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.

 

A very strange anomaly with the exit of the 2nd plane...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   
If you all look at the long, sharp, very pointed nose at the plane hitting the 2nd WTC-tower here:

www.911hoax.com...


And then compare it with what is coming out on the other side of the building:

thewebfairy.com...



Anybody else see the similarities?


I think we can definitely (it´s completely and utterly out of question) rule out a nose belonging to an ordinary American Airlines passenger plane...


So...the question is...what kind of plane could it have been with such a sturdy nose?

Any ideas?




And btw, why is there billowing out smoke from the rear of the strange thing on the belly of the plane just before the orange flash emits from the front of the same strange thing, which we all very clearly can see here:

911hoax.com...


I need your help!



[edit on 19-9-2006 by Roger M]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Roger M]




posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   
[entire quote of previous post removed]


Interesting points you raise there. I'm not sure why you say it can't be a normal passenger plane though, or having a sturdy nose cone?

I say that because there's no comparrisons to compare it against, you'd need a comparison to say this doesn't look right. Every air crash i can find on the net involves the pilot trying to avoid a collision. I can't find any crash where someone has purposely flown a fully laden passenger plane at 500 mph into a high rise building.

If you position an egg at the right position you can exert large pressures on it before it breaks, therefore, angle of entry etc has also got to be taken into account.


[edit on 19-9-2006 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   
[large quote of previous quote of the previous quote removed]


Read this and you´ll understand that it´s completely impossible that the nose would have resisted the crash:

www.asile.org...

"The nose of an aircraft, the radome, contains its electronic navigation equipment. To enable the transmission of signals, the nose is not made of metal but carbon. Its shape has been designed to be aerodynamic but is not crash resistant. The inside casing, as well as its contents, are extremely fragile. The nose would crush on impact with an obstacle, not penetrate it."


What to speak of not only resisting the impact, but also the travel inside the building and the exit of the building...





[edit on 19-9-2006 by Roger M]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by SkepticOverlord]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Roger M]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Please do not quote entire posts.

Thank you.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   
My mistake, SkepticOverlord.

Roger M - I stand corrected. I'll have to look into this more.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Origin Unknown

Roger M - I stand corrected. I'll have to look into this more.


Alright!


Anybody else, any ideas?



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
There has been a wealth of information on the item that shot from the tower at the moment of the second impact.

The full arc of the item was seen from a few different angles, and followed to a specific point in Manhattan where it was discovered that one of the engines landed in a street (forget which one... there are a few threads on this topic). There were even pictures of the heavily damaged engine.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
The radome on the nose of a commercial airliner is actually very short in relation to the overall length of the plane - you are into the structural section of the fuselage well before you reach the cockpit windows. Slightly simplistically, it corresponds to the nosecone section shown on this drawing.



I don't believe that there is anything like sufficient resolution on those video clips to say that the dome was intact or not

[edit on 19-9-2006 by timeless test]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by timeless test]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by timeless test]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test


I don't believe that there is anything like sufficient resolution on those video clips to say that the dome was intact or not



But what is it that is seen coming out from the building?

Is there any possibility that it can be the front of a passenger plane?



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roger M
But what is it that is seen coming out from the building?

Is there any possibility that it can be the front of a passenger plane?


Seeing as a large passenger plane went in the other side half a second earlier I'd say it was one hell of a coincidence if it was anything else.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
As SO said, it was probably an engine, shrouded in smoke. You can see the smoke dissipating as the timer goes on. It's something incredibly heavy from the trajectory it takes as it comes out.

Oh, and yes we can completely rule out an AA nosecone, as it was a UNITED flight that we're looking at.


[edit on 9/19/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
To me it doesn´t look anything like a passenger plane!


Listen here, 25 seconds in the video:

www.youtube.com...


Quite convincing, isn´t it?



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
And how many every day average citizens can tell a 767 from a 757 from a 747? I haven't seen anything that didn't show anything but a United Airlines 767 hitting the tower. It's at an odd angle, but it's STILL a United 767.

This is probably as close to the same angle as you're going to find of a United 767.




posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
What I see is most people failing to understand structural engineering or physics. It's apparent that people do not grasp things like mass, velocity etc... Remember, a blade of grass can be driven into contrete during a tornado.

Let's consider that example for a minute. If I handed you a blade of grass and told you to drive it into a brick wall and imbed it there, you would say impossible! However, this phenomenon has been witnessed time and again after tornados so it is possible.

A cylinder, think jet fuselage, is one of the strongest structures in the world. It's arched walls are not subject to weak-point deformation like a square would be, where the corners are weakest. It's linear walls are even which contributes to it's linear strength - much harder to accordian that structure than say if it had natural deformations it it. Ever see that Ripley's show where thay place a car atop four drinking glasses and they don't break? That's because the force is pushed in a linear fashion through the length, not the thickness of the material - same as that jet fuselage. The exterior of the building were simple concrete panels and the interior was basically unobstructed and wide-open - save for the elevator shaft in the middle and that plane looks like it missed that (Except for the wing).

Given the mass, tensile strength of a cylinder, the velocity etc... it's totally feasable that the nosecone would come out the other side.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And how many every day average citizens can tell a 767 from a 757 from a 747? I haven't seen anything that didn't show anything but a United Airlines 767 hitting the tower. It's at an odd angle, but it's STILL a United 767.

This is probably as close to the same angle as you're going to find of a United 767.




What do YOU base on that this is an United Airlines 767?

(forget for a minute what is the official claim)

www.911hoax.com...


And to the best of my knwledge United Airlines don´t have strange pods underneath their bellies...



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
...it's totally feasable that the nosecone would come out the other side.



But honestly kozmo, does this look to you like a nosecone belonging to an United Airlines:

thewebfairy.com...


Honestly?



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
What I see is most people failing to understand structural engineering or physics. It's apparent that people do not grasp things like mass, velocity etc... Remember, a blade of grass can be driven into contrete during a tornado.

Let's consider that example for a minute. If I handed you a blade of grass and told you to drive it into a brick wall and imbed it there, you would say impossible! However, this phenomenon has been witnessed time and again after tornados so it is possible.

A cylinder, think jet fuselage, is one of the strongest structures in the world. It's arched walls are not subject to weak-point deformation like a square would be, where the corners are weakest. It's linear walls are even which contributes to it's linear strength - much harder to accordian that structure than say if it had natural deformations it it. Ever see that Ripley's show where thay place a car atop four drinking glasses and they don't break? That's because the force is pushed in a linear fashion through the length, not the thickness of the material - same as that jet fuselage. The exterior of the building were simple concrete panels and the interior was basically unobstructed and wide-open - save for the elevator shaft in the middle and that plane looks like it missed that (Except for the wing).

Given the mass, tensile strength of a cylinder, the velocity etc... it's totally feasable that the nosecone would come out the other side.


These are great points kozmo. All except the remark about the exterior of the building being concrete panels. They were constructed from steel beams connected together with steel spandrel plates I believe.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
My bad, you are completely right! Steel panels. Still, that being said, these were engineered for asthetics and were not complete sheets, but sections. The floors were concrete slabs and the lining of the interior elevator shaft was concrete. Totally my bad; thanks for the correction. That being said, I still don't believe it changes the physics involved here. I mean, a reinforced aluminum cyclinder travelling in excess of several hundred miles per hour would still accomplish the same thing - in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roger M

Originally posted by kozmo
...it's totally feasable that the nosecone would come out the other side.



But honestly kozmo, does this look to you like a nosecone belonging to an United Airlines:

thewebfairy.com...


Honestly?


It could be... I don't know though. A reasonable person could contend that there would be deformation and damage to the nose cone and that that would change the aesthetics of it upon exit... I'm not attempting to prove or debunk any theories here. I am simply pointing out the physics involved to indicate that IT COULD BE the nose cone from the fuselage of an aircraft. The video is pretty poor quality so it's not reasonable to assert either way that it is or it isn't; only that it could be.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by Roger M

Originally posted by kozmo
...it's totally feasable that the nosecone would come out the other side.



But honestly kozmo, does this look to you like a nosecone belonging to an United Airlines:

thewebfairy.com...


Honestly?


It could be... I don't know though. A reasonable person could contend that there would be deformation and damage to the nose cone and that that would change the aesthetics of it upon exit... I'm not attempting to prove or debunk any theories here. I am simply pointing out the physics involved to indicate that IT COULD BE the nose cone from the fuselage of an aircraft. The video is pretty poor quality so it's not reasonable to assert either way that it is or it isn't; only that it could be.


Someone stated earlier that a 767 went into the building, so it's probably the same plane that exeted the building. I agree that from the poor quality, and also the angle it's not possible to make a judgement either way. There could very well be a hole punched into the nose that we don't see, and then again, it could still be totally intact via the "blade of grass" theory.

If it wasn't a UA 767 as some believe. The nose cone still couldn't be reinforced too much because that would disrupt the signals to & from the NAV gear, which wouldn't be a good thing. Unless they moved the NAV gear to do this.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join