's the story ? Plane struck pentagon sliding on the pentalawn, leaving no marks ? In which point of the pentalawn it began to slide ? When it "hit" the ground ? When wings flexed with the body ? It's must've happend not so close to the Pentagon if these plane was flying at so low altitude.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by STolarZ
As to the makrs........ Yeah right. Don't tell me that this plane left no marks on the pentalawn because of that: "'...look at the other pictures of slid aircraft and show me where any significant marks are left by them either...". That' realy great proof.


Well actually it's pretty common to come up with theories based on past results.
The fact there are so many examples of aircraft skidding on different types of ground (with probably less vertical force than the Pentagon aircraft I might add) without causing the types of marks that some are trying to imply should be there is pretty good proof.



So what's the story ? Plane struck pentagon sliding on the pentalawn, leaving no marks ? In which point of the pentalawn it began to slide ?


Well actually it did leave a little mark when it struck the Pentagon, and as witnesses have stated an engine struck the ground just before hitting the building. Obviously the force it will have hit the ground with vertically will be minimal in comparison to the actual impact against the building as the plane was at a shallow angle, also as people have said the Ground effect would have helped keep it up anyway.



When it "hit" the ground ? When wings flexed with the body ? It's must've happend not so close to the Pentagon if these plane was flying at so low altitude.


Eh?

[edit on 20-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Well actually it did leave a little mark when it struck the Pentagon, and as witnesses have stated an engine struck the ground just before hitting the building. Obviously the force it will have hit the ground with vertically will be minimal in comparison to the actual impact against the building as the plane was at a shallow angle, also as people have said the Ground effect would have helped keep it up anyway.
on 20-12-2005 by AgentSmith]


So... It struck the ground just before hitting the biulding.... Just before hitting the building wings and the body flexed veeeeeery quickly to the ground and then struck Pentagon at the ground level leaving one hole and no visible on any photos engine marks, especially after right engine?

Now you see my point ?

Looking at his vid posted by defcon5:
www.dfrc.nasa.gov...
it easy to see that it took some time and space before the body was on the ground after left engine and then wings hitted the ground. If smth like that happend with plane which struck the Pentagon and if it's left engine struck the ground just before hitting the building where was the time and space for the body to flex into the ground ?



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
How do you know that the plane did not hit the ground in the area that was later buried under the rubble when the wall collapsed?



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How do you know that the plane did not hit the ground in the area that was later buried under the rubble when the wall collapsed?



I'm just going by what officials said:


3.7 SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT

At that time the aircraft had rolled slightly to the left, its right wing elevated. After the plane had traveled approximately another 75 ft, the left engine struck the ground at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft struck the west wall of the Pentagon (figure 3.15). Impact of the fuselage was at column line 14, at or slightly below the second floor slab. The left wing passed below the second-floor slab, and the right wing crossed at a shallow angle from below the second floor slab to above the second-floor slab (figure 3.16)



If what they say is true, the left engine should have left a visible mark in the ground BEFORE the area of rubble.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
1) Yes, I am sure that it is, but in what way would that effect the outcome? As far as I can see it would have simply made the plane have less time in contact with the grass and cement and would make it more prone to skip longer distances if it bounced.
2) Not at all, check the official video. The plane came in at almost a straight line.
3) It has nothing to do with the length nor the width of the engine, but the shape of the cowling underneath and their mounting angle.
4) Well then prove to me that your skid marks are not under the area that is covered with brown mud? Yep there they are, but neither you or I can see them… I do not see any cement damage under the fireball in the photos I showed, so the logical conclusion is that aircraft do not make huge skid marks in the cement.


1) the 757 was said to have gone 530 mph and said that it's left engine hit the ground at the same time it's nose hit the building. You really think it skipped off the ground in a fraction of a seconds time before it hit the building?

2) Officials said the 757 clipped the tops of light poles on top of the highway pass flying at 530 mph. Then they say their security video shows it flying into the building at a parallel trajectory from the ground. So you really believe the 757 dipped down in a fraction of a second to flew parrellel to the ground? See my Pentagon security video page at my website the shows how fabricated that video is.

3) Huh?

4) I don't see any marks or any "brown mud."



Sorry but this is incorrect. If the nose was on the ground with the gear up, it will fit very neatly into the first story of an industrial building.


The fuselage could not have been parallel with the ground at the point of impact as you seem to think from the fabricated security clips.



It is deceptive in the fuselage size, and since you have found other pictures of 757’s I have to wonder about your motivation in showing a much larger aircraft.


I wasn't showing it for the scale of the fuselage (which isn't that different), but for the scale of the engine compared to a human which that pic does.


There is no evidence that the angle of attack was any steeper then the photos I have shown. If there is any, please show it to me.


See my answer "2)" above.



No, but you know that links do not have the same impact that pictures do.


I noticed you didn't mention I never asked you to remove your links the first time, but you only mentioned that I asked you to remove your obscenely large pics. Trying to make me look bad in front of everybody by not mentioning to everybody everything I said?




I am not sure what the angle discrepancy is about, please enlighten me on this.


See my answer "2)" above.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join