It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:20 PM

Wingtip vortices trail upward and outward from the wingtips of a "heavy" and spin in a counterclockwise motion. When they reach their highest point (depending on weight and speed of the "heavy") they start to sink towards the ground. Once they hit the ground they will roll laterally at about 2 or 3 knots. A crosswind may keep the upwind vortice in the runway area for an extended time. The worst condition is a light quartering tailwind. In this case the upwind vortice will move towards and up the runway making the judgment of where to touchdown difficult.

If you were following a "heavy" on an ILS approach, it is possible to experience wake turbulence as you proceed down the glideslope. In this case you would fly your approach descending "one dot" below the glideslope center position (fly above the glideslope). In a previous post I stated that the autopilot should be used down to minimums. Here is one case where you would "hand fly" the approach - keeping your glideslope path "one dot below" to avoid any wake turbulence.

So if they travel upward, and outward from the tip, then hit the ground and roll at 2 or 3 knots, how was this supposed to pick up a semi and flip it, or throw cars around?

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:26 PM

Originally posted by GtotheQ
OH yes here comes the disinformation again.
IF you nothing about phsysics science nor aircraft engineering you'd fall so easily for that image.

Yawn enough with the strawman. The plane was for illustration purposes only and I hardly need a lecture on Aircraft type
. From your question below.

What about the aerodynamic forces that govern a plane such as sheet vortex, jet blast and wing tip turbulance? If that plane flew over a highway why weren't any cars blown off it?

Jet vortex, even at low power settings for a landing should still produce an effect if its as dramatic as you think. Of course I do not have a picture of an commercial aircraft flying that low and that fast. But the jet wash aspect is appropriate.

In regards to my understanding of basic physics and basic areodynamics ground effect is pretty basic, but your explanation was at best iffy. Hello: Pot its the kettle, your black.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 12:50 AM
Yeah I did a search on your Nila Sagadevan expert and to my shock, another author selling a book…

Nila Sagadevan
About The Author
Nila Sagadevan was born in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and educated in Britain. Born in a predominantly Buddhist country to liberal-minded Hindu parents who encouraged belief in a single Creator, he was sent at the age of 5 to Christian boarding schools where he read the Bible, attended Sunday school, and sang in the school choir.

An aeronautical engineer-turned-pilot, Sagadevan left Scotland for America in 1972. He lived in Alaska for 15 years when a profound, life-altering experience changed his concept of earthly religions forever, and caused him to deeply ponder the anthropocentric mindset that guides human life. His quest for knowledge and self-inquiry has led him on a journey through more than 40 countries and to many of the centers of the world's major religions.

Sagadevan, who was the featured guest in a television documentary on extraterrestrial phenomena, also hosted his own radio program, The Open Mind, in the 1980s. The program, which discussed declassified "Top Secret" government documents obtained through the Freedom Of Information Act, reached millions of listeners in the US and Europe. Sagadevan's writings—on world affairs, race relations, spirituality, and other subjects—have appeared in a variety of magazines and newspapers. He lives with his wife and teenage son in Southern California.

Yeah he does not have a reason to be biased in his opinions, especially seeing that other authors are quoted in his review section. So what exactly are his credentials? What commercial airlines has he been a pilot for, and how many hours has he spent on a 757 or a 767?

Personally reading what his book is about tells me he is a flake to begin with, he is going to somehow extrapolate, based on religion, what life is like in distant planets.

You know the guy that I took flight instruction from could also call himself a commercial pilot since he was licensed to do aerial photography from his Piper Tomahawk, and two aeronautical engineers that I have known made air filters for cars at a big three auto company. Saying you have certain qualifications for something and actually having hands on experience are two entirely different things.

His remarks about the jet blast tells me he has no actual experience on large jets beyond what he has seen on TV. He has certainly never been on a flight line where we drive behind engines regularly.

[edit on 1/26/2006 by defcon5]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 02:10 AM
I topped up an aircraft engine with oil once and can do basic flying, like landing, taking off, flying around.. I've flown with my friend in the aircraft so in a way I was carrying a passenger.. Oh and I took a picture once of where I work and gave to my boss... Can I be an aeronautical engineer and pilot too?
I'm gonna go write my book, 'How to make lots of money by feeding of people's gullibility, good faith and general discontent with the authorities'.

[edit on 26-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 02:55 AM
Here are a few of my answers to this so called debunking:

The above "opening gambit" is very telling since it delivers hard facts, one after the other, all of which are accurate. It is in this last statement that the twisting begins. The fact that the length of the Pentagon is equivalent to 7.4 757's wing to wing, or that the width of one 757 equals 13.5% of the facade of the Pentagon has no bearing on the actual damage done. Indeed, given the weight and speed of the 757 that is alleged to have impacted the building, the actual damage done to the Pentagon is entirely inconsistent with an aircraft of the size, weight, and speed of a 757. In other words, the argument actually supports the "no-Boeing" theory better than it supports "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."

"Inconsistent Damage"?
Don’t tell me this, show me math, if you cannot show me the math then its speculation plain and simple…

Here is the next twist. The Boeing 757 is not simply a 13ft wide cylinder; if it were, then the damage to the Pentagon might be more plausible. The reality, however, is that a Boeing 757 is a 13ft wide, 155 ft long cylinder with a tail fin that extends 45 ft into the air. Add to that the fact that there are two 6 ton steel engines slung under each wing about 6 feet to each side of the cylinder body. The wings extend out on each side for 50ft + making for a total aircraft width of 125 feet, a total length of 155 ft and a maximum height of 45 ft. It comes as no surprise then that this large commercial aircraft weighs in at over 90 tons fully loaded. On take off from Washington Dulles airport, Flight 77 weighed approximately 82 tons.
The above nonsensical argument would have you believe that the only thing to consider is a "13 ft wide cylinder" that just magically lost everything else, or that everything else just "folded up" and flew inside the building plastered to the side of that 13 ft cylinder. Even if the wings could do that, we are still left with the two 6 ton engines that were NOT dropped off on the lawn, and which, together, are as wide as the cylinder body!

First mistake here is that the tail does not extend 45 feet in the air with the gear retracted so there goes 13 feet right off the top. Tail height is measured this way though as it is mainly needed to check clearance when hangering the aircraft which is generally done with the gear extended as it is easier on the aircraft not to drag it into the hanger on its belly (those size schematics are used for ground maneuvering with obstacles). The actual height of the tail is the height from the top of the fuselage to the tip of the tail which is around 20 some feet and maybe 2 feet thick at its widest point.
As too the rest, lest see exactly how much of the airfoil did not leave damage:

Image from here:

Looks like over 90 some feet of damage to me, and that is being on the conservative side. Meaning we are missing only about 35 feet of either wing that simply exploded into confetti, got bent and dragged into the 90 foot hole with the rest of the disintegrating wing, or Some variation of both. All the pillars are not busted as they would have cut right through the only two foot thick (at its thickest) wing like a hot knife through butter thus inducing the explosion.

While it is reasonable to state that the tail of a 757 may not necessarily have punched a hole through the facade of the Pentagon, can we expect to at least see some evidence of the tail having hit the facade?

The tail of a 757 is not like that of a DC-9, 727, DC-10, or L1011 which we are used to seeing in crash photographs. The reason that the tail on those aircraft is strong enough to survive a crash is because all had tail mounted engines. To engine mount a tail, the tail is highly reinforced. That is not the case with a 757 in which the tail is simply an empty airfoil with at the most some control surface hydraulics in it.

More than that, we must consider the forward momentum of those two, inescapable, 6 TON steel engines that were neither dropped on the lawn, nor were they smashed like pancakes against the side of the "13 ft cylinder." If I struck the facade of the Pentagon with a sledge hammer, is it reasonable that I would be able to cause some observable damage?

There is over 90 feet of observable damage to the facade, part of the reason that it looks so small is that the pillars are still standing in areas, but these again would have simply cut through the body, wings and even engines as the plane passed through them. At the point the wing sustained damage to the leading edge that passed into the fuel tanks the explosion occurred, but by then the whole nose of the aircraft and the front of the remaining engine would be inside the building. The plane would start to break up from that point on. The only reason that there is ANY wreckage on the lawn is from debris that were ejected from the explosion itself. This is clearly evident in the fact that many rivet holes show no tearing; it is about like hitting that piece of metal from the inside with a hammer really hard. The heads of the rivets would pop right out of the sheet metal without tearing it. Tearing is only evident in pieces that are bent or twisted off the airframe.

While the "cylinder body" that our author keeps referring to is indeed 13ft 6in high, he omits the fact that the engines extend 5 feet below the body and over six feet to either side, meaning that, if the aircraft were actually able to successfully fly at just 1 inch above the ground (highly unlikely), the height of the "cylinder body" above the ground would be at least 18 ft 6 inches! Let us repeat that: if a Boeing 757 were actually able to fly at just 1 inch above the ground, the height of the "13 ft cylinder body" would be at least 18 feet 6 inches! Now, add to that the fact that the plane also includes those two bothersome 6 TON engines, AND a tail fin that protrudes 25 feet above the top of the cylinder body making for a total aircraft height of just less than 40 feet with wheels up. Obviously then, we can reasonably expect that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon would have extended up to this height IF it was a 757 that hit the building.

The author here fails to take into account wing flexing. When the engines contact the ground the body is going to be either on the ground or substantially less then the normal 5 feet higher. This can clearly been seen in this NASA crash test footage just before the planes fuselage hits the ground.

Shall I continue?
SO may I continue with this, or am I going to get into trouble?

[edit on 1/26/2006 by defcon5]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 03:45 AM

The facade of the WTC Towers were made of prefabricated steel yet as we can see from the imprint of the plane, these steel lattices were in no way strong enough to stop the massive kinetic energy of the entire aircraft impacting the building, including the wings and tail fin and leaving a roughly 757-shaped hole in the facade.

The side of the Pentagon that was hit was made of Kevlar reinforced concrete. This was designed to have a multiton truck bomb go off almost touching the building and withstand the blast. The wings of the 757 were much weaker than the fuselage is. They're reinforced to hold the eingines, but other than that they are simply hollow tubes, and not very surviveable in a crash.

This is the scene that many of you will remember from September 11th. It shows the west face of the building, and a collapsed portion of the building, smaller than the area of the building that ultimately had to be demolished and then rebuilt. I think what is particularly interesting about this photo is that it shows several characteristics of the building that were changed as a result of the Pentagon renovation and which as a result of those changes resulted in a much smaller loss of life and injury than might have otherwise been the case. As part of our renovation activities, we did a number of things within the building to improve the building's resistance to attack. Among other things, we included blast- resistant windows. We included a steel framework in the building which helps prevent collapse and damage, as well, as use of a ballistic type of cloth, a Kevlar type of material similar to the materials that are used to produce bullet- proof vests. All of those materials working together helps reduce damage to the building and to its occupants. And in fact the building stood for approximately 35 minutes after impact by the aircraft before collapse occurred. As a result, that 35 minutes, critical minutes, allowed people within the building an opportunity to escape. Had we not had that additional 35 minutes, the total of injury might have been much higher than it was.

Pentagon Renovation Program Communications Specialist, Brett Eaton, confirmed: "The new blast-resistant window system installed in Wedge 1 supported the floors directly above the impact for approximately 30 minutes after the attack, allowing hundreds of people to flee to safety."

The plane itself was estimated to be near 175,000 pounds. This is purely an estimate by me using the following:
Basic Weight-128,730lbs empty weight of plane
Fuel weight-30,600lbs (estimated 4500 gallons * 6.8lbs/gallon, which is the weight of JetA1/JP8)
Passengers & Crew-9600 (64 souls on board, estimated weight of 150lbs/person)
Cargo-6400lbs (2 bags per person/50 pounds per bag)
I realize it's not the most accurate formula, but it gives us at least an idea of the weight of the plane.

There is no concrete system in the world that is going to stand up to 175,000 pounds or more impacting it at the speeds the plane would have been flying at. The nose of the plane would have probably smashed backwards into the fuselage, but once you hit the nose bulkead behind the nose, you start to get to the reinforced portion of the fuselage, with the main spars running along them. This would be the portion that would have punched through the concrete.

[edit on 1/26/2006 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 1/26/2006 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 04:41 AM

Another 9/11 researcher, who is naturally skeptical about the claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, produced the above graphic and posed some obvious and logical questions about the feasibility of the official story quoted above. Given the height of just the fuselage (leaving out the 25 feet of tail fin), how is it possible that the immediate damage and the debris of the plane were "largely confined to the first floor"? And remember, we are talking here about a scenario where the plane is flying at just one inch above the ground!
What is more, evidence from photos of the site show cable spools that were clearly untouched by any incoming aircraft, suggesting that the aircraft would have to have been flying above the maximum height of the spools (some 6 feet) when it hit the Pentagon. In this case, the damage should have been almost entirely to the second floor!

The spools which, though they may not be overtly damaged, where in fact displaced. Meaning that they most likely did come into contact with the aircraft near the nose. The aircraft being somewhat wedge shaped and the spools being made of heavy steel and rounded, they would have slid down the right side of the airframe, and passed under the right wing. The Number Two Engine which had just smashed through the generator would have been separating form the wing mounts at this point and would be flipping up and over the right side wing. Thus leaving that much more space for these spools to pass under the wing undamaged.

We can again see that aircraft engines are designed to shear from the wing if fatally damaged and pass over the top of the wing and clear of the aircraft in the Nasa crash test footage.

The front of the exploding engine can clearly be seen in this video to be going upward, the engine itself disintegrating at the same time. This would be similar and yet lesser then what would happen to an engine that just hit a large, heavy commercial generator trailer. The engine in this video simply hit a wing cutter similar to a WW2 tank trap barricade.

Here is a high resolution still showing that engine angled upward:
Given the enormous
amount of rotational energy stored in the rotating parts of a turbine
engine that would have to be reacted out through the strut, wing, and
fuselage, it is more economical (lighter by tons) to design the
engine/strut to depart the airplane in a controlled manner….

We want the engine to depart safely, which means
without rupturing the fuel tanks in the wings. The single most critical
condition of a safe evacuation is the lack of jet fuel mingling with hot
engine parts at the crash site….

The usual design for a wing-mounted engine intentionally puts the weak
point in the mount at the rear of the engine. This way, if something
happens that causes the mount to break, it'll break at the rear. The
engine then rotates up around the front mount, breaking it too, and
the residual thrust carries the engine up, over the wing, and out of
harm's way. (The trajectory is also designed to avoid the horizontal

Let us postulate two possible failure modes. First, the front mount fails
first, and the engine continues to run normally. The engine would most
likely hammer against the remaining strut until parts of it fail or against
the bottom of the front spar if the strut fails totally. This is
considered undesireable for those who were wondering. A more innocuous
version of that failure would be for the engine to find another
equilibrium position using the failed structure above it to transmit those
upward loads (which are alleviated to some extent by the weight of the
The second scenario is for the front mount to fail, and the fuel lines to
crimp and break. The engine will run normally for several seconds as the
fuel in the line below the break continues to feed in. The crimped and
broken fuel lines will blow exciting amounts of raw fuel into the strut and
out into the airflow, causing a truly inspiring white cloud of vaporized
fuel to trail the airplane - right above the engine. This would be a severe
fire hazard....

>>>(1) They are designed in a ditching situation to shear off and flip over
>>> the top of the wing rather than dig into the water & pull the wing off.

Not so. Engines will shear off in the aft direction in a ditching (or at
least, that is how we analyze it).

>Karl Swartz wrote:
>>This is also for landings on runways without landing gear, but I think
>>the concern is more to keep the aircraft from flipping than it is for
>>tearing off the wings.
>How can an engine shear off and go *over* wing? In situations such as
>described above, I would expect the engine wreckage to go *under* the
>wing. (Especially for the water landing.) Also, what is meant by
>"flipping" the aircraft when landing without gear?

An engine can shear off and depart the airplane by going over the wing
if it is still generating thrust and the rear emgine mount failed first,
as it is designed to do.
Shortly before the takeoff rotation began, with 6,000 feet of runway covered, tower controllers witnessed the number one engine (left wing) separate from the aircraft and fly up and over the wing to crash onto the runway.

[edit on 1/26/2006 by defcon5]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 05:32 AM

Landing Gear Evidence

Rim photographed in the Pentagon wreckage. You can clearly see it is a double bead design as required by the NTSB, and you can also see it has had 90% of the rim edge smashed off in the crash.

Some people have tried to claim that the rims are different from a 757 rim - well here (bottom) is a 757-200 rim from an American Airlines 757, I've outlined the exact same symmetrical holes. I think perhaps some people are thrown off by the balancing led weights attached on the rims in the bottom photo? Have you never taken your car in for a wheel alignment and tire balancing? This is clearly the same kind of rim found on a 757. (The hub-covers/grease-covers are not present for obvious reasons - to remove one you pop it off with a flathead screw driver... so how would you expect it to stay on in a 400mph impact with a reinforced concrete wall?)

While we agree that the wheel rim from the Pentagon appears to be the same as that of a Boeing 757, does this mean that it comes from a 757? Do other types of aircraft use double rims such as those pictured above? We need to look at the "wheel rim" evidence firstly in the context of there being a massive government conspiracy on 9/11 and secondly in context of the other massive evidence that points to something else having hit the Pentagon. Taking these facts into consideration and the evidence for a general 9/11 government conspiracy, is it not plausible that the conspirators would have taken the precaution to plant evidence at the scene to cover up the truth of their activities? Could this planting of evidence not include a "damaged" wheel rim from a 757 landing gear? In the final analysis, the only people qualified to make any definitive statement on the "wheel rim" evidence at the Pentagon are those people whose jobs involve designing or maintaining Boeing 757 landing gear and/or those people whose jobs involve the design or maintenance of Global Hawk landing gear.

While the rims can vary from airline to airline, and between the 757-200 and -300, they have to come from a plane of similar size as a 757. You aren't going to see a rim of that size show up on say a 737, which has a smaller wheel rim, since it's a much smaller aircraft. Or say a 747, which is a much larger wheel.

Here are a few wheels for comparison, of types of planes supposedly used. Note that the Global Hawk gear has been replaced with a LearJet gear, as the Hawk used off the shelf parts, including LearJet wheels.

The Global Hawk is like the U-2 with a long wingspan (116 feet) for gliding purposes. It cruises at 395 mph and can be flown up to 36 hours. The plane has many off-the-shelf parts, including the landing gear used for Lear jets and a Rolls Royce engine that is the same one placed in the Cessna Citation personal jet.

First, the 737-
737 Landing Gear

Then the 757-
757 Landing gear

757 Nose gear-
757 Nose Gear

The A-3 Skywarrior-
A-3 Landing Gear

Global Hawk (LearJet stand in)-
Lear Jet/Global Hawk landing gear

There are SIMILAR landing gear to the 757, however the size of them is much smaller for the smaller aircraft. There is no need for them to have huge landing gear, and it would be detrimental for them to have large landing gear, as it would create so much weight they'd have to cut something else out, just to get airborne.

[edit on 1/26/2006 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 1/26/2006 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 05:38 AM

Why is it so difficult for our author to accept this? The answer would seem to be that since the official government story does not allow for such a scenario, like all good and obedient citizens, our author feels compelled to believe what the government says, regardless of the massive historical evidence showing that, on several occasions in the past, the U.S. government has allowed, facilitated, or actually carried out, attacks on its own citizens and interests in order to achieve some specific goal, usually associated with waging war on other nations - wars like the 2003 invasion of Iraq that was a direct result of the 9/11 attacks, including the attack on the Pentagon. Either the ATS author is such a "good and obedient" citizen, or we must conclude that said author is an agent of said government.

In what way do pervious plans which show the government is capable of sabotage effect whether or not they used a 757?
Here we are seeing a biased agenda at work.

If we peruse other postings made by the ATS author on the subject of 9/11 in general, it seems that he/she accepts the idea that there was some level of complicity in the 9/11 attacks on the part of the US government. Yet he/she appears to have no problem with using the claims of the same U.S. government to back up his argument that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

His stance on the subject is the similar to mine, no matter if the government was involved or not, it does not change the fact that it would be stupid and illogical to say anything was used other then what was in fact used. They would have to go through more effort to cover it up if they did otherwise, and there would be more chance of being caught in the process.

Are we to assume that Boeing is the only aircraft manufacturer to use green primer on the shells of its aircraft? Is it possible that this primer is an aircraft industry standard and that other aircraft manufactures also use green primer?

For the first time in this post I agree with the author. This was a silly thing to be brought up. The paint I believe is called Zinc Chromate and is used in many aircraft as an anti-oxidation primer, and has been since WW2. It is not however used in missiles Nor composite Global Hawks (which do not rust) to my knowledge.

This is a very good question. So which is it? You can make the argument that a 757 was so flimsy that the Pentagon facade was relatively undamaged by the impact, or you argue that the weight and speed of the aircraft was such that it penetrated 3 rings of the building, but you can't have it both ways!

Actually yes you can. 85% of the 757 is made of lightweight material that would have broken up and burned after the crash. The denser items would have flown into the structure until they lost their inertia and stopped. Denser items being part of the landing gear assembly, reinforced parts of the plane such as doorway sections (which come into frequent contact with ground equipment), and some parts of the engine cores.

Again, for anyone, let alone an amateur like CatHerder, to claim that they can positively identify debris from a Boeing 757 from these mangled pieces of material raises questions about the integrity and impartiality of said individual. Can "CatHerder" be sure that these greenish pieces of material are not from some part of the inside of the Pentagon or from another type of aircraft? The very fact that all of these parts and bits of "evidence" were NOT trotted out by the government and put on display for the public and experts to examine is more indication that if they had been, someone would have recognized them as something else entirely.

This is a piece off the interior cargo bay doorway (I would have to assume the forward one); it is identifiable by the circle of 10 holes on the gray section. By the interior of the doorway I mean the area inside the plane where the cargo bay light switch panel is located. A piece of the door locking mechanism is also visible, below this circle and slightly to the left, in the photo when zoomed in. The locks are small wheels on arms that slide into tracks in the doorway to seal it, this is one of those tracks (In the photo it appears as a slightly darker colored gray > shape).

[edit on 1/26/2006 by defcon5]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:00 AM
Your BS is being [Quote] Thoroughly Debunked [/Quote] yet no response?
I wonder why that is?

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
I am not playing games. I already explained in detail.


I read with interest in a thread yesterday that you had mistaken an April Fools prank for actual research regarding the hosting and ownership of this website. This seems to be a pretty basic mistake and sheds a bright spotlight on what appears to be a serious gullibility problem on your behalf. Unfortunately, this causes myself (and I'm sure many other members), to increasingly doubt the material you're presenting here, and the motives for the attitude of your delivery.

While on one hand, you "seem" to be an avid and staunch advocate for closer scrutiny of the events on 9/11 (bravo that), your "in your face" style is severely detracting from the possible credibility of your message. Indeed, your style can often be seen as so disruptive in and of itself, that the message is lost and the focus shifts to your abrasive nature. In fact, your focus on material that is errantly critical of this website (as a "joke") immediately distinguishes you as a potential "trouble maker" with an agenda, rather than a contributor with ideas.

Now, I'm not a moderator here, but I can certainly understand how those tasked with keeping order would be concerned about your involvement. It appears (only going by what I can read) that you're actively involved in disrupting discussion by means of your approach, than furthering the topic(s).

Since this is relevant to the discussion of this thread (which you and your friend have championed), I wonder if you might respond to these concerns?

If we can solve this issue, I believe I have several observations that can add to this discussion. However, I'm reluctant to do so until I gauge your motivations.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:16 AM
If jet blast were to have occured, engines would have been going at full throttle for a 757. Besides, for a vehicle to have become airborne due to jet blast is impossible. Let's see here, 3400 pound car and 200,000+ pounds aircraft. The amount of air travelling on top of and beneath the vehicle would be equalized due to the amount of pressure exerted.
I learned all of that studying why, over the past 4 plus years, race cars have started flipping over when spun backwards. The answer to that is one I'll never tell

Plus, the aircraft would have been travelling at an altitude of no less than 10 feet off of the ground. The engines itself are nearly 9 feet in diameter. Even flying at ten feet above the ground, the engines would have struck some of the cable spools that were lying around. I think that the plane came in at about 15 to 20 feet, and then dove into the side of the building.


[edit on 1/26/2006 by gimmefootball400]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:46 AM
You know what I love about all these 9-11 conspiracies. We have these massive complex evil plots which in many cases would require hundreds if not thousands of people (Remember one the first the Jews were warned one) all in on it to one extent or another.

Why? Most people will say to sway public support for a war in the Middle East. So where does the US invade first? A pretty much worthless armpit of a country Afghanistan. Then we have Iraq that does have some real value.

Now where was this secret evil cabal that planned and carried out 9-11 and that goes to any length to sway public support for their war when no WMDs are found in Iraq. It would have been childs play to do compared to these 9-11 compiracies and yet they couldnt plant a single WMD.

If they found a single one a crude nuclear weapon, some small pox whatever the entire war would have been justified. Public support is in the crapper now and its just as important well into the war the the start look at Vietnam.

Man this secret cabal really dropped the ball or are morons it would have been so easy to plant a WMD.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:52 AM
I'm wondering if it would be wise to hold off on discussing this thread further until we hear from Merc/Narc about his motivations.

It makes no sense to argue these points with serious intent if the primary advocate of those points is simply here for his own personal entertainment of disrupting discussion on this site.

I apologize, Merc/Narc if that is not the case. But you must understand that your style clearly shows someone more interested in sensational effect, not topical furtherance.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 08:05 AM
What?! After all that hard work you want us to stop now?!

Hey gimmefootball, good job on your post.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 08:41 AM
Man Grimm, you spoil sport you…

gimmefootball400, nice post but it seems to me that its pretty obvious that the front of a car is meant to push the nose down to the pavement for traction, the reverse would cause lift, and the side, which these cars were hit from, has neutral airflow.

[edit on 1/26/2006 by defcon5]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:00 AM
You are very correct on that defcon. Oh geez, now I just gave out the answer.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:12 AM
Sorry should I remove it?

Don't want to give out trade secrets here...

[edit on 1/26/2006 by defcon5]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

Originally posted by deltaboy
Debunk this one. If you can.

What is there to debunk?

Someone tossed a piece of a "757" onto the lawn and snapped a photo.

There, debunked.

Prove it!!!!

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:45 AM

Originally posted by defcon5
Your BS is being [Quote] Thoroughly Debunked [/Quote] yet no response?
I wonder why that is?

1) i have a life.

2) i came home late last night and found myself "banned". (SkepticO said it was a mistake)

3) (for good measure) i am not merc/narc nor am i female.

you will be addressed in more detail later but showing some damage to some areas is hardly consistent with a 757.

the most glaring anomaly is when you look at your detailed graphic and you see where the right engine would have hit...


now you can claim that there wouldn't be a "cartoon" cut out of a plane and go even further with the utter absurdity that the spools were "displaced" (the look unscratched or touched to me) and even go so far as to say that perhaps the columns would still exist somehow (which is all completely ludicrous) BUT TO CLAIM THAT THEY WOULD BE BLOWN OUTWARD is taking one of the most wild leaps of imagination i can fathom.

(hosted by merc)

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in