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

Originally posted by GtotheQ
If that plane flew over a highway why weren't any cars blown off it?

Assuming there were actually cars on the highway at the time, then it would seem this who case is easily proven one way or another - either the people in those cars saw an aircraft fly over, at 400mph, or they didn't....QED

Of course, we do have to find the people in question

Put another way, is it possible for an airliner to fly over a city centre at low altitude and a crash into a building without thousands of people witnessing it?

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by GtotheQ
If that plane flew over a highway why weren't any cars blown off it?

is it possible for an airliner to fly over a city centre at low altitude and a crash into a building without thousands of people witnessing it?

Sure, people are absorbed in them self, people have head phones on, talking on phones, jamming to the radio. People can be oblivious to whats going on around them. Is it impossible that no one seen it? No, improbable? yes.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

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

Go for it, I am especially interested in seeing the calculations you all have as the damage pattern left by the energy dissipated per square foot on the reinforced Pentagon of a force moving with that amount of inertia. I am also interested in seeing the reaction of the aircraft to that force. Especially since, unlike the rest of your believers, I have seen the interaction of concrete and aircraft aluminum, first hand.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
the most glaring anomaly is when you look at your detailed graphic and you see where the right engine would have hit...
THE COLUMNS ARE BLOWN OUT THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION!!

They appear to be shifted to the left to me. Either way they are gong to bow one way or the other since they are now weakened and have pressure on them from above.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

further with the utter absurdity that the spools were "displaced" (the look unscratched or touched to me

Well let’s see if I shoot a softer but heavier lead bullet through a bunch of harder but lighter steel ball bearings what is going to happen?

The ball bearings are going to be displaced and the bullet damaged, not the other way around.



[edit on 1/26/2006 by defcon5]

Originally posted by GtotheQ
asrs.arc.nasa.gov...
Jet Blast explained

Did you note the common theme to all those incidents? The planes were all on the ground and either motionless, or maneuvering about the ramp areas.

That is not the same thing as a plane passing overhead in flight.

Originally posted by GtotheQ

www.ifilm.com...
United Airlines JEt Blast Vide

www.metacafe.com...
747 JEt Blast Video

Debunk that!!!!

A staged video?

In case you missed it, here is the exhaust velocity profile for a 757

Note that the even at takeoff thrust, the highest values for the jet exhaust velocity are confined to a narrow cone directly behind the engine.

If the airplane was 30 feet up, then there would be little of the blast that would be felt on the ground.

In addition, those values are only valid for a stationary plane. With a moving aircraft, the velocity values would be less since the majority of the thrust is being used to propel the aircraft forward.

In addition, if the aircraft is moving forward at 400 mph, and if the danger zone extends about 200 feet beyond the back of the plane, then that zone would have passed over is about 1/3 of a second.




[edit on 26-1-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by GtotheQ
OH yes here comes the disinformation again.

IF you nothing about physics science nor aircraft engineering you'd fall so easily for that image.

That is picture of an A340 landing at St. Maarten's Int. Airport. A plane landing has dispersed it's turbulance and the pressure above and below the wings is equalizing thus the sheet vorticies produced are dispresed. The wing tip turbulance is also greatly diminished as well as the jet blast.

That is not an aircraft flying at over 400 mph!!! Therefore your argument fails you.

It amusese me how you guys claim to debunk something and don't even do your reserach properly. And you still haven't addressed the article.

911.no-ip.org...

Get to work.

Is English your native language? Because I can’t seem to follow your techno-babble amid all of the spelling and grammatical errors.

Anyway, I’ve dealt with the jet blast issue in the last post.

Originally posted by GtotheQ
www.opensecrets.org...
Commercial Pilot and Aeronautical Engineer Explains Why Official 9/11 Story About Pentagon Is Bogus

Nila had never flown anything bigger than a commuter plane, and has not been a licensed pilot for over 20 years. I frankly don’t give his opinions much credence.

Originally posted by defcon5

Well let’s see if I shoot a softer but heavier lead bullet through a bunch of harder but lighter steel ball bearings what is going to happen?

The ball bearings are going to be displaced and the bullet damaged, not the other way around.


[edit on 1/26/2006 by defcon5]

so you are claiming the engine to a 757 is "softer" than the cable spools???

(prove it. show me the equations!:lol

irrelevant analogies show nothing but your intent to deceive.

plus the spools are clearly *NOT* displaced or even scratched! they are still sitting all together.....not spread out which is what "displaced" would mean. especially if they were "displaced' by a 757 at 400 mph! (oh but these are super duper PENTAGON spools that are "stronger" than 757 engines!)

energy equations aren't even required to show that it wasn't a 757 and that catherder's assertions are bunk.

the spools ALONE show that your variables are way out of whack that the measurements of the plane would have had to have been higher up from observed impact point.

so that simple point right there means your graphs/equations are rendered pointless/moot.

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!

cable spools.

not damaged.

not displaced.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

so you are claiming the engine to a 757 is "softer" than the cable spools???

You bet your tail chief. I can put a hole in side of a plane with a screwdriver and a good push. I cannot do that to one of those spools. Maybe you should stop listening to the biased, flaky book writing, Beechcraft jockey.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
(prove it. show me the equations!:lol

I don’t have to I can easily show you that the flesh of a bird can also put a hole in that plane. You should see what a padded belt loader, soft aluminum baggage can, baggage cart, or jetway can do to one. You see weight is an issue with an aircraft, no one gives a crap how heavy a spool of cable is. Thus the aircraft is less dense, much is made of composite for that reason.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
plus the spools are clearly *NOT* displaced or even scratched! they are still sitting all together.....not spread out which is what "displaced" would mean

They are not sitting in a pile like they just came off a semi-truck. They are facing all different direction at different angles. If they had been left that way you would think that they would all be facing the building to facilitate the cable being reeled into the structure. Yeah, your right when I lay cable I turn half the spools sideways as its sooooo much easier to get the cable off them when facing the wrong direction. My gawd, you’re getting desperate.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
energy equations aren't even required to show that it wasn't a 757 and that catherder's assertions are bunk.

Funny the one credible university study is requiring a computer to do it, and I believe the quote (though I cannot find it now) was 9 days to generate 10 seconds of the physics involved with the crash. That is why I know you CANNOT produce this proof, us poor civilians lack the resources to do so…

so when did the "side" of a plane become equivalent in strength to the engines??

your obvoius and quite lame deceptions are incredibly tiresome.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle


so when did the "side" of a plane become equivalent in strength to the engines??

your obvoius and quite lame deceptions are incredibly tiresome.

I am being lame and tiresome…..

By show of hands who between us is full of donkey dodo?

I explained what would be happening to the disintegrating engine as it went OVER the wing and provided documented proof of it. Who said crap about the spools hitting the engine? Where is your pre existing NASA documented proof the contrary?

Is this damage?



Looks like it to me.

Reminder from Admin to keep the discussions polite.

I see a line approaching and I'd rather not see it crossed.

Thanks.

Originally posted by defcon5
They are not sitting in a pile like they just came off a semi-truck. They are facing all different direction at different angles. If they had been left that way you would think that they would all be facing the building to facilitate the cable being reeled into the structure. Yeah, your right when I lay cable I turn half the spools sideways as its sooooo much easier to get the cable off them when facing the wrong direction. My gawd, you’re getting desperate.

hahahaha!

you are clearly the desperate one.

as if i am asserting that the impact of whatever smaller craft that hit couldn't have moved them around a little bit!

ummmmmm no. i am asserting that if it were a 757 that the spools were within the impact of the ENGINES.......(not the engines that are as soft as the side of the plane but the ones that are really big and heavy)........and that the displacement/destruction of the spools would have been MUCH more significant (especially when compared to not significant at all!).

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Is this damage?

Looks like it to me.

sure isn't a recognizable spool.

and if you are asserting that the engine completely mangled one spool while not even touching the others well.....

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
ummmmmm no. i am asserting that if it were a 757 that the spools were within the impact of the ENGINES.......(not the engines that are as soft as the side of the plane but the ones that are really big and heavy)........and that the displacement/destruction of the spools would have been MUCH more significant (especially when compared to not significant at all!).

Your asserting, but I am telling you that the engine that struck the generator was disintegrating and on its way over the wing. You see that is what engines are designed to do in real life, as opposed to “it seems logical so it must be a conspiracy land”. I have shown this to be true in NASA video footage, documentation, and in another actual ATC witnessed crash. By the way how much damage was suffered by the steel wing cutters in that NASA video?

Anyway I am out of here for at least 8 hours will get back to this later on.

Not only is their visible damage to the spool itself, but you can clearly see cable that has been "unwound" from the spool twisted and contorted, almost pretzel-like.



The cable itself, which is apparently 2-3 inches in diameter, is not something that is easily bent or twisted. If you had ever seen electricians when they are pulling such cable thru conduits and such, you would understand the tremendous amount of torque required. It doesn't simply fall off the spool and definitely will not bend without considerable force.

you guys are obviously reaching.

so the engine "disintegrated" after clipping the trailer but then weaved through the spools to completely mangle one of them while leaving the others untouched.

gotcha.

making absurd assertions with confidence does not make them any less absurd.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
so the engine "disintegrated" after clipping the trailer but then weaved through the spools to completely mangle one of them while leaving the others untouched.

You seem to be asserting that the engine would have hit all of the spools. Do you have anything to back up this assumption?

Making broad assumptions without providing any support for those assumptions is what is absurd.


BTW, since you are not challenging the image of the damage to the spool, are you accepting the fact that at least one of the spools appears to be damaged in the photograph?

Okay, let's look at it from a different vantage point...



...tends to lend a bit more credence to having been spun, thrown, twisted, damaged, etc ... no?

Do you honestly feel they were "arranged" in such a way so as to facilitate use of the cable when needed?




[edit on 1/26/2006 by 12m8keall2c]