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.

 

Plane atomizes at 500 knots into fortified concrete wall

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I find that footage to be useless. All we see is the impact, and a cloud of concrete dust. There is no shot of what is left of the plane. This is inconclusive at best and for the most part inconsequential. It proves nothing other than a F-4 riding a rocket sled is going to mess of what ever it hits.




posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Hi Ionoclast,

From the narrator "..only the wingtips were not totally destroyed." and her other word "atomized" Also check the videos' source for credibility.

Remember this was a test for a nuclear site wall. Not a pentagon wall, which I recently
learned was only 'bout 2' in width compared to the 10-15' wall in the vid. So there is
doubtfully any Pentagon CT bias in it.

You can also see in the side view that you dont see anything coming out of the back of
wall until the wing tips are almost all the way through. So, there was definately some
breaking up of plane parts.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by supergeo
Listen, if the government really wanted to do this, do you think they'd have so many little details that could seem like they did it?


Now that's funny



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
The second the narrator says "Atomizes" this whole thing should be TOSSED as JUNK. It was not reduced or seperated into atoms. For all the yelling and screaming about CT "junk science" I cannot see how this can be taken seriously.

Not scientifically accurate.
Comparing apples to oranges.
- Plane weight
- Plane speed
- Plane materials
- Wall thickness/density/materials

This shows noting relational to the pentagon and is trash.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Can you link me to a study or an engineer report or give a library book # that
I can check out that says that parts of the plane could not have atomized in that
scenario?

Not really apples and oranges either. More like small plane/big plane - thin wall/thick wall.

Why are you angry also?

Did you read the thread or just watch the video and post?

It has already been established that this video cannot realisticly be applied to the
Pentagon fiasco only because the wall was tremendously more fortified than the
Pentagon wall. Do you have a comment to anything else I presented in this thread?

Could a secondary explosion inside the Pentagon cause an internal object to be ejected
through the exit wall?



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Who's to say that an unmanned drone or even an empty 757 flown by a different pilot than the one the government says was flying, didn't fire a missle into the pentagon just before it hit the wall?



[edit on 8-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Who's to say alien technology wasn't used to vaporize a hole and create mass halucinations for all the witnesses? The imagination has no limits, so we can really only go by what we can prove or is most probable.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Who's to say that an unmanned drone or even an empty 757 flown by a different pilot than the one the government says was flying, didn't fire a missle into the pentagon just before it hit the wall?



Thats right, who is to say? Im sure a shrink could give you a good answer to that one. The facts around the pentagon, show a 757 hit it. Nothing else,has a shred of proof to back it up. Why is this soo hard to get?????


[edit on 8-8-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
One of the multitude of Pentagon threads on here had the pic. I'll keep looking for it. It was sort of buried in the top of the debris pile in the pic I'm thinking of.





That one right?


[edit on 8-8-2006 by trIckz_R_fO_kIdz]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
ok now,

when flight 77 hit the pentagon,
the impact hole was 75 feet wide,

wingspan of 757 is 124 feet 10 inches

so theres 50 feet of wings, 25 ft on each side MISSING

it did not crash through the wall, the hole is 50 feet too small

there is not 25 feet of bent up aluminum or 25 feet of impact marks,
or 25 feet of burned fuel on BOTH SIDES of that hole

where did it all go????

from the nist report::

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report.

keep reading it says:

A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University

now pay attention ::

In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen

"In this case, one wing hit the ground"

where's this 25 foot jumbo jet piece of wing again??? (lincoln continental size)

"sheared off by force of impact""

wheres the 25 feet of damage on the building again????
(lincoln continental size)



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   


That one right?


[edit on 8-8-2006 by trIckz_R_fO_kIdz]

that's probably the one he's talking about. Which pile is that a pic of? Inside the
Pentagon or outside of the exit hole?



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
As said by The Iconoclast, this video does not show the plane atomizing. It shows the plane colliding with the concrete block and causing the concrete to disintegrate into a cloud of concrete dust. Nothing is "atomized".

This video is being used as a propaganda piece designed to cause the gullible to jump to unsupported conclusions. It's a visually striking and exciting display of the collision. But the proof of what actualy happened to the plane is in the aftermath after all the dust has settled to the ground, which is not shown in the video.

BTW, what was the speed of the "thing" that struck the pentagon and the planes that struck the towers? Certainly not 500 mph!

Duhh says on 8-8-2006 at 12:20 PM (post id: 2400294): "Why is this soo hard to get?????"

It isn't hard to get. It's easy. Many if not most of us get it, but not in the way you think it should be got. I won't repeat what's been said thousands of times. Read up and ponder why your mind is so willing to make the leap of faith that it seems to have made here.

[edit on 8/8/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
next guy,,

thats the other side of the building with the small hole..

did you see that f4 crash video??....small block of cement

the first (outer wall of pentagon is 3 feet thick, then inner wall, hallway,inner wall, outer wall, and thats just the OUTER RING,, then the next ring
uter wall hallway.......
the whole way through to section c...

and missing WINGS , 25 feet should of been located on EACH side of the big hole out front,,

your picture looks like a turbofan or wheel......thats the EXIT wound small round hole

(1) - 25 foot section of jumbo 757 jet wing = length and size of lincoln continental
plus

arent the wings used to store the fuel????

i saw flames coming OUT of the hole going up......not on the sides where the wings
hit and smashed ,, unflammable fuel????? nope!!!

those wing pieces should have damaged the wall AND left burn marks,
on EACH SIDE of that big 75 foot hole,,, smoke/flame damage was only ABOVE the hole



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Iconoclast
I find that footage to be useless. All we see is the impact, and a cloud of concrete dust. There is no shot of what is left of the plane. This is inconclusive at best and for the most part inconsequential. It proves nothing other than a F-4 riding a rocket sled is going to mess of what ever it hits.


its what you DONT SEE...

the airplane poking out the other side!!!!

that block of concrete is about the thickness of the OUTER wall of pentagon

then it supposedly went through 7 more walls.......


(----------------------------outer ring------------------------------------------------)

lllllllllll room llll hallway llll room llllllllll

wall wall wall wall


this is only 1 ring , the (outer ring) of the pentagon,
how many did it go through 2-3??


[edit on 8-8-2006 by yeah right]

[edit on 8-8-2006 by yeah right]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Yeah Right, when a wing hits the ground, I don't think it's going to stay in that position once it strikes the ground, it will probably bounce off the ground, ripped from the rest of the wing structure and simply be thrown off somewhere else in whatever velocity it goes in because of hit the ground very fast and with alot of energy. Physics people, just because CTers say so, that doesn't mean Physics gets ignored and the government is wrong.

Also, lets establish this, the F-4 Phantom that crashed into the VERY THICK wall of concrete was not atomized, but was smashed to many little pieces(I saw this video on the Histroy channel when they were talking about Re-enforced concrete and the likes). This test was done to demonstrate the structural points of a concrete block on a nuclear power plant's chimney thingy(I forgot the name of it when I most need it). It isn't done to demonstrate the thickness of the Pentagon's walls.

The 757 was loaded with fuel, so it was quite heavy, and it was going quite fast, I believe the last figure I read on ATS was over 500 mph and it was going quite low and headed towards a LARGE target area. Me being a pilot in training, would know that it would be alot harder to land at a certain point on a runway at a certain speed, then it would to be flying wrecklessly into a large building. I'm sure there are plenty of glide paths that don't have other objects in the path that would obstruct the terrorist's planned target.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 8-8-2006 by ShatteredSkies]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
shattered skies,,,,

thats fine and dandy,, but

those wings were full of fuel,,, no burn marks on SIDES of hole

where the EXTRA 25 ft of each wing impacted

its called missing evidence,, flame marks SHOULDA BEEN THERE even if the wings were
smashed to ity bits

[edit on 8-8-2006 by yeah right]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Not sure why some of you are having a hard time reading this thread.

The video is not propaganda. It was not made to reference anything in regards to
the pentagon crash. It is showing an example of reinforced concrete wall that would
surround a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. Not the PENTAGON. I brought the video
here to discuss it against the Pentagon CT's. It cannot because the wall in the video
was approximately 6 times the thickness of the Pentagon + i'm sure the reinforcement
inside was different as well. All the data I could find on the Pentagon wall said it was
24" thick. (the exterior wall) So the video CANNOT be a source of any info
concerning the Pentagon.

How are you all sure the plane CANT atomize? Any one of you an engineer?

Do you think a secondary explosion inside the Pentagon could have propelled an interior
object through the last interior ring causing the exit hole?



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone


BTW, what was the speed of the "thing" that struck the pentagon and the planes that struck the towers? Certainly not 500 mph!



[edit on 8/8/2006 by dubiousone]



No not 500 mph. 500 knots



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

As said by The Iconoclast, this video does not show the plane atomizing. It shows the plane colliding with the concrete block and causing the concrete to disintegrate into a cloud of concrete dust. Nothing is "atomized".





[edit on 8/8/2006 by dubiousone]


If you had bothered to read a previous post of mine in this here thread, you would have
seen my observation of seeing nothing come through the wall till the wing tips have almost
made it through. That leaves us with these options.

- it atomized as the narrator said
- it compacted unto itself
- the people who set-up and filmed this video (probably not government types, seeing
as how getting your hands on an f4 plus miles of track plus the wall and all other equipment
are readibly obtainable)
were actually filming a pentagon propaganda piece
hidden within the premise of protecting nuclear facilities from plane impact.

Give me a break. Most of the plane atomized.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I guarantee this video had nothing to do with Pentagon Propaganda.
I saw those same pictures and read a great article about it when I was a kid, probably about 20 years ago now, in a science magazine.
That "concrete dust" is most of what's left of the F-4. It just shattered when it hit the wall. It actually did several of the things suggested. It compacted into itself before exploding, and almost all of the smaller parts were turned into very tiny parts that were completely impossible to identify where they came from. The larger, heavier parts, like the engines compressed and remained sort of intact, but were much smaller than when they started. The plane DID take a large chunk out of the wall, but it didn't even get close to halfway through it.



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join