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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
The tail CLEARLY didn't hit the 3rd story facade:



It's funny, because you claim that an image that shows the facade covered with foam and obscured by smoke clearly shows something


Thanks for the laughs, funny guy.

Here's an image that clearly shows damage to the facade:




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
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 didn't.
It passed through one reinforced concrete exterior wall, several interior walls of undetermined material and one masonry exterior wall in the C ring:




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
Well the tails left entry gashes in the WTC facades.


The facade of the WTC towers was not made of reinforced concrete, bricks, limestone and blast proof glass.


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?


No.
It's not a valid question because the premise is wrong; there was scarring of the Pentagon's 3rd and 4th story wall.
Which by the way is not excactly masonry, but ten inches thick steel and kevlar reinforced concrete covered with 8 inches of brick and 6 inches of thick limestone slabs.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

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.


Well at least you admit that there was breaching, but what bomb blast to a similar structure are you comparing it with?

You see those cracked and shattered windows?
Blast proof windows are specifically designed to pop out of their frames when subjected to the pressure of a bomb blast rather than crack and splinter like these have done.
These particular windows had been installed as part of the overall renovation of the Pentagon to protect it from attacks like the Oklahoma City bombing. A bomb blast is unlikely to have produced this kind of damage.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dansker

Originally posted by diggs
Well the tails left entry gashes in the WTC facades.

The facade of the WTC towers was not made of reinforced concrete, bricks, limestone and blast proof glass.

You're missing the point, the tails in those cases left EVIDENCE of it; the gash. Even though you can't see traces of the actual tail, you CAN SEE that there was a tail from the gash it made.

77's should have left at least an imprint on the Pentagon's wall.


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?

No.
It's not a valid question because the premise is wrong; there was scarring of the Pentagon's 3rd and 4th story wall.
Which by the way is not excactly masonry, but ten inches thick steel and kevlar reinforced concrete covered with 8 inches of brick and 6 inches of thick limestone slabs.
But the scarring on the wall is NOT consistent with a 757's tail.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dansker
Well at least you admit that there was breaching, but what bomb blast to a similar structure are you comparing it with?

I never denied the breaching. The "bomb blast" I speak of could be the shock wave/shrapnel of a actual bomb blast, missile explosion, or 757 explosion.

However, the breaching is totally inconsistent from a 757's tail hitting it.

No traces of a 757's tail = no 757.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
You're missing the point, the tails in those cases left EVIDENCE of it; the gash. Even though you can't see traces of the actual tail, you CAN SEE that there was a tail from the gash it made.


You're missing the point: The WTC towers were completely different kinds of buildings, with an exterior contructed of completely different materials, and not reinforced to withstand such an impact.


77's should have left at least an imprint on the Pentagon's wall.


And it did. It even shattered several blast proof windows.


But the scarring on the wall is NOT consistent with a 757's tail.


Yeah, you keep saying that. But you don't even know how heavy the tail is and you recently described the exterior wall as masonry, so excuse me if I don't consider you an expert on tail assemblies and the construction of the Pentagon walls.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggsHowever, the breaching is totally inconsistent from a 757's tail hitting it.


Inconsistent ... with all the other examples of a 752 smacking into a reinforced concrete wall … that you have experience with?

Is there any chance you are not an expert on this matter?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dansker
You're missing the point: The WTC towers were completely different kinds of buildings, with an exterior contructed of completely different materials, and not reinforced to withstand such an impact.

Duh, I know that, the point is that at least in those crashes the tail left a mark!



77's should have left at least an imprint on the Pentagon's wall.

And it did. It even shattered several blast proof windows.

No it didn't. Something breached the wall, but something totally inconsistent with a large 757 tail. I think you are getting desparate to explain away the tail oddity!



But the scarring on the wall is NOT consistent with a 757's tail.

Yeah, you keep saying that. But you don't even know how heavy the tail is and you recently described the exterior wall as masonry, so excuse me if I don't consider you an expert on tail assemblies and the construction of the Pentagon walls.



As described previously, the original exterior Ring E wall is mostly non-load-bearing masonry infilled in a concrete frame. The exterior surface is 5 in. thick limestone, which covers the frame, backed by 8 in. unreinforced brick that is infilled in the frame.

fire.nist.gov...



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75

Originally posted by diggsHowever, the breaching is totally inconsistent from a 757's tail hitting it.


Inconsistent ... with all the other examples of a 752 smacking into a reinforced concrete wall … that you have experience with?

Is there any chance you are not an expert on this matter?

So 77's tail was obliterated against the 3rd story wall and didn't leave a mark?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

As described previously, the original exterior Ring E wall is mostly non-load-bearing masonry infilled in a concrete frame. The exterior surface is 5 in. thick limestone, which covers the frame, backed by 8 in. unreinforced brick that is infilled in the frame.

fire.nist.gov...


Did you notice the word ORIGINAL in there? When the Pentagon was first built, it WAS masonry. When the Pentagon was REbuilt, it was reinforced concrete. They had to completely remove all the plumbing, heating, and air conditioning and replace it all. All the original asbestos was removed, and the outer facade was rebuilt with kevlar reinforced concrete, and blast proof windows.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
So 77's tail was obliterated against the 3rd story wall and didn't leave a mark?


...except for cracked limestone slabs and shattered windows.

Oh sorry, I forgot, that's like totally inconsistent with a structure made of struts and empty space wrapped in millimeter thin aluminum sheets colliding with two feet of steel, concrete, kevlar, bricks and limestone.

Physics surrenders.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Did you notice the word ORIGINAL in there? When the Pentagon was first built, it WAS masonry. When the Pentagon was REbuilt, it was reinforced concrete. They had to completely remove all the plumbing, heating, and air conditioning and replace it all. All the original asbestos was removed, and the outer facade was rebuilt with kevlar reinforced concrete, and blast proof windows.

The OUTSIDE wall is still masonry, but that's really not releavent. Find me the missing tail. Now that is!



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dansker
...except for cracked limestone slabs and shattered windows.

For the last time, totally inconsistent with being caused by the tail.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by Dansker
...except for cracked limestone slabs and shattered windows.

For the last time, totally inconsistent with being caused by the tail.


The lower part of the tail likely struck below the third floor slab and entered the building along with the top of the cabin and probably most of the overhead luggage, contributing to damage to colums and internal walls halfway through the building on the second floor.


That leaves the top two thirds of the vertical stabilizer and rudder to impact the third and fourth floor wall while being sheered off the bottom by the third floor slabs. At that point it has lost most of it's rigidity and is little more than a big floppy aluminum envelope full of struts.

Here's a few pictures of tail assemblies. Neither are from a 757, but the basic principle of construction are the same:



You may repeatedly state that it would cause more damage than what is apparent in photos, but you haven't even made one serious attempt to substantiate your claims.

Instead you have proved yourself ignorant of the construction of the wall and the mass of the tail section.
If you're trolling: Well played.




[edit on 5-6-2006 by Dansker]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dansker
The lower part of the tail likely struck below the third floor slab and entered the building along with the top of the cabin and probably most of the overhead luggage, contributing to damage to colums and internal walls halfway through the building on the second floor.


I do like your graphs! This one looks real accurate according to the official story. My thing is also, looks like the tail would have hit that "dangling" column. Remember what I said earlier about this "dangling" column?


That leaves the top two thirds of the vertical stabilizer and rudder to impact the third and fourth floor wall while being sheered off the bottom by the third floor slabs. At that point it has lost most of it's rigidity and is little more than a big floppy aluminum envelope full of struts.

And I would totally agree with you on that, just where is it?


You may repeatedly state that it would cause more damage than what is apparent in photos, but you haven't even made one serious attempt to substantiate your claims.

Except for the lack of evidence of a tail there!


Instead you have proved yourself ignorant of the construction of the wall and the mass of the tail section.
If you're trolling: Well played.

Sticks and stones man. < sniff, sniff >

I know what the wall is made of.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Also if you watch the pentagon crash video, look on top of the Pentagon during the explosion. You see some sort of shrapnel from the plane flying over the pentagon onto the roof, that could be the tail.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
With the exception of a forged aluminum spar the tail section of a Boeing 757 is composed of aluminum sheet metal, fiberglass and Aluminum foil honeycomb. This is not including the actuators for the rudder and elevator. It is totally possible that the tail structure disintegrated on impact. Untill someone slams a whole 757 into a concrete wall for a test we will never know.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
With the exception of a forged aluminum spar the tail section of a Boeing 757 is composed of aluminum sheet metal, fiberglass and Aluminum foil honeycomb. This is not including the actuators for the rudder and elevator. It is totally possible that the tail structure disintegrated on impact. Untill someone slams a whole 757 into a concrete wall for a test we will never know.



not just a concrete wall, a REINFORCED one.




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
It is totally possible that the tail structure disintegrated on impact.

And totally impossible for it to do that and not leave a mark on the wall.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join