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: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There were several eyewitnesses that saw him skip the plane across the helipad before it impacted the building. Skipping it would account for the low impact of the building.


oh ok so then we can only deduce from this that the video released by the pentagon is not only manipulated but a complete fake.


Why is is so hard to believe that an engine that is about 6 feet across would hit one or two spools at the most, and NOT hit the rest of them? Is it supposed to hit one, skip off them all, and then go into the building?? I'd say expecting something that small to hit all of them is more of a stretch than saying it hit one or two of them.


so now a 6 TON engine going 400 mph is reduced to a "small" 6 foot object?

catherder was already busted for this type of deceptive language. you repeating it just makes you look silly.

plus....the damage to the building CAN NOT be accounted for even if we assume the engines were only 1 inch off the ground!

now if the engine was only 1 inch off the ground....how can you explain that it could hit a cluster of spools and badly mangle one of them (if that is even a spool) while leaving the others perfectly intact having them all end up together in the same position?

it's utterly ludicrous.

they would have been scattered all over the place or more likely dragged into the building with the rest of the plane.


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.




posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
FIrst of all, I just LOVE your repeated claims they were flying 1 inch off the ground.




With titanium fan blades, an intake diameter of over 2 m (6 ft) and weighing 3267 kg (3.2 tons), the RB211-22B allowed the new generation of 'Jumbo Jet' aircraft to take to the air, while bankrupting Rolls-Royce with its massive development costs. The key feature of this engine is the exceptionally large fan which drives a large volume of slow-moving air around the core engine, using fuel efficiently and reducing noise output.

www.sciencemuseum.org.uk...


The engines of the Boeing 757 are substantially smaller, however. The 757 can be fitted with either Pratt & Whitney PW2000 series or Rolls Royce RB211 turbofans. The maximum diameter of the RB211 is only 6 ft 2.5 in (1.9 m) while that of the PW2000 series is 7 ft 0.5 in (2.15 m). Meanwhile, the 757 fuselage is 12 ft 6 in (3.75 m) in width. In other words, the engine width is only a little over half that of the fuselage, about 57% as wide to be precise. This comparison can be better observed by studying the above three-view diagram of the 757.

www.aerospaceweb.org...



Notice also that it weighs THREE TONS not six.



[edit on 1/26/2006 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 1/26/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
oh excuse me.

as if that changes the point.

i guess you didn't read.

even when using the 1 inch variable THE DAMAGE IS STILL NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE MEASURENT OF THE PLANE!



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
You can't even get the information about the engines right, but yet you know everything about what happened that day. If you can't even get THAT right, then what ELSE of your "debunking" is wrong.
It took me less than a minute to find that info about the engines. Great job of researching that.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
These are some of the most uncivilized forums I've ever see,



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
If this was all a government conspiracy, why go to the bother of using a missile or fighter to hit the Pentagon when a 757 would do just fine, make a bigger bang, and there would be no need for a cover-up?

Just one question. Should be easy to answer.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
If this was all a government conspiracy, why go to the bother of using a missile or fighter to hit the Pentagon when a 757 would do just fine, make a bigger bang, and there would be no need for a cover-up?

Just one question. Should be easy to answer.


Shh!

No rational thought allowed. They're all experts.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
If this was all a government conspiracy, why go to the bother of using a missile or fighter to hit the Pentagon when a 757 would do just fine, make a bigger bang, and there would be no need for a cover-up?

Just one question. Should be easy to answer.


Easy answer, a 757 would not have done the job.

They had to make sure it went off without a hitch, or else their little party would have been busted.

Too much risk using a 757 because IMO it would have been too difficult to hit the intended target and would, if they even got close, ended up in pieces over the pentagoon lawn.

You guys ever think these q's through before asking?



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Easy answer, a 757 would not have done the job.

Why not?

I would think an expert pilot would have no trouble flying low and on target.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
FIrst of all, I just LOVE your repeated claims they were flying 1 inch off the ground.


You have a habit of totaly missing the point, or is that done purposely?

No one suggested it was 1 inch off the ground.

The fact is to have made that hole where it did it WOULD have to have been ON the ground let alone 1 inch above it.

You acuse us of arguing irelivant details, you are the one who is doing that by not even reading posts corectly before jumping in and going blah blah blah.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

Originally posted by ANOK
Easy answer, a 757 would not have done the job.

Why not?

I would think an expert pilot would have no trouble flying low and on target.


Maybe but the guys who suposedly did this were not experts by a long shot.

But I would actualy doubt even an expert could do it. Flying that low is very difficult in any plane. The sort of thing airobatic flyers practice a looong time to be able to do.

There's this thing called lift, the faster the air flow over the wings the more lift you get. There's things called elevators, stick forward and you dive. BUT at that speed in a big plane like that, even with full fwd stick, it will still want to climb. This is a comercial jet not an airobatics plane. Not designed for fast manouvering, they're designed for LIFT because they carry a lot of weight.
They turn slowly, unlike fighter planes for example. Also the faster you go the harder it is for the elevators/rudder etc to move, I forget what they call it.
So doing tricky manouvers at 400 mph has to be tough to say the least IMO.

It's like comparing a bus with a porche.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Easy answer, a 757 would not have done the job.

They had to make sure it went off without a hitch, or else their little party would have been busted.

Too much risk using a 757 because IMO it would have been too difficult to hit the intended target and would, if they even got close, ended up in pieces over the pentagoon lawn.

You guys ever think these q's through before asking?


Thanks for the insult. Nice way to play.

So discard the real 757, coach a few hundred+ witnesses, fake the lightpoles, set up the cab, coach all the emergency crews, coordinate with the other attacks and all that was going on...AND do it all on a day when two other planes just happened to get hijacked WITHOUT a single mistake or whistle blower is more plausable?

Difficult to hit the target...yeah, can't hit a building with a plane. That hasn't ever happened.

If they got close would have ended up on the lawn? Why? I flew yesterday and it landed right where it needed to. Maybe hidden SAM launchers or something? Then why not just disable whatever might have made the plane end up on the lawn and use that?

Far simpler.

Go ahead. More insults and your obvious expertise in piloting, avionics, demolition, engineering, construction, etc are always welcome.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
It's like comparing a bus with a porche.


You get the bus and I will drive it into any thing you want with no training at all.


A pilot can land a plane just fine and a novice can crash it. No argument there.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outriderdark
These are some of the most uncivilized forums I've ever see,


Are you kidding me?

ATS is the best in terms of moderation and tolerance.

On the other hand, this "aint a tea party."



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
On the other hand, this "aint a tea party."


Has the 757/Pentagon debate begun to remind you of arguing politics or religion?



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by HowardRoark
On the other hand, this "aint a tea party."


Has the 757/Pentagon debate begun to remind you of arguing politics or religion?



More like a sports debate in a bar.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Didn't you know?

Now it's a team "sport", except there's no winner.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

So discard the real 757, coach a few hundred+ witnesses, fake the lightpoles, set up the cab, coach all the emergency crews, coordinate with the other attacks and all that was going on...AND do it all on a day when two other planes just happened to get hijacked WITHOUT a single mistake or whistle blower is more plausable?



riiiiight. who gets to be the volunteer to fly the plane?



the myth that you pseudoskeptics keep pushing that the operation would have to involve 100's of people is absurd.


one cat to run the remote control software courtesy of systems planning corp, a few moles to direct a few patsies to play the role as preparing perpetrators, and a few expert professionals and that's it!


sure there may have been others that did some preparation work but had no clue what they were working on. just doing there regular job and what the boss told them.

think of a heirarchal structure where 90% involved had no clue about the operation 8% knew just enough to complete their assigned task and 2% knew everything.

anybody in the 90% whose task might have led them to understand their role after the fact could have been "suicided" before the operation even went down.

as if the shadow government doesn't have a boatload of covert operatives and assasins that have been BRED to commit illegal covert acts in the name of "national security" or to protect our country's hegemonic status in the face of the great "peak oil" threat for example.

bottom line.....if 19 rag tag islamic flight school flunkies could pull it off.......you better believe high up powerful corporate fascists with unlimited resources and access to everything sure could!



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Well let's see, looking at the ENTIRE 9/11 event....

You have 30 hours to wire two buildings with explosives, three if you count WTC 7. (Remember, there is a claim that the WTC was powered down for 30 hours) That's going to require several hundred people per building to place explosives and wire them up. And all of those people are gonna know what they were placing them for.

You have the people that supposedly flew the planes by remote control, the people that modified them to fly that way, the people that threatened/bribed/intimidated the witnesses into lying about what they saw. If it was a missile/A-3 the people that prepped them, and launched them.....You're starting to get into a lot of people here.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You can't even get the information about the engines right, but yet you know everything about what happened that day. If you can't even get THAT right, then what ELSE of your "debunking" is wrong.
It took me less than a minute to find that info about the engines. Great job of researching that.


haha!

you are still on that trivia?

how transparent.

WHETHER IT WAS 6, 3, OR 1 TON THE POINT I MADE IS STILL THE SAME!

there is NO WAY that those spools would have been untouched.

so the entire 90 ton aircraft and all it's contents disintegrate but those pentagon spools that were right in the impact zone were chillin it with barely a scratch!

lame way to attack the messenger.

you fail comrade.




top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join