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.

 

So where did 77's tail section go?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

0911.site.voila.fr...


It's obvious it didn't hit the 3rd story of the Pentagon. So where did it go?





It's rare for a tail section to completely disappear in a crash. I don't think I've ever seen evidence of some part of a tail section not surviving a plane crash, yet it seemed to happen four times on Sept 11!



aviation-safety.net...


cnn.netscape.cnn.com...


The missing tail section. Proof a 757 didn't crash at the Pentagon.




posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
That's fascinating stuff indeed - that website gives the 757 a wingspan of at least 180' and tail height of 50' in the last image, even though those dimensions are 124' and ~40' (with landing gear retracted).



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
That's fascinating stuff indeed - that website gives the 757 a wingspan of at least 180' and tail height of 50' in the last image, even though those dimensions are 124' and ~40' (with landing gear retracted).


What does that have to do with what happened to the tail section?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggsIt's rare for a tail section to completely disappear in a crash. I don't think I've ever seen evidence of some part of a tail section not surviving a plane crash, yet it seemed to happen four times on Sept 11!


So ... following your logic there should have been intact tail sections sticking out of the WTC, or sitting on the street below?

Use your common sense, or give up on the trolling.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75So ... following your logic there should have been intact tail sections sticking out of the WTC, or sitting on the street below?

Use your common sense, or give up on the trolling.

Well the tails left entry gashes in the WTC facades. Why didn't 77's tail at least leave a scar on the Pent's 3rd story mansonary wall?

Isn't that a valid question?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Oh I guess the tails just vanished into thin air.

More importanty how could a 757 have penetrated 4-5 huge concrete walls at the pentagon to make that infamous blow out hole. in the D wall

It just goes to show you the obsurdity of 9/11 especially when it comes to the Bush administrations miraculous evidence. ATM cards of victims at the pentagon. perfect condition atta passport...

so the indications from the pentagon are 124 wide and 40 high. That would be about right to an A-3 Skywarrior, learjet or globalhawk. I wish the FBI would actually release a conclusive video this time.

Wish in one hand and shlit in the other.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
Oh I guess the tails just vanished into thin air. [/quot]

No they were destroyed like the rest of the plane. and the parts found within and outside the building.


More importanty how could a 757 have penetrated 4-5 huge concrete walls at the pentagon to make that infamous blow out hole. in the D wall


The concrete walls that creates the section rings start at the second story of the pentagon. The plane hit the first floor of the building, much of which were "open" offices and walls made of masonry and drywall construction. There weren't "much" of concrete walls on an open floor format.


It just goes to show you the obsurdity of 9/11 especially when it comes to the Bush administrations miraculous evidence. ATM cards of victims at the pentagon. perfect condition atta passport...


We had a fire at my neighbors house. Started in the garage, ignited by fuel and oil that was all over the ground over years of use. The garage was pretty much destroyed everything pretty much unidentifiable. A table that had everything from oil cannisters to gasoline tanks was pretty much destroyed. Yet, under the 'debris' they were able to fish out a pretty much intact set of paperwork, that was under a rubber mat that would have been used when they worked on cars. Why would this bunch of paper survive such heat and fire when ti was lying next to extremely flammable material?

Not everythng burns in a fire.


so the indications from the pentagon are 124 wide and 40 high. That would be about right to an A-3 Skywarrior, learjet or globalhawk. I wish the FBI would actually release a conclusive video this time.


So its not possible that with such speed and force the plane was traveling at, that when it hit the wall, the wings were destroyed, thereby creating a smaller hole/

You guys must live on fantasy island or something to thing that some object will leave a "cartoon cookie cutter" hole.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
So Wizy, how come 77's tail didn't leave a mark on the 3rd story facade where it would have hit?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
So Wizy, how come 77's tail didn't leave a mark on the 3rd story facade where it would have hit?


why must it?

in various crash tests done by the Airforce of their planes, that were traveling at well over 400 mph in a reinforced concrete wall, none of the "tails' of their planes left evidence . In fact, many of the tails wERE COMPLETELY destroyed, leaving behind...guess what... small pieces of what used to be a plane behind.

could be the tAIL is in the building after crashing into the SIDE of a reinfroced concrete wall with kevlar lining, in bits and pieces.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizy

Originally posted by diggs
So Wizy, how come 77's tail didn't leave a mark on the 3rd story facade where it would have hit?


why must it?

Because the surface of that wall is not very hard. It would have left scars on it from a tail smacking it at 530mph.


in various crash tests done by the Airforce of their planes, that were traveling at well over 400 mph in a reinforced concrete wall, none of the "tails' of their planes left evidence . In fact, many of the tails wERE COMPLETELY destroyed, leaving behind...guess what... small pieces of what used to be a plane behind.

I'm not saying the tail couldn't be obliterated, I'm saying it couldn't have been obliterated against that 3rd story wall without leaving a mark.


could be the tAIL is in the building after crashing into the SIDE of a reinfroced concrete wall with kevlar lining, in bits and pieces.

Huh? Explain how that could happen.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Still no explanation of how 77's tail completely disappeared. I think this is the biggest smoking gun that a 757 didn't hit since tail sections almost always survive a plane crash, but in this case it completely disappears without a trace.

Kinda puts a major hole in the official crash story, aye?



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
Still no explanation of how 77's tail completely disappeared.


Already explained more than 100 times ont his forum. Use the search button. And dont dismiss the explanations just because you dont agree with them .Facts tend to outweight your conspiracy thinking.


I think this is the biggest smoking gun that a 757 didn't hit since tail sections almost always survive a plane crash, but in this case it completely disappears without a trace.


There have been posts on this forum that prove that false. many plane crahses have shown to have planes found with anything os much as a tail. but you want to convieniently ignore that as well.


Kinda puts a major hole in the official crash story, aye?

No it doesn't.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I would think that there would be some kind of damage to the outside wall from the tail section. Maybe when the FBI releases the confiscated video tapes we will know what really happened. Until then the official story stinks and If a 767 made that small hole, then somebody suspended the laws of physics for a little while.

All the officials need to do is just show us the tapes and all the conspiracys and speculation would just go away. Until then...............

Wizy, why do you think the tapes are still classified?



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WizyAlready explained more than 100 times ont his forum. Use the search button. And dont dismiss the explanations just because you dont agree with them .Facts tend to outweight your conspiracy thinking.

Searched for one, couldn't find any explanation.

I dismiss explanation if they defy the laws of physics or are too astronomical to possibly happen that way.

More facts support the conspiracy side. See links on my Occam's post.



I think this is the biggest smoking gun that a 757 didn't hit since tail sections almost always survive a plane crash, but in this case it completely disappears without a trace.

There have been posts on this forum that prove that false. many plane crahses have shown to have planes found with anything os much as a tail. but you want to convieniently ignore that as well.

Sure there has.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Interesting scale I found. I think they got the fuselage going into the Pentagon a little higher than what was said, but looks like the scaling is correct when you compare the size of the yellow fire trucks.


Click image for large version.

Found it here.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
blooming hell diggs thats a great piccie you got there.....
and im in the no 757 hitting camp. That tail no damage question is very valid, and as we can clearly see it didnt even scratch the brick work....lmao at the stupidity of some people... my bike hit a brick wall at 60 mph on a wet sunday morning and smashed the hell out of it... a plane doing hundreds of miles an hour hitting brick has to leave some kind of mark at least...rofl



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
More illustrations of how the tail should have hit the 3rd floor wall:





The tail CLEARLY didn't hit the 3rd story facade:



Where did it disappear to??? Tail sections are large:


(This tail comes from an Airbus, but I think it is roughly the same size and shape of a 757's.)



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MadGreebo
blooming hell diggs thats a great piccie you got there.....
and im in the no 757 hitting camp. That tail no damage question is very valid, and as we can clearly see it didnt even scratch the brick work....lmao at the stupidity of some people... my bike hit a brick wall at 60 mph on a wet sunday morning and smashed the hell out of it... a plane doing hundreds of miles an hour hitting brick has to leave some kind of mark at least...rofl

Thanks! I think the lack of a tailsection is the biggest smoking gun to prove a 757 didn't crash there. It's too big/heavy to disappear without a trace, especially since it didn't go inside the building.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dansker
But you don't view it as possible evidence of the vertical stabilizer hitting the facade?

I don't see where the tail hit it. The various bits of breaching on the wall looks more like a bomb blast and no where is apparant that a huge tail struck it.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Pentagonresearch.com

The pics on this site will make your eyes water with tears of laughter...have a look around the site as theres lots of stuff to make you ponder about what really hit the pentagon.

Oh and for those that dont want to go look at the site, no, they dont believe it was a 757 at all......


Heres a direct link to a couple of real great shots of the place after the strike.

www.pentagonresearch.com...

Just look at the blasts...they no way add up...and heres one to crack the eyewitness testimoney about what type of plane it was...

www.pentagonresearch.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join