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.

 

Holographs Used for Pentagon Plane

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mck3114
The engines are made of titanium and way 6 tons each. Yet they could not find one of the engines at the site... the only engine they found was a 3 ft rotor that was of a different plane. And the box i was talking about being that size was in reference to you saying that the box the cia was carrying away from the site in tarps


Oh dear god here we go AGAIN. I've posted this six or seven times, but no one listens. THE ENGINES DO NOT WEIGH 6 TONS EACH! THEY WEIGH 3.2 TONS EACH. The COMBINED weight of an RB211-535 engine is 6.4 tons.




posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   


Oh dear god here we go AGAIN. I've posted this six or seven times, but no one listens.

Congratulations. You have discovered the secret of conspiracy theory longevity.

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

[edit on 1-7-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Then again, how did the cars not get flipped over by the force of the wake made by the plane?


And what of the fact that many eye witnesses saw a c-130esqe plane, and not a passenger jet, which many witnesses also said they saw the same plane circle the explosion and fly off.

Mysteries will will never know.


Contrary to the videos shown, exhaust will NOT affect a car by flipping it off the road, or even flipping it on its side. Within a few feet of exiting the engine the exhaust speed has fallen WAY off.

Using a 737-700/800/900 at takeoff thrust, the exhaust is moving at 300 mph out to about 5 feet behind the tail, 200 mph out to about 50 feet, 150 out to about 80 feet, 100 mph out to about 150 feet, 70 mph out to 250 feet, and 50 mph beyond that. Yes it's a different engine and plane, but that gives you an idea of how fast the exhaust slows down behind the plane.

As far as the C-130, they saw one because there was one there. One was taking off from Andrews AFB just before Flight 77 hit, and was asked to try to identify the plane if they could even see it. They flew over to the Pentagon area and saw the plane, and saw it hit the building.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
The engines create thrust from the combustion in their engines, some engines use different methods but they're all relative, they release tons of energy that causes a reaction, pushing the plane forward --> Thrust. Rockets use the same power, cept they carry their oxygen on board.

But anyways, even when my dad use to work the Flight Line and Maintainance for American Airlines he'd say you should never get too close when the plane is landing because it'll blow your car off the road.

But this goes farther my friend, the plane was pushing 500 m.p.h., that's A LOT of thrust, have you ever been inside an airplane.

And let's take the hypothetical situation that you indeed have, when that sucker takes off, it pulls you back, and even then, the plane is hitting a little under 100 knots depending on the aircraft, that's just enough to gain lift.

We're talking about pushing an airplane into high gear at full throttle. YOU HAVE A LOT OF PUSHING FORCE, and it will surely knock cars off the freeway.

[edit on 6/30/2006 by Masisoar]


And no matter what other people may think, I've been in a car, and a pickup behind a KC-135 running at power, and we were nowhere NEAR getting blown over. We rocked side to side some, but we never even came close to tipping. And that was with them at full power, and us driving right behind the tail of the plane.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
they got shredded and dragged in the hole???? RIIIGHT, just like the plane wings that hit the WTC? Please, someone other than nobodyreally, could be so kind to show me.


Why do people INSIST on comparing the two impacts? They were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT building types. You have a non-reinforced steel structure that took significant damage from a truck bomb in 1993, and a kevlar reinforced building that was designed to withstand a truck bomb sitting inches away from it. Apples and Oranges to even TRY to compare the two of them.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
theres a link here on ats saying proof that a plane really hit the pentagon and ive showed several people i know and they said that after seeing that it made them believe a plane hit the pentagon, and it has more than one way to prove it, it shows the rim of an airplane(the same type that hit the pentagon) and then it shows a rim in the wreckage, also it shows a planes shape and from a side view, like in the video of the plane hitting the pentagon then they place the plane pic over the recorded frame when its is paused and it does have the same shape,and so forth, i really dont want to write everything, but im sure most of you guys have looked at it already so hopefully someone will know what im talking about



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
i just thought of something, did they ever say anything about the black box on the plane?(yeah i know one second ago i was saying a plane did hit the pentagon but i just thought of this) also did they ever realease any names of anyone who was on the plane?



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
They released a passenger manifest of everyone but the hijackers that was pointed to as proof it wasn't hijacked, and the black box was recovered and analyzed. It was never released because the CVR only records about 30 minutes. The FDR showed the plane moving at about 534 mph at impact.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Why do people INSIST on comparing the two impacts? They were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT building types. You have a non-reinforced steel structure that took significant damage from a truck bomb in 1993, and a kevlar reinforced building that was designed to withstand a truck bomb sitting inches away from it. Apples and Oranges to even TRY to compare the two of them.


Yes, it is comparing apples to oranges, but not in the sense that SOME KIND OF physical damage should have been present, but this has already been clarified thanks to Keyhole. I can now see where the one wing had left such marks.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

And no matter what other people may think, I've been in a car, and a pickup behind a KC-135 running at power, and we were nowhere NEAR getting blown over. We rocked side to side some, but we never even came close to tipping. And that was with them at full power, and us driving right behind the tail of the plane.


Why would you be driving right behind the tanker in the first place, and second, how far were you? 1 mile away?



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Because it was a maintenance run, and we were looking for leaks or other problems while the engines were running. And we were right behind the tail. Kinda hard to look for leaks from a mile away don't you think? And pretty unsafe to be looking for them standing next to the engines while they're running at power.

[edit on 6/30/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   


9/11 conspiracy theorists crack me up more and more every day.

"It was a missile!!!!"

- Proven incorrect on many occasions

So then you turn to some argument like

"It was a plane with a missile on it!"

- Proven wrong again

And now it's a magical plane that projects holograms of planes that look oh so real. And they use that to fly a plane into the pentagon and set of a bomb at the exact same time?

How does that explain the telegraph poles knocked over by a plane, the people who heard "jet engines". Sorry buddy but if the US government did use a hologram (:lol

how does that explain the sounds? How does it explain the witnesses who saw passengers on board?

YOU can't just ACCEPT that you are wrong and have been shown to be wrong so you keep making up ridiculous theories based on nothing. So what if the US did have a plane that could project holograms? Does that mean they must have 100% used it in 9/11?

I want sources for:-

* This 'box' that the CIA carried out.
* The people who said they talked to the C-130
* Your whole argument because I don't think you have even posted one source for any of the crap you are rambling about.

Also - work on your spelling while you're at it.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Oh and you want to see a plane hit re-enforced concrete. IT TURNS INTO DUST.



"...concrete wall built to withstand a nuclear blast by crashing into it at 500 MPH. A high rate FPS camera is used to watch the plane literally turn into dust."

www.break.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
You know I'm getting tired of all the talk about witnesses to the pentagon strike. Where are they? what is their names? where do they work? what did they say? will them go on national TV like Letterman or Larry King and tell us what they saw?

The government offs people everyday that turns on them and they can scare the crap out of hard-core military types to force them to shut up... so all these threats of witnesses to the unquestionable pentagon crash just makes me laugh.




posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Those "CIA" people carrying the tent were USAF personnel. That's the office uniform for the USAF.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mck3114
Or actually truth be told... a missle makes alot of sound also.... a hologram can follow a missle... catch my drift at all?


REPLY: "Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project."

A 747 is ten times the size of a missle; at least. There's pics available that show damages inside of the building, with parts everywhere. Give it up, for the benefit for both those on both sides of the 9-11 issue.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   
quote from denythestatusquo


You know I'm getting tired of all the talk about witnesses to the pentagon strike. Where are they? what is their names? where do they work? what did they say?

.... so all these threats of witnesses to the unquestionable pentagon crash just makes me laugh.


REPLY: Geez...... does nobody do their own research any more? check out the following:
[link] www.salon.com... [/link]

The above link is not exactly a bastion of Conservatism.

Did a plane hit the Pentagon? Check the witnesses:
www.whatreallyhappened.com... [/link]

The top two are a video and and an audio file, respectively. Clicking on the names will take you to the complete article of what they heard/saw.
.................................................

"Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project."
[link] www.snopes.com... [/link]

There!! Is that enough for 'ya?

Larry King? HA HA HA He's room temperature and he doesn't even know it..... the worst interviewer in the world.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by shanemcbain
Oh and you want to see a plane hit re-enforced concrete. IT TURNS INTO DUST.



"...concrete wall built to withstand a nuclear blast by crashing into it at 500 MPH. A high rate FPS camera is used to watch the plane literally turn into dust."

www.break.com...


COOL

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

[edit on 1-7-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by shanemcbain


9/11 conspiracy theorists crack me up more and more every day.

"It was a missile!!!!"

- Proven incorrect on many occasions

So then you turn to some argument like

"It was a plane with a missile on it!"

- Proven wrong again

And now it's a magical plane that projects holograms of planes that look oh so real. And they use that to fly a plane into the pentagon and set of a bomb at the exact same time?

How does that explain the telegraph poles knocked over by a plane, the people who heard "jet engines". Sorry buddy but if the US government did use a hologram (:lol

how does that explain the sounds? How does it explain the witnesses who saw passengers on board?

YOU can't just ACCEPT that you are wrong and have been shown to be wrong so you keep making up ridiculous theories based on nothing. So what if the US did have a plane that could project holograms? Does that mean they must have 100% used it in 9/11?

I want sources for:-

* This 'box' that the CIA carried out.
* The people who said they talked to the C-130
* Your whole argument because I don't think you have even posted one source for any of the crap you are rambling about.

Also - work on your spelling while you're at it.




I beleive that the 'CIA' people he is refering to is are those shown in the Loose CHange video, and are actually just workeres carrying out tents. See "Screw Loose Change" video.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Because it was a maintenance run, and we were looking for leaks or other problems while the engines were running. And we were right behind the tail. Kinda hard to look for leaks from a mile away don't you think? And pretty unsafe to be looking for them standing next to the engines while they're running at power.

[edit on 6/30/2006 by Zaphod58]


How close were you to the aircraft, approx estimate. Leaks? Leaks of what? How is it different than having them at idle?

Zaphod, alright, realistically, it wouldn't of blown a 3,000 lbs to 4,500+lbs car off the road but it would of made a difference on the people in the cars, I mean if it was low enough to the ground when approaching the Pentagon, they would of came into the wake of the thrust, provided someone was in the right spot, but at 500 mph, there would of been sufficient amount of thrust to shake and dazzle some cars, so how low was it exactly then when it came over the cars? 1000 ft? 500 ft? 200 ft? 50 ft?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join