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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   
OH MY GOD I have to answer this one first its just way too funny!


Originally posted by Killtown
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.


Isn’t that different?
ROFLMAO

I am over 6 foot tall and I can stand up in the cargo hold of a 767 by simply ducking my head a bit, I have to crawl on my hands and knees in the bin of a 757. A 757 is a narrow body aircraft, and a 767 is a wide body containerized aircraft. Do you know ANYTHING about airplanes?


Originally posted by Killtown
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."


1) Sure it can, airplanes often bounce during a landing or a belly slide. I don’t have a clue where this is even going anymore.

2) No I think that at 500mph, he was floating in ground effect, and only the damage to the engines, wings, and finally the nose hitting brought the plane down. At that speed the distance from the light poles to the building would go by pretty darn fast, a bit of ground effect here, a skip there, then the wall. I fail to see what your getting at again.

3) again do you know JACK about airplanes, do you? Anyone that does knows exactly what I am talking about.

4) Well what is all that dark area with light gray poking through in your initial photo then?

You do bring up one important point though, and that is the motivation of your posts, is this website hurting your web hits?



Originally posted by Killtown
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.


Huh? The fuselage was most likely on the ground or slightly above, how is that not parallel? I don’t get you anymore.



Originally posted by Killtown
See my answer "2)" above.


So what is the argument here, that he was not at the same altitude at the wall as at the light poles….Well duh!
He would be descending, so if he were at 30 feet at the lights then he would be at 0 feet at the base of the building with a very slight angle of attack to get from point A to point B. Where do you get that this is some huge dip in altitude or an extreme maneuver or anything? Just the damage would cause some loss of lift without dropping the nose any.

Did you know that you can make a plane drop altitude by giving opposing rudder and aileron and it will stay parallel to the ground without dropping the nose? Why? Because you make it loose lift, also known as stalling, though in this example it's only slight and controlled.

Again, do you know anything about aircraft?


Originally posted by Killtown
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?


Here is you exact U2U cut and pasted straight from my member center, I can forward it to you also if need be:



from: Killtown sent: 12/17/2005 at 00:50 Since all of your pics have NOTHING to do with this thread and they are obscenely large for people's average size computer screens, take them down and just put up the url's. Thanks, I appreciate it. (wink, wink)


I believe all means all…Not just the big ones.
Truth is that you did not like that they showed this theory to be bunk, so you spent the next group of posts trying to tell me how irrelevant they were.




posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
OH MY GOD I have to answer this one first its just way too funny!


Originally posted by Killtown
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.


Isn’t that different?
ROFLMAO

I am over 6 foot tall and I can stand up in the cargo hold of a 767 by simply ducking my head a bit, I have to crawl on my hands and knees in the bin of a 757. A 757 is a narrow body aircraft, and a 767 is a wide body containerized aircraft. Do you know ANYTHING about airplanes?


For the last time, I posted that pic to show the scale of it's left engine to a human. It had NOTHING to do with the fuselage.





Originally posted by Killtown
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."


1) Sure it can, airplanes often bounce during a landing or a belly slide. I don’t have a clue where this is even going anymore.

2) No I think that at 500mph, he was floating in ground effect, and only the damage to the engines, wings, and finally the nose hitting brought the plane down. At that speed the distance from the light poles to the building would go by pretty darn fast, a bit of ground effect here, a skip there, then the wall. I fail to see what your getting at again.

3) again do you know JACK about airplanes, do you? Anyone that does knows exactly what I am talking about.

4) Well what is all that dark area with light gray poking through in your initial photo then?


1) That doesn't surprise me. The plane's engine couldn't bounce over that area in a fraction of 1/100 of a second at that speed and distance.

2) Doesn't surprise me. You have no concept of the time frame we have to work with here.

3) *yawn*

4) Pavement, or have dirt then half pavement. There would have been gouge marks at the least proving, once and for all, that the left engine struck there.



You do bring up one important point though, and that is the motivation of your posts, is this website hurting your web hits?


All I have to say about that is:
Wait, wait:





Originally posted by Killtown
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.


Huh? The fuselage was most likely on the ground or slightly above, how is that not parallel? I don’t get you anymore.


That doesn't surprise me. The trajectory of the fuselage HAD to be with it's nose angled down, which means the fuselage WOULD NOT BE parallel with the ground:

Nose angled down: /

not parallel: ---





Originally posted by Killtown
See my answer "2)" above.


Where do you get that this is some huge dip in altitude or an extreme maneuver or anything? Just the damage would cause some loss of lift without dropping the nose any.


According to the Pentagon's security clips, it supposedly showing the 757 flying PARALLEL into the Pent just inches off the ground. SO, that means the 757, after hitting the tops of the lightpoles way up high on that embankment, would have to dip down a hell of a long way in a fraction of 1/1,000 of a second to flying into the Pent parrallel and inches from the ground. Understand now? (I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't.)



Did you know that you can make a plane drop altitude by giving opposing rudder and aileron and it will stay parallel to the ground without dropping the nose? Why? Because you make it loose lift, also known as stalling, though in this example it's only slight and controlled.

Again, do you know anything about aircraft?


All in a fraction of a second? Do you know anything about time???




Originally posted by Killtown
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?


Here is you exact U2U cut and pasted straight from my member center, I can forward it to you also if need be:



from: Killtown sent: 12/17/2005 at 00:50 Since all of your pics have NOTHING to do with this thread and they are obscenely large for people's average size computer screens, take them down and just put up the url's. Thanks, I appreciate it. (wink, wink)


I believe all means all…Not just the big ones.
Truth is that you did not like that they showed this theory to be bunk, so you spent the next group of posts trying to tell me how irrelevant they were.



Truth is that they are apples to oranges and were OBSCENELY LARGE! Have some respect for other poster so that don't have to navigate around your OBSCENELY LARGE pics. Luckily the moderaters helped out.



new topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join