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.

 

911 Pentagon Solidworks

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
To anyone who believes a 757 didn't fly into the pentagon must watch this 6 minute video. I t breaks down the sequence of events and proof that indded the 757 struck the pentagon. Wake up white people!!



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Forgot this!!



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Cool, care to show us a link to the video? Also, there are dozens of threads on this very subject already.

Edit: sorry, jumped the gun. I just saw your second post. Let me watch the video, then I will comment.

[edit on 3-13-2007 by nyarlathotep]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
How convenient, they show an animation with no math. Its not an engineering simulation unless you can prove it accurately represents the real math.

What did they set the materials strengths to? The light poles had zero and the wings had infinity when they're crashing into the poles? Then later the wings have zero and the pentagon walls have infinity so as to escape the wing damage unscathed?

What a load of #. Gee, i wonder why they dont show the math. Nobody can fact check their simulation or re-create it. Its not science unless it can be recreated by everyone.

Classic debunker junk, all fluff and no substance. No evidence whatsoever.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Yeah good video. Prob doesn't need it own thread but too late. I've used that in my research, and have a page with a link to it;
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...
Two things about that video, both re: the smoke
Good point: Explains the origin of the smoe seen in the CCTV footage, which would ord. be inconsinstent w/a 757. engine damage from the light poles! Maybe not but it makes sense...
Bad point: confuses the smoke and plane in the CCTV footage, showing a black plane emitting white smoke, when in reality what we have is a white plane with its gray smoke still offscreen. IMO anyway.
Otherise, a great tool for helping to visualie this "impossible" scenario.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
How convenient, they show an animation with no math. Its not an engineering simulation unless you can prove it accurately represents the real math.

What did they set the materials strengths to? The light poles had zero and the wings had infinity when they're crashing into the poles? Then later the wings have zero and the pentagon walls have infinity so as to escape the wing damage unscathed?

What a load of #. Gee, i wonder why they dont show the math. Nobody can fact check their simulation or re-create it. Its not science unless it can be recreated by everyone.

Classic debunker junk, all fluff and no substance. No evidence whatsoever.


I don't think it was meant as scientific proof, just a visualization aid. And it works pretty well. I always thot you were exceptionally intelligent - don't tell me you buy the no-757/missile/drone/flyover-n-bombs BS? It's not supporting the official story to admit that physically the official story there is correct. It explains noting for HOW a weaponized airliner could hit that building so late in the morning...



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
And it works pretty well. I always thot you were exceptionally intelligent -


Hmmmm so people who believe a 757 didn't hit the pentagoon, which includes me, is stupid huh? Nice tactic.

To me, and lot's of other 'stupid' people, it's pretty obvious the damage, and amount of wreckage, is inconsistent with a 757 hitting the pentagoon.

And yes the video proves nothing, especially now it's been proved the plane flew to the left of the chitgo station and could not have hit the light poles or cause the damage claimed. And why would white smoke come from a damaged engine?



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I dont know what hit the pentagon. I know there are numerous videos that could conclusively end this debate, yet they deny they exist.

Why not release the VDOT traffic cam that would show the plane fly over the freeway and crash into the pentagon?

How did the wings remain intact after crashing through numerous light poles? Ever see a car crash into a light pole? Its wrecked!

True, light poles are designed to 'break-away' in a crash, and the plane would have more leverage hitting the top instead of the bottom, but to suggest that the wings were strong enough to remain unscathed after hitting the light poles then suddenly vaporing when hitting the pentagon???

Wings hitting light poles near airports have caused fatal plane crashes before.

And how can the massive engines eviscerate a generator but not leave gaping holes in the wall?



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Since im always accusing debunkers of being ridiculously biased, i shouldnt be.

I will admit, there are some interesting parts to this visualization, but it is not proof.

It does show an interesting corroboration between possible engine contact with the generator, but it sure as hell doesnt explain where the engine went after that.

There does appear to be a tail fin in the security guard booth frame, but none of the rest of the plane is visible. Perhaps an entire 747 could fit behind that obstructed view, but we dont know. It could just as easily be an unmanned global hawk.

It sure as hell doesnt explain how the wings survived colliding with the light poles then failed to damage the pentagon.

And this animation is biased; with misleading highlighting it purports to show "heavily damaged regions" where the wings would have collided with the pentagon while failing to show clear evidence that those regions were entirely untouched. The images they show contain smoke damage and fire foam from well after the collision.

Id like to see them compare the animation to what i think is the first clear photo taken after the collision showing a small circular hole and absolutely no wing or engine damage to the building.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Sorry spoon for the insult and Anok for the offended sensibilities. I just got done fighting with Jack Tripper over this stuff and my temper's a bit short. Not an optimal display there...

The wings: I dunno. They may not have been totally intact. Loose Change says they were but I don't see how they could know. Engines did leave gaping holes/columns destroyed, as clear in pre-collapse photos.

the three "columns" remaining intact on the first floor are probably not columns, but sections of the floor slab or facade that fell at that angle after having LOST the suuports beneath them. Overall first floor damage then is about 100 feet wide. Penetrating core of a 757 (engine-fuselage-engine) is about 50 feet, at a 45 degree angle that's 75 feet. It all fits, right wing high, left low. Engine parts were found inside, not 'relatively intact' as Avery feels they would be, but not conclusively IDd. It's either a 757 damage here or much better faked than folks want to admit.

My favorite piece of 757 evidence from the Pentagon: This thing, found just inside the C-Ring punch-out hole, compared to a 757 landing gear in the shop (in photo neg. for no good reason).


I bet no one explained these points to you guys yet in Loose Change, 911 In Plane Site, Pentagon Strike, or the PentaCon. They don't seem to call on all evidence after all. Kinda makes you wonder if they are really trying to bring truth or something else to the table.

And the animation here is flat wrong on the video analysis as I mentioned. The secrecy I can't explain for sure. My guess is they like to see us squirm and speculate on flyovers and Global Hawks (penetrating core hitting a 45 degrees: about ten foot-wide damage expected).

Sorry to go off there. It's just my thing.




[edit on 14-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Sorry spoon for the insult and Anok for the offended sensibilities. I just got done fighting with Jack Tripper over this stuff and my temper's a bit short.


No problem, I kind of enjoy a little drama once in awhile...


Hmmmm sry but one landing gear strut really doesn't convince me.
Easily plantable, and are you sure it's from a 757?

I'd be more convinced if I could see some sign of an engine (or two), other than one rotor hub, that again doesn't appear to come from a 757 engine.

911review.org...

I'd expect to see some semblance of an engine (or two). The casings are pretty tough, and may crush, bend, etc...but they would not disappear.
Same thing with the rotor shafts.

And then there's the problem of the hole being too low, but no sign of the engine shrouds hitting the lawn. And the disappearance of the wings and tail that we are supposed to believe were sucked into the 18' hole and then disintegrated into nothing.

People like to site the video of the F-4 crashing into a concrete wall to prove that the 757 would have disintegrated. But what they are not understanding is that the F-4 did NOT penetrate through the concrete, if it had then it would NOT have disintegrated. You can't have it both ways, simple physics.

I'm only touching on the obvious here, but sry it's nothing to do with any loose change video's. This is stuff I can see with my own eyes, thank you.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Someone really did their research on a previous thread about this, and goes into much more detail. I believe a plane did hit the pentagon, and the WTC's. All of this conspiracy stuff is mis-info, to give you something to talk about rather than the fouth plane on 911, which there is no video of. The plane was shot down over pennsylvania. This other conspiracy hype is to take the focus off of why we shot down that plane.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
The questions surrounding the pentagon are definitely not the best evidence of 911 conspiracies, foreknowledge, or complicity. The pentagon question is certainly not the best question to raise public awareness of this issue.

However, there are many unresolved issues that do deserve debate and scientific scrutiny. Its important not to invest too much into it.

The engine damage pictures caustic posted might show something, but i wouldnt say those were conclusive. The landing gear thing is interesting, but it also kinda looks like a steel ibeam.

If you watch the animation again, you will see that the first few light poles were hit with the interior portions of the wings close to the fuselage, and later poles were hit with the exterior portions of the wings. The last light pole is hit by the very tip of the left wing. If the first pole collisions ripped of the wings, the latter poles would not have been hit. And there should have been wing debris in the lawn.

I do agree that flight 93 is very odd. Did they order it not to be shot down so it could hit its target (wtc7?) and some true patriot pilot disobeyed direct orders so as to fulfill his oath to protect this country? Or did the passengers take control and it was ordered shot down to keep them from talking? Or was it shot down intentionally to provide a 'feel-good' patriotic story right at the moment when we were at our lowest?



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join