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.

 

Michael Meyer Mechanical Engineer 757 did not hit the Pentagon

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon
by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

he says quote "it's physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period" unquote



www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:

I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757.

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).





posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Unfortunately, it appears that Meyer’s theory is based entirely on the premise that the plane penetrated the exterior walls of three separate rings, and that all of these walls were reinforced like the outer exterior wall. Since both of these assumptions are demonstrably false, his conclusions based on them is invalid.



We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)



[edit on 30-3-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Gee... it sounds like they'll give Mechanical Engineering degrees to just about anyone.

/SARCASM OFF






Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 3/30/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Gee... it sounds like they'll give Mechanical Engineering degrees to just about anyone.

/SARCASM OFF


Yeah, anyone who goes to college, works hard, studies and passes all curriculum. Have you done so? If not, I suggest you not speak ill of people who have.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Griff... if your comment was directed at me I don't think you got the gist of what I was saying. Read the post above my orginal one and maybe the light will go on.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I understand what you are saying but we all (even engineers) make mistakes. I do believe that they (scholars for 9/11 truth) should make sure what they say is verified and factual. Sorry if i jumped down your throat. I just know from first hand knowledge that recieving an engineering degree isn't easy. Out of around 300 engineering students that started freshman year with me, only 100 or so graduated with me. The rest either failed out, dropped out or changed majors. Again, sorry if I came off harsh.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
That doesn't change the fact that Meyer's letter is B.S.

He is starting from a flawed assumption.


Therefore his conclusion is invalid.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
That's why I said that the scholars for 9/11 truth need to verify what they put on their website. How can we come to know the truth if not?

Edit: Yes, I do agree that this guy's letter is bunk. For the same reasons you believe Howard.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Well Howard, the point I was trying to make that evidently missed was that the man is qualified to model this sort of situation. It would seem highly unlikely that he'd miss anything as clear-cut as you are suggesting that could invalidate his conclusions. Not that it has never happened. Just improbable.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   


It would seem highly unlikely that he'd miss anything as clear-cut as you are suggesting that could invalidate his conclusions.


And yet, somehow, he did miss it. And the robots are here repeating it over and over and over again, without looking into it any further.

"9 feet of reinforced concrete" says the "expert",

"9 feet of reinforced concrete" repeat the drones without even batting an eye.


"Beep, beep, awaiting more orders from central command"

After all, why shouldn't we believe them, they call themselves the "truth movement".







[edit on 30/3/06 by Skibum]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
But is the central issue with his professional opinion the presence or absence of 9ft of reinforced concrete? Has someone already proved that an impact of this (alleged) type could create the type of penetrating hole as seen at the Pentagon?



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   


But is the central issue with his professional opinion the presence or absence of 9ft of reinforced concrete?


When he bases his opinion on the presence of 9 feet of reinforced concrete walls and they are absent, it becomes quite a big deal.

Seems to me, that the man is trying to pull "facts" out of his arse, and hoping people will buy into it based on his "scholarly" title.

I guess it worked, because alot of people seem to had taken the bait.




[edit on 30/3/06 by Skibum]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join