Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Well at least you're saying a plane DID hit the pentagon. I was just trying to say that the approach angle is shaky ground to try and refute the plane hitting. It can be done with fly by wire. But now we're getting somewhere with there BEING a plane that hit, which was my point in the first place.


Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Oh we got it! Stick around, sport. I'm just waiting to see what Realtruth has to say. I guess that's a tomorrow thing...

I'll take your word for it. I just don't buy the whole no plane story at all. I can't wait to see the replies.

[edit on 3/16/2007 by ShAuNmAn-X]




posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 04:38 AM
link   
im saying something did hit the building , but it wasn`t flown by a part trained pilot nor IMO was it a 757 - the entry hole is too small.

yes im sure you can compare the video of an empty F4 hitting a concrete wall , but physics are at work here - there is a mountain of difference between a 20 ton empty fighter @ 200 mph , to a loaded 100 ton aircraft at 400 mph.

400mph = 178 meters per second
99790 kg is the mass

therefore the force applied to the building is 17762620N


compare that to the fighter which would be 1285872 N

16 millions newtons is somewhat less force being applied!

the picture earlier does describe it nicely - the hole is smllaer than teh fuselage width OF a 757 - and that doesn`t include the wing root (rather `strong` - kinda needs to be
) and the engine ,ounts - again by default have to be `strong ` for teh forces applied against them.

[edit on 16/3/07 by Harlequin]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
the picture earlier does describe it nicely - the hole is smllaer than teh fuselage width OF a 757 - and that doesn`t include the wing root (rather `strong` - kinda needs to be
) and the engine ,ounts - again by default have to be `strong ` for teh forces applied against them.


thanks for catching that Harlequin. I'm glad I was able to help you with your case.



[edit on 16-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 04:46 AM
link   
With that said, how much of the aircraft would have broken up on impact with that much force applied? Broken up smallet pieces wouldn't penetrate as far if at all depending on the mass of the pieces.

Something hit the pentagon that's for certain, and a 757 isn't impossible, it's plausable. Like I said I'll need more convincing than this to take the no 757 argument, I'm asking for someone to 100% completely rule out the 757 once and for all. Then and only then will I lend any credibility to the no 757 argument..

[edit on 3/16/2007 by ShAuNmAn-X]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 05:03 AM
link   
18 inches of steel reinforced concrete with limestone facing... I'm hazy on the exact construction. the scraps found outside are anomolous - one mystery I'll grant - the letters from the fuselage! The ones we've all seen. It's suppoed to pierce well because it's bullet shaped, that is the fuselage. But that very shape was tearing up outside, or just inside and blowing out the building as whntever was left dung in deeper? That's probably what happened, some of the lighter aluminum parts, even from the foreward sections, just blew back on the blast cloud. But it is a little odd, and they do look a little neat.
Note also the tinsel on the grass behind that. this is probably where the wings went.


The punch-out hole is also weird. small, neat, and by a "no parking sign," which means to me a doorway and loading zone. what a coincidence it'd do that right there.


supposedly caused by the landing gear, but that was just inside the building, inner C ring.

All that was photograpd at least in the A-E drive was the wheel, maybe a piece of fuselga tho that's less clear, and a scrap of tire. Landing gear, wheel rim, match a 757.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 05:15 AM
link   
I agree with you there, the lighter pieces should have been blown back out onto the lawn. As I've said a 757 could have caused the damage and the pieces definately fit with a 757. I'm definately interested in what you have to say caustic, I'll check out your other contributions, one of which is your PentaCon review that I've heard alot about.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Thanks, and I'm less sure there... witnesses are my weak point, so I'm at a disadvantage there, and yet I charged boldly ahead with my gut feelings. JT was not happy. I don't toally blame nim of conrse, but I'm curious what others think of JT's tactics vs. mine. I feel he is unfair and fairln wrong, perhaps ridiculously so. Suspicious that the 'Con was also made to be slayed

Sorrn for weird spelling on occasion m y keyboard's screwed up...



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Well if anything it helps me learn where you stand on some things. I've avoided the 9/11 forums for a while but when I saw this thread I had to jump in. I agree with alot that you've presented so far so I'm gonna check out what else you have to offer. It's one hell of alot better than the run of the mill drivel that's kept me out of this forum. My interest has been piqued now so I'll be back to this thread after I do some reading.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   
I am quite happy to let these 'individuals' carry on ranting about this, I don't think it is a good idea to try and persuade them that it really was a 757 etc..... this sort of thing keeps them busy, do you really want them with nothing to do? What would happen then? There is a good chance they would come and join the rest of us in normal society - can you imagine them in our supper markets? You couldn't buy a melon from the fruit counter without them saying the sticky label imprint on it couldn't have been made by a standard factory machine - it must of been a world war II Sherman tank with a passion for hypo-glue.

Just imagine them congregating around the meat counter.... perhaps that's where they think all the passengers from 757 got disposed of? Dont forget most deli supermarket meat counters are white - what colour is the presidents official residence? White! - what more proof do you need!!!!!

Thanks for the entertainment...



[edit on 16-3-2007 by Quackmaster]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Yea I know, I shouldn't waste so much time on it all, bit it's ever so much fun. At least this time around.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Three of the four PentaCon witnesses (two of them Pentagon policemen) said that what looked as large as a Boeing 757 flew low over the Citgo gas station on the north side, not the south side, as the official story claims video.google.com... This means that, if it hit the Pentagon, it did so approximately head on instead of at an angle of about 50 degrees. All analysis on 9/11 websites that compares the size of the plane with the observed damage (or lack of it) of the facade of the Pentagon is rendered null and void by these witnesses. More importantly, the implication of their testimony is that the plane was always too far away from the light poles to have knocked them down, which means that the poles were deliberately blown up in order to create the phony scenario of a large plane flying low over the Pentagon lawn.

We don't now need to argue about what was found at the Pentagon in order to disprove or support the official story. We now have reliable witnesses whose testimony shatters this story into pieces. Of course, believers in it may claim the witnesses could be planted. But that is highly implausible. Two policemen would lie in order to contradict the official story? I don't think so.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
God... anyone that brings up that pathetic Pentacon video makes me LAUGH. Although there is not one thing "funny" about 911, people like Jack Tripper, Dylan Avery, Bormas...Jones...whoever is just STUPID!

In regards to the Pantacon movie...both of the police officers were questioned and interviewed. The following is their claims as to what happened...in November & December of 2001... NOT 5 years later:

In 2001 Brooks said he saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001. Listen to this interview it talks about 9/11, and he says "full throttle" , "clip the lamp post" etc.

memory.loc.gov...
Chadwick B. Brooks, Stephens City, Virginia, interviewed on November 25, 2001?

William Lagasse, Fredericksburg, Virginia, interviewed on December 4, 2001. His Story here is different from the one he gives Jack Tripper:

memory.loc.gov...

He talks of "Aircraft has flown into the side of the building", "explosions from the CNG" "where the aircraft hit the building", "chunk of plane with Ameri on it". It is pretty hard for him to talk about it.

Sorry...but the Pentagon CT's are the weakest of ALL. (besides the spacebeams and hollagrams)



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   
This is an excellent point backed with some logical facts, but correct me if I am wrong autopilot is taken off before takeoff and just before landing. I don't believe that you can use autopilot 100%.

I don't believe everything that these videos say, nor do I believe what the government said, because there are just to many basic things that don't add up when you look at the entire picture.



Originally posted by Harlequin

Originally posted by ShAuNmAn-X
How does that prove that a 757 didn't hit the pentagon? 400 MPH in a 757 would still produce enough lift to pull it off, they weren't pulling an airshow trick. It doesn't take a trained pilot to crash a plane into a building anyhow.

[edit on 3/16/2007 by ShAuNmAn-X]


it doesn`t - it disproves what your trying to say about someone with 10 hours flight time flying a 100 ton airliner at 400 mph at 20 feet above the ground for nearly a 1/2 mile - the administration have stated that these pilots flew cessna`s then spent a little time playing pc games then onto an airliner.

lift has nothing to do with this , rather training and skill does.

so either - they were far more highly trained (ie military) than at first thought - civilian airline pilots don`t train for this kind of thing - and don`t say itv require skill , as you are insulting aviators the world over if any tom , dick or harry could do this or

there is something else involved - auto piloted aircraft or something else.


read the parts in bold - the only time a `normal` pilot is at that altitude is either at V3 for take off or 2 seconds before touch down - they don`t fly straight and true and 20 feet at all.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
actually it did burn for days i was there working at ground zero for 6 months and i can assure you not only did it burn but all you could smell was a combination of jet fuel,burning wire,insulation,plastic...etc...etc.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
actually it did burn for days i was there working at ground zero for 6 months and i can assure you not only did it burn but all you could smell was a combination of jet fuel,burning wire,insulation,plastic...etc...etc.


Agreed - it can easily be learned the temps in the basement of the WTC was at thousands of degrees up until December.

It wasn't until then until the fires were totally put out.

Whereas the pentagon fire lasted like... 8 hours or something (?!).

However they are two very different structures and the pentagon is much more fireproofed than the WTC (and bomb proof).

If nothing else the heat from the friction of that much tonnage of steel falling will create and ENORMOUS amount of heat and energy - BUT IMHO sheer heat from the fall shouldn't have caused the WTC to smolder for so long.

Things are still very strange.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Are you talking about the Pentagon? I am not talking about the WTC I know that it burned for days.

That is my whole point the Pentagon didn't burn for days like the WTC did.




Originally posted by CaptGizmo
actually it did burn for days i was there working at ground zero for 6 months and i can assure you not only did it burn but all you could smell was a combination of jet fuel,burning wire,insulation,plastic...etc...etc.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic



Because of the shape of the letter here that section could of only come from the FRONT RIGHT part of the "jet" , however it ended up back and to the left - the complete opposite direction of where an explosion should have sent it.

Not to mention the complete lack of fire damage, soot, anything.

This thing is TOTALLY CLEAN.

I've made more soot with matches.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Well, I think logic and common sense can answer many questions but it is up to each weather they want to believe or deny.

It amazes me that this happened in 2001 and it is 2007. Just how long does it take to prove this. People needed to demand to see that video from the gas station and the Pentagon.

This to me is just another example how our government gets away with everything. I believe they just keep the people busy, lie, and deny.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
757 Full of Fuel hitting Pentagon is like saturating a wick with kerosene and lighting it. How long does a lantern burn?


The 757 hitting the penatgon is nothing like this analogy.

Take a lantern full of oil, accelerate it into a brick wall at 500 mph and watch all the oil atomize and burn off almost instantly. This is why the Pentagon didn't burn for days. All the fuel was consumed very quickly.

The combustible materials in the towers burned uncontrolled for 1-2 hrs before collapse. The fires inside the rubble pile smoldered for days/weeks while the wreckage was being removed.


What I don't understand is that the pentagon attack and damage doesn't make any logical sense at all. Going on the premise of WTC melt and collapse, the pentagon has no signs of any real burning or metal melting heat, but yet the same type of plane hit the WTC and brought them down and reduced them to almost nothing left. hmmmmm?


They are two very different structures. No fire fighting activity was performed on WTC towers. Firefighters were on the Pentagon within 30 minutes.

Also, many might be interested to know that a loaded 757 impacting a solid object at a speed of 450 kts imparts roughly the same amount of energy as 1,800 lbs of TNT.

Kineteic energy of the 757 = 3.6 billion Joules

energy in J = 1/2 mass x V squared

mass of 757 = 115,000kg
V=237 m/sec

2,000 lbs TNT = 4 billion joules.

The kinetic energy of the falling towers was many many times grater than this. That is why there was nothing left of the towers.



[edit on 3/16/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
It was NOT a 757 that hit the Pentagon... period! Again, NO 757 hit the Pentagon!

I have sold very high end engineering software for 20 years... Pro/E Mechanica, Ansys, COSMOS and many other analysis programs. I have engaged in materials testing for ASTM. I understand the principles of linear AND non-linear analysis, Computational Fluid Dynamics, moments of inertia, stress, strain, frequency, displacement, etc... In short, I have enough of a grasp of engineering principles to understand how the fuselage of a 757 would have behaved if it had struck the Pentagon as well as how the building would have responded and I can tell you from my own book of knowledge - never happened!

Whatever struck that building was a.) significantly smaller than a 757; b.) had either a shape charge or a DU nosecone or both; c.) and consolidated it's impact energy on a very small point and did NOT detonate until AFTER it had breached the exterior of the building. Since 757s store fuel in their wings, I can assure you that almost the whole of the fire would have occured OUTSIDE the structure AND would have left a a significant amount of soot damage on those "Fuselage" parts found on the lawn. In fact, you would have noticed a near "flash" negative of the aircraft on the exterior of the building from the fuel explosion. However, you see no damage on the building from where either wing or tail would have hit.

There is no interior structure of a 757 that is stronger than the fuselage frame which is significantly larger than the hole seen in any image prior to the collapse. Secondly, given the structure itself and the newton forces exterted on the "Reinforced concrete" shell of the building, you would have seen an area significantly larger than the fuselage itself caved inward where the impact site was - not a hole! - as the the newton forces would have moved along the shell of the building until their moments of intertia were fully absorbed by the forces of impact. Clearly not the case here - there was a hole! Think of a hard boiled egg - now take a soda straw and ram it end-on into the shell of the egg - what happens to the straw and the egg? The straw bends and accordians which is what the fuselage would have done. The egg's shell pierces at the point of contact but exhibits stress fractures and impact damage all along it's outer surface planar to the impact. The Pentagon exhibited NOTHING of the sort. Just a perfectly neat hole - no planar stress fractures - after all this is a REINFORCED CONCRETE surface and should have behaved as such.

My theory is cruise missile - perhaps one that was even "dressed up" to appear like a plane. After all, many witnesses claimed that the "plane" was no bigger than a commuter jet. Psychology counts on two things: a.) Things always appear larger in memory than they were in reality and b.) shock dilutes minute details. Pure PsyOps.





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join