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.

 

9/11: A Boeing 757 *DID NOT* Strike the Pentagon

page: 14
2
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Lol Anok, you're obviously trying to be funny.

And, I hardly call that MINOR damage.

Shattered OUT...




posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Lol Anok, you're obviously trying to be funny.

And, I hardly call that MINOR damage.

Shattered OUT...


Did you read what happened to those planes? Put it in context.

One of them ran off the runway on landing! If you did that in your car at probably at least 80-100 mph, do you think it would only sustain that damage seen on that aircraft? And if it did, would you not call it minor damage!

Even the caption says they were surprised how well it came out!

Man *shake head* I need a drink....



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I know im not gonna get voted for for saying this, but it was a missle that hit the Pentagon. I just watched Loose Change and you can see it in the frames before the explosion.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ResinLA
it was a missle


Did you miss this part?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The "truth movement" does not support the missle theory... as a matter of fact, they're calling it disinformation.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
also... when the government could easily shut up vocal critics with ONE PICTURE of the plane hitting (from various confiscated security cams) why dont they?
IMO they are saving that little surprise for the first person that really scares them.
even if a plane didn't hit the pentagon, we would have a very clear pic of a very clear plane hitting the pentagon (photoshop is nothing else)


My thoughts exactly. This whole issue could play right into their hands so easily, no matter what the facts are. And I've even considered that whole photoshopping thing. Wouldn't matter how obvious of a job it would be if they resorted to that, either (as long as it's reasonable); look at how many people held the handful of released frames to such scrutiny, or even at the amount of total b.s. people will breathe to keep believing that the WTC fell without additional force, such as that the squibs were caused by air pressure, when all of the holes in the buildings to prevent pressure from accumulating in the first place, and even the contradictory manner in which the buildings were destroyed floor by floor, are all but too obvious.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Those pics of the damaged engine you've posted.. Sorry if this has already been covered somewhere, but the dented front portions of the metal surrounding the engine, do you know what that is? Is it some kind of aluminum? Anyway, I'm imagining it would be thin, and about equivalent to hitting something with your car and getting it a little wrinkled up. I don't see how anyone could point to that as significant damage; the engine itself was barely touched. o.O



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
We had that argument. Try to keep up. *I* posted them. And he, as usual, called me an idiot and said I don't know crap about planes.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
We had that argument. Try to keep up. *I* posted them. And he, as usual, called me an idiot and said I don't know crap about planes.


Damn can't even admit when you're wrong can you? No, you have to resort to childish "oh he called me an idiot."
No, I didn't call you an idiot, just pointed out that you're an idiot, there is a difference.


And he's talking about the post where I linked to those pictures, why don't you keep up?

And yes bsbray it is probably an aluminium alloy and the "engine cowling" is usualy thicker than the skin on the body and wings.

But any plane running off the runway on landing is gonna get dinged.

And the pic with the engine cowling missing is a bit miss leading. It doesn't say what happened to it, was it taken off by ground crew?
The damage to the fan blades is pretty consistent with a big bird strike.

[edit on 2/2/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   
I've admitted plenty of times when I was wrong. And every single mechanic that I've talked to, or ever known, including my father, who had 40+ years on the flightline, talks about the cowling, ring cowl, and parts inside as the engine. They all consider it one entire unit. They don't say "Go check the panel on the airframe that goes around the engine." they say "Go check the panel on the engine." Yes, the parts inside are the actual engine, but the entire unit is considered the engine, according to every mechanic I have ever known, and I've known quite a few of them, and worked with many of them for years.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ResinLA
I know im not gonna get voted for for saying this, but it was a missle that hit the Pentagon.


You have proof of this or are you someone who says "I think it happened because I saw this and this is right because it is." Please, elaborate, don't be the muck that just splats a subject out and about without SOMETHING to go on. At least TRY.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by GtotheQ
How is it a 120 ton jet fit into a 16 foot hole, the wings nor the engines leave no damage? And what about the vertical tail? Why are the windows above the impact zone undamaged? What about the lawn?

And then there is the issue of ground effect, where an aircraft traveling at over 400mph, 20 feet above the ground cannot decend upon that cousin of air produced by the immense air pressure.


Hmmm, Id like you explain how you feel an aircraft would still be intact after striking the ground? It seems you are looking for WTC type entry points when the plane in fact impacted the ground prior to impacting the building.

Have you ever seen the aftermath of a suicide or car bomb? Not everything can be preicted or distilled into some sort of sci fi effect. Real world variables can and do exert themselves in these situations. Ever seen a town hit by a tornado? One hose gone the other right next to it un harmed? Governemnt conspiracy????

There actually is not a 'cushion" of air under the plane. rather vorticies from the wingtips generate lift.



Link


Close to the ground the drag caused by these vorticies is greatly reduced. (rule of thumb found in several spots is 1/2 the length of the wingtip to the fueselage). The wingspan of a 757 is 124 feet. and a exterior feuselage diameter of 12 feet, the plane would have to be 28 feet off the ground for it to be in the ground effect. While the lift generated is strong, it could easily be overcome at those speeds to crash into the ground just in front of the Pentagon.

In regrds to the jet wash. AT what height did it pass over cars?

external image

Hmmm I don't see the people on the beach being blown over.

[edit on 1/25/06 by FredT]

[edit on 1/25/06 by FredT]

[edit on 1/25/06 by FredT]


off topic a bit....

A famous SXM shot!
Been there many a time nothing like a big ol heavy smack above you!



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
\They don't say "Go check the panel on the airframe that goes around the engine." they say "Go check the panel on the engine." Yes, the parts inside are the actual engine, but the entire unit is considered the engine, according to every mechanic I have ever known, and I've known quite a few of them, and worked with many of them for years.


Again BS, the engine shrowed is part of the airframe, if a mech was told go check out the badscheiße valve on the engine, but the badscheiße valve was actualy on the engine cowling/airframe he'd waiste of lot of time looking for it.
Aircraft mechs are very specific and have to be.

But still your attempt to cover your ass is pretty laim, funny in fact, why don't you throw another 'he called me stupid'


Not sure how it's run in a civy work center but in the nav the engine cowling belongs to the airframers, and a mech (AD) would not touch it other than to open the access doors. Even if the same mech was doing airframes and engines I think he's know which one he was working on


Just like when you get your car fixed, does the body work guy fix your timing? Does the mech call the cars hood the engine, or the body work around it?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
But still your attempt to cover your ass is pretty laim, funny in fact, why don't you throw another 'he called me stupid'

That's enough of that.

Clean it up folks.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I've noticed a distinct lack of "9/11 Truth" trolls since I posted information from their own sources than the "no-757 theory" is coordinated and planned disinformation.

Are we turning a corner here?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm
I've noticed a distinct lack of "9/11 Truth" trolls since I posted information from their own sources than the "no-757 theory" is coordinated and planned disinformation.

Are we turning a corner here?


IIRC lyte trizzle was temp banned for a few days.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

Originally posted by ResinLA
it was a missle


Did you miss this part?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The "truth movement" does not support the missle theory... as a matter of fact, they're calling it disinformation.


Nope, I didn't miss that part? And why are you even referring me to that link? Are you trying to say that the link you provided contains 100% facts, and that I am wrong? If so, please try your hardest to prove it.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by ResinLA]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shugo

Originally posted by ResinLA
I know im not gonna get voted for for saying this, but it was a missle that hit the Pentagon.


You have proof of this or are you someone who says "I think it happened because I saw this and this is right because it is." Please, elaborate, don't be the muck that just splats a subject out and about without SOMETHING to go on. At least TRY.


Whoa, relax there Genius! I didn't say all that did I?
I was posting my opinion of what I saw, and I think EVERYONE can agree, there is no plane in the Pentagon explosion frames. The only support I need to back up my claim would be to post frame by frame of what I saw. Unfortunately for you, I am not advanced enough to perform this procedure, sorry.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Anok, I believe that the airframe outside of the actualy compression chambers of the engine and engine block itself is considered to apart of the engine, the Airframe does a very important thing, it protects the engine's many complex parts from the outside environment where it needs to be protected.

It's not like we go off and say the airframe of the fuselage is not part of the fuselage itself, it just covers the airframe. this would basically be the same concept, just think of the engine as a fuselage in itself, it's covered by the cowling and airframe, thus it is one unit all together.

Honestly, I'm not going to lie, I have never heard of anyone referring to the airframe of the engine seperatly from the engine unit itself.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 2-2-2006 by ShatteredSkies]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Yeah, nice work Lyte. I totally agree. There's so much more of the 757 that should be there and isn't, and yeah, good point on the entry-damage area. I'd like to shake your hand... later



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ResinLA
I think EVERYONE can agree, there is no plane in the Pentagon explosion frames. The only support I need to back up my claim would be to post frame by frame of what I saw. Unfortunately for you, I am not advanced enough to perform this procedure, sorry.


You *think*. However, there's more proof of yes it did, than no it didn't.


So, are people going to begin saying that American fighters attacked Pearl Harbor as well? The US knew about it too?

Please, how can "EVERYONE" agree, if I for one, don't? While I do have to say, I can't change your opinion, there's no proof of such a theory. I am interested in hearing why you *think* it was some kind of missile? Or are you the same kind mentioning about the pod thing...must we go into Missile Science 101?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join