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.

 

Pilot Witness Comes Forward: A Global Hawk Crashed Into The Pentagon

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
The DU explosives would explain how a aluminum hull of an aircraft punctrured all those reinforced concrete walls.... I always personally believed a tectical nuclear weapon or a DU weapon was used in the lower levels of the WTC as well, which would explain why so many develop odd cancers and such.




posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Agreed SNAFU. I still would like to know more details of your friends story. I'm not disputing it at all, I just am curious. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The DU explosives would explain how a aluminum hull of an aircraft punctrured all those reinforced concrete walls.... I always personally believed a tectical nuclear weapon or a DU weapon was used in the lower levels of the WTC as well, which would explain why so many develop odd cancers and such.


Breathing the dust and other fumes at ground zero could have caused the same illnesses.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The DU explosives would explain how a aluminum hull of an aircraft punctrured all those reinforced concrete walls....



Q: Just how many "reinforced" concrete walls do you think the plane went through?
































A: one, the exterior wall.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   
You don't NEED a DU warhead. Unless you're talking a nuclear reactor there isn't a wall built that's going to withstand somewhere around 80 tons impacting it with any sort of speed, as flight 77 had. And as HR said, it only had to go through ONE reinforced wall, and that was a relatively thin one.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
my bad, just re read the specs on a 757. i was assuming that was what he saw.

so that part from a boeing 757 engine, including for doubling the size for the fan blades, would be approx 42 inches. the one in the picture isnt.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Agreed SNAFU. I still would like to know more details of your friends story. I'm not disputing it at all, I just am curious. Thanks.


at the time, he worked in the section that was hit...just pure dumb luck that he was late for work that day. i dont know his exact location at the time, but he swears that he saw a b757 with AA markings slam into the pentagon. like i said, i cant provide anything even remotely resembling proof to back up his story, but he is someone i trust implicitly.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
WITH FANBLADES it would be 42 inches. Even if it's NOT, it's STILL way too big for the Global Hawk engine. That engine is TINY, and it's lightweight.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by Griff
Agreed SNAFU. I still would like to know more details of your friends story. I'm not disputing it at all, I just am curious. Thanks.


at the time, he worked in the section that was hit...just pure dumb luck that he was late for work that day. i dont know his exact location at the time, but he swears that he saw a b757 with AA markings slam into the pentagon. like i said, i cant provide anything even remotely resembling proof to back up his story, but he is someone i trust implicitly.


in all seriousness now, did he know a boeing 757 from any other civilian aircraft at the time it happened?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

in all seriousness now, did he know a boeing 757 from any other civilian aircraft at the time it happened?


i'm trying very hard to phrase this in a manner that will keep him anonymous, but yes, his background would insure that he knows the difference.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
If they supposidly brought back body pieces to the site, why cant they bring back a fan blade?

Also,
if this boeing supposidly folded nicley, and sqeezed through the whole, then came to a stop inside the pentagon, wouldnt all the debree be in one pile? I mean it wouldnt spread out once INSIDE would it?
so why is the picture of the fan blade surrounded by only a minimal amount?

also why does it HAVE To be DU munitions?
2ndly, your saying we should just walk up to the pentagon,
stand next to the wall tha was hit, pull out a geirger counter, and start recording?

how close do you think you'll get before your wisked away, for simply being too close, with an electronic device?



[edit on 3-8-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
The fan blades tend to shatter into tiny pieces when they're hit by anything. Ever seen an engine that hits a BIRD? A 5 pound bird has the potential to completely destroy a jet engine. For that matter I've seen fan blades cracked and bent from a ROCK going down the engine. The blades would be in such tiny pieces after going through the wall that there would be no way to identify them. You have to remember the pressure that is put on a fan blade. Yes they're titanium, but you're talking about severe pressure on them as they spin.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   
yeah, thats what im saying. without the blades, its about 42 inches. the piece in the pic isnt.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
If it was a Global Hawk, how come the Rolls Royce engineer stated that this:



Was not a part manufactured in the factory where Global Hawk engines are made?

How come?



Because

A. If your working on top secret military jet technology, chances are your not going to release a statement claiming down technology to be yours.

B. IF you happened to release a statement FROM your military technological branch, you will not be using your own words, and you will not be answering questions, UNLESS worded answers have been provided...

That is IF this was a government cover up.

If this WASNT a government coverup, again
working for a military jet technology branch youl wouldnt be talking to the media about projects,
and 2, you'd be too worries about your familes LIVES if you did speak out.

And no offense Snafoo,
Im sure your friend is a friend.
He works for the pentagon you say?
again if this was a coverup, you'd EXPECT them to say that.
regardless of anything.

If this was a coverup, and it was exposed, it would be the most devetating thing to happen to america, possibly the world.
every event from that day to now, would be put under EXTREME suspicion.
and the USA's cred, would be non existent.

Im certain 'if this is a coverup' they will go to the most EXTREME lengths to cover it up.

having a government employee LIE to his immediate friends, isnt to far a deed to cover this up.
Killing innocent civilians, planting body pieces, planting plane pieces and removing all video tape proof, that sounds feasible, being the consequences they would suffer.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The fan blades tend to shatter into tiny pieces when they're hit by anything. Ever seen an engine that hits a BIRD? A 5 pound bird has the potential to completely destroy a jet engine. For that matter I've seen fan blades cracked and bent from a ROCK going down the engine. The blades would be in such tiny pieces after going through the wall that there would be no way to identify them. You have to remember the pressure that is put on a fan blade. Yes they're titanium, but you're talking about severe pressure on them as they spin.


Absolutely, I have seen a few instances of birds becoming a little too friendly with an engine, and the engine does not like it.

I have to admit though, I am quite convinced by now, and mostly by the evidence shown on ATS and through the work of many members, that it was indeed a plane that hit the Pentagon. In fact, my personal view on the whole conspiracy is that if anything, it may have been allowed to happen. However I do believe there were four planes that day, and I do believe that one of those four hit the Pentagon.

I've just seen no evidence that I can find to be enough to swing me into the belief that there was no plane.

All of that being said (tee hee), is it not also possible that because of the sheer trauma of that day, this witness believes that he saw something that he didn't? This was a horrific day, regardless of conspiracy or not, and we all were affected somehow (generalization for US members), and I know that my memory is not very clear of that day anymore because it left me too dumbstruck to think. Couldn't this be the same for this guy?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I was wrong on my size estimate. Here's a good analysis of the engine hub.


Based on the sizes of the person standing next to the debris and other objects in the photographs that we can use for comparison, we estimate that the disk is approximately 25 to 30 inches (63.5 to 76.2 cm) across. Obviously, this piece is far smaller than the maximum engine diameter of 6 feet (1.8 m) or more leading many to draw the conclusion that the item is not from a 757 engine. That conjecture causes conspiracy theorists to believe that a much smaller vehicle must have struck the Pentagon instead.

However, we have already seen that rotating components within a turbofan engine can vary widely in size. In order to determine whether this component could have possibly come from a 757, we need to take a closer look at the engine installed aboard the aircraft registered N644AA. Boeing offered two different engine options to customers of the 757-200. Airlines could choose between the Pratt & Whitney PW2000 family or the Rolls-Royce RB211 series. The particular engine model chosen by American Airlines for its 757 fleet was the RB211-535E4B triple-shaft turbofan manufactured in the United Kingdom

Using these images and other diagrams of the RB211-535 engine, we can obtain approximate dimensions of the engine's rotary disks for comparison to the item found in the Pentagon rubble. Our best estimate is that the engine's twelve compressor disk hubs are about 36% the width of the fan. The five turbine disk hubs appear to be slightly smaller at approximately 34% the fan diamter. According to Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory and Jane's, the fan diameter of the RB211-535E4B engine is 74.5 inches (189.2 cm). It then follows that the compressor disk hubs are approximately 27 inches (69 cm) across while the turbine disk hubs are about 25 inches (63.5 cm) in diameter. Both of these dimensions fit within the range of values estimated for the engine component pictured in the wreckage at the Pentagon.

We can take this analysis a step further by also exploring some of the alternate theories that have been put forward by those believing this object comes from a different aircraft. Two of the most common claims we have seen suggest that the plane used in the attack was a Douglas A-3 Skywarrior or a Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk. The A-3 is an airborne jamming aircraft originally ordered by the US Navy during the 1950s. The type is now retired from front-line service though a handful are still used for testing purposes by the defense contractor Raytheon. The Global Hawk is an unmanned aerial vehicle used by the Air Force for reconnaissance missions. Neither of these planes bears more than a superficial resemblance to the 757, but we will accept the possibility that they could be mistaken for a commercial airliner given the confusion on September 11.

For the sake of this investigation, the only issue we shall consider is the engines that power both planes. The A-3 was equipped with two Pratt & Whitney J57 turbojets like that pictured below. The J57 dates to the early 1950s and is rather antiquated by today's standards.

Using photos and cut-away drawings of these three engines, we can estimate the diameters of the compressor and turbine rotors just as we did for the RB211. The results of these comparisons are summarized in the following table.


Engine Overall Diameter Compressor Hub Diameter
(estimated) Turbine Hub Diameter
(estimated)
PW J57 40.5 in (102.9 cm) 16 in (40.6 cm) 18 in (45.7 cm)
PW JT8D 49.2 in (125 cm) 21.5 in (54.6 cm) 22.5 in (57.1 cm)
RR AE3007H 43.5 in (110.5 cm) 14 in (35.6 cm) 15 in (38.1 cm)

This analysis indicates that all three of these engines are too small to match the engine component photographed at the Pentagon. Some sites also suggest the part might be from the aircraft's auxiliary power unit (APU). An APU is essentially a small jet engine mounted in the tail of an aircraft that provides additional power, particularly during an emergency. However, APUs tend to be much smaller than jet engines, and the component pictured at the Pentagon is too large to match any found in an APU. It has also been suggested that the attack was conducted by a cruise missile like the Tomahawk or Storm Shadow, but these and other weapons are powered by engines no more than 15 inches (38 m) across. These powerplants are obviously far too small to account for the Pentagon wreckage.

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
like i said, i have no fantasies about being able to convince anyone of anything. i'm simply stating what i know to be true. take it or leave it, i dont much care either way. as val will tell you, i have my own beliefs in regards to 9/11 that dont conform to the official story.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Because

A. If your working on top secret military jet technology, chances are your not going to release a statement claiming down technology to be yours.



Not exactly top secret tech
www.rolls-royce.com...

Rolls Royce uses the same engine in a number of different applications.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Regardless of being TOP secret or not,

a Rolls Royce engineer, being he is working for the government, or a government SPY aspect, would not be given the authority to state to the world media concepts of the global hawk,

A snafu, accepting that your willing to claim your opinion, but dismiss everyones because you beleive their wrong is your right.

But in my mind, wether it was my mother, father or sister if thye worked for the pentagon I wouldnt be able to believe them no matter what they said.

It doesnt work,
if it was a cover up, they would tell u it was a plane.
if it wasnt a cover up, they will tell u it is a plane.

They arent in a position to be relied upon.
IMHO!



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Rolls Royce DOESN'T "work" for the government. They supply engines to the gov't and that's ALL. And you can find specs for all the engines online. The engines AREN'T classified technology.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join