Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof that the pentagon didn't get hit by a boeing 757

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Anyone who says that the wings would have done more damage or anything else, simply doesnt know. We have no video evidence of what happened. Force equals mass times acceleration, take a HUGE airliner packed with fuel, flying at hundreds of miles per hour into a building, anything could happen. Its not like a normal crash landing where the plane is somewhat levelled out, its heading nose down at full speed for a target. From some reports it was said the plane hit in the grass in front of the pentagon before hitting the pentagon, this could explain the wings being destroyed beforehand. But no one knows for sure (except the govt).

Conspiracy theories sound nice in theory, but theres nothing to say the government is wrong and you arent, there is so far not enough hard facts and evidence to either convict nor deny the government of any conspiracy charges. I definetly agree lots of strange things have happened, and there are many unanswered questions, but we need facts to back these before we can say anything.

Whoever was responsible for 9/11 obviously knew what they are doing and it was well orchestrated from the beginning..it is hard to believe the whole thing was planned and executed without govt interference. But we need more evidence, and the jury is still out...




posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Got hard, physical evidence to this Shotek?

If so, provide the hard factual evidences.....
Otherwise, you along with this conspiracy theory, in regards to the Pentagon, are just a unfounded hypothesis.


Hah, you didnt detect the sarcasm? As of right now I believe the government story is true, with unanswered questions. If I saw more evidence I might change my mind. Actually, I dont really believe anything I hear or read these days...only things I have seen are "truth" to me.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by PuPP

Logic would dictate that if a large aircraft hit the Pentagon that there would be some damage to the building from the wings.

I'm no expert on ballsitics, but then neither are you


Think about it, though. Either the wings entered the building, which would mean that there would be wing shaped holes, or they were sheared off, and they'd stay outside the building. What happened in this case, then? The wing span on a 757 is about 124ft. The engines hanging from the wings weigh 40,000 lbs. each!
www.boeing.com...
They didn't put any holes in the walls? There's no evidence of wings at all? It doesn't seem right, somehow. I'm not saying it wasn't a 757, but I'm saying we should all consider the possibilities. Wings and engines both are huge. Most people have seen air crew members standing near a jet. The engines alone dwarf a human standing next to them. We're to believe that these things left almost no trace, even though they slammed into the side of the building? I'd like to know how this can be so.

[Edited on 1-27-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Not that I don't believe that the government didn't allow 911, or at least had prior knowledge. But, uh, I don't know how to say this, but, that's not the pentagon.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   
There would hardly be any distinguishable debris when a 200+ ton flying at close to 1000km/h (or more) crashes HEAD ON into the ground or the pentagon.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by PuPP

Logic would dictate that if a large aircraft hit the Pentagon that there would be some damage to the building from the wings.

I'm no expert on ballsitics, but then neither are you


Think about it, though. Either the wings entered the building, which would mean that there would be wing shaped holes, or they were sheared off, and they'd stay outside the building. What happened in this case, then? The wing span on a 757 is about 124ft. The engines hanging from the wings weigh 40,000 lbs. each!
www.boeing.com...
They didn't put any holes in the walls? There's no evidence of wings at all? It doesn't seem right, somehow. I'm not saying it wasn't a 757, but I'm saying we should all consider the possibilities. Wings and engines both are huge. Most people have seen air crew members standing near a jet. The engines alone dwarf a human standing next to them. We're to believe that these things left almost no trace, even though they slammed into the side of the building? I'd like to know how this can be so.

[Edited on 1-27-2004 by Satyr]


You completely miss the point fo what I said. You and I (I'm assuming) have no education in this field. What would appear to be obvious may have very serious mitigating factors. We really don't know if there should be damage or not.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
You completely miss the point fo what I said. You and I (I'm assuming) have no education in this field. What would appear to be obvious may have very serious mitigating factors. We really don't know if there should be damage or not.

Give me break! I know physics, and I know that if you shoot something that weighs 40,000 lbs. at a wall at that speed, it's going to go through, or at least make one hell of a mark. You may not understand that, but I surely do.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr

Originally posted by Esoterica
You completely miss the point fo what I said. You and I (I'm assuming) have no education in this field. What would appear to be obvious may have very serious mitigating factors. We really don't know if there should be damage or not.

Give me break! I know physics, and I know that if you shoot something that weighs 40,000 lbs. at a wall at that speed, it's going to go through, or at least make one hell of a mark. You may not understand that, but I surely do.


Are you taking into account that the plane hit at angle, not entirely head on, and that the way the fuselage crumpled/disintegrated, it's entirely possible that the wings could have been swept forward or back, placing them into the initial cone of destruction?



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
It's sort of like a plane trying to fly through a small tunnel. The wings aren't going to go with the plane, most likely. Especially when they have more than 40,000 lbs. apiece hanging from them. At the very least, the engines are going detach and become projectiles. You don't think so? I'm almost positive.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
It's sort of like a plane trying to fly through a small tunnel. The wings aren't going to go with the plane, most likely. Especially when they have more than 40,000 lbs. apiece hanging from them. At the very least, the engines are going detach and become projectiles. You don't think so? I'm almost positive.


The plane hit at an angle going into the ground. I'm unaware of how that would fragment the plane, and apparently so are you. That's all I'm saying.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I wouldn't say I'm unaware. I'm very good with physics and mechanics. Even if one wing hit first, the same forward jolting motion would take place. The plane went through, otherwise it would have without a doubt spun toward the left. If it spun, most, if not all of the debris would have been along the side of the building. I have no problem envisioning the physics and motion of this. Even entering the builing at a hard angle, one wing would not go into the building, IMO. The 40,000 lb. engines would definitely hit the wall in different places than the hull of the plane. Now, if there were no engines on the wings, then I could see how they may fold and enter the building with the rest of the plane...but with that kind of weight, they're either going to detach, or tear the wings off with them. Either way, there should be some evidence of one or the other, IMO.

Another interesting fact that should be 100% verifiable.


The software of the BOEING 757 and 767 over rides pilot error and will not let a pilot make banking turns like the PENTAGON plane which was pulling 5 Gs at its final approach or the second WTC plane that was pulling 3 Gs. This is the most fruitful area to explore for those wishing positive proof that the terror attacks were faked.


rense.com...

[Edited on 1-27-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr



The software of the BOEING 757 and 767 over rides pilot error and will not let a pilot make banking turns like the PENTAGON plane which was pulling 5 Gs at its final approach or the second WTC plane that was pulling 3 Gs. This is the most fruitful area to explore for those wishing positive proof that the terror attacks were faked.


rense.com...

[Edited on 1-27-2004 by Satyr]

www.bartcop.com...

Bart,
Randall may have his heart in the right place but I'm afraid he's bought into some pretty wild claims with no evidence.
I'm a Captain for a major airline on the Boeing 757/767 aircraft and have over 30 years of flying experience, over one-third
of which is in Boeing aircraft. And I'm telling you that Randall's claim that "Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes,
it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit." is totally false.

The article Randall cites starts off completely wrong and is one misstatement after another.

> Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11...They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set
> so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software
> in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited
> to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

Totally wrong.

The Boeing 757/767 aircraft both have traditional hydromechanical flight controls. And while the autopilot (when engaged)
limits g loads for passenger comfort (among other things), once the autopilot is disconnected the pilot has full maneuver authority
within the mechanical limits of the flight control actuation system. In other words, it is not only definitely possible for someone
to have flown those aircraft on 9/11 "in such a manner from the cockpit" but it is the ONLY possibility since there is no way
either aircraft, or any commercial aircraft, could somehow be flown by "remote-control". The pilot would have absolute control
of the aircraft. All the bogus claims made in the article, which include that the Boeing 767/757 are "commuter" airplanes that
can be flown by "remote-control" are immediate give-aways to anyone who has any aviation background that whoever wrote
the article knows nothing about commercial airliners.

Secondly, I disagree with Randall's claim that "cell phones do not work in airplanes". This one I have personal experience with.
My spouse was on a business trip once and called me at home on their cell phone while midway through a cross-country flight!
After a few minute when I realized that the cell phone call was from the airplane I said we'd better hang up because who knew
what antenna was picking up the service and what kind of roaming charges we'd incurred!

Besides my own personal experience with a cell phone call from an airplane, here is another source from a Wireless Week article:

www.wirelessweek.com...

> Although airline passengers are warned against using their mobile phones in flight, it's fairly well-known that private
> airplane pilots often use regular cellular and PCS phones, even if it is illegal. Not quite as well-known, however, is that
> people have used their wireless phones to make surreptitious calls from the bathrooms of airliners.

Hope this helps end the Randall discussion Bart.




posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Thanks for the info.
I figured, since that was something that was easily verifiable, that it would would have been.

BTW, this might help you understand the physics of the wing phenomenon.

serendipity.ptpi.net...

[Edited on 1-27-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
As it has been proofed right many times by popular institutes of technology in the USA, England and Germany(those which I know) that the pentagon hit and the broke of the WTC is completly unmysterious and logic with the given planes - we should consider banning all people

WHO GO ON POSTING SUCH DAMN BULLSHIAT FROM THOSE AMATEURS PAGES!


Seriously guys, all you have is some peoples pages that summarize always the same rumours. Absolutely no scientific analysis by pro's which proof anything.
On the other side popular and respected instititutes which proofed everything was normal.

When I remember right the VirginaTech even rebuild 2 or 3 floors to simulate the situation where the planes hit them...and uhu...everything happened like it happened at that day and the WTC modell there would have crashed down as it happened.

Give SCIENTIFIC proof or stop talking rumours by people without life and girlfriend(sorry
)



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by shoo
As it has been proofed right many times by popular institutes of technology in the USA, England and Germany(those which I know) that the pentagon hit and the broke of the WTC is completly unmysterious and logic with the given planes - we should consider banning all people

WHO GO ON POSTING SUCH DAMN BULLSHIAT FROM THOSE AMATEURS PAGES!


Seriously guys, all you have is some peoples pages that summarize always the same rumours. Absolutely no scientific analysis by pro's which proof anything.
On the other side popular and respected instititutes which proofed everything was normal.

When I remember right the VirginaTech even rebuild 2 or 3 floors to simulate the situation where the planes hit them...and uhu...everything happened like it happened at that day and the WTC modell there would have crashed down as it happened.

Give SCIENTIFIC proof or stop talking rumours by people without life and girlfriend(sorry
)


I think the plane hit the pentagon, but I didnt see any scientific proof in your post. Could you reference your information for us?



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
My 2 cents: Initially, on the morn' of 9-11 nobody witnessing the news knew what really happened, but we did get a lot of raw unbiased reports.

Later, we learned much conflicting airplane eyewitness reports. This included an initial helicopter fly-by, various 757-like airliners, small jet fighter-like planes, a C-130 transport , etc. There were enough reports confirming either a 757 or the alternative missile (or 'drone'). Also, many reported evidence of a bomb or bombs exploding.

Coinciding (I'll keep on-topic: the Pentagon "damage", however it was caused) were the WTC impacts and "damages", plus the Airplane destruction in PA. They were not necessarily related, but probably were.

The US government is a prime suspect, no doubt about that. It is surprising how little our Federal agencies are willing to do to clear their reputation (which they must do). The FBI will not release their black box info, nor the videos of the plane flying into the Pentagon. Why not? Why edit out the 1 or 2 frames of the one video they did release? That would prove undeniably that AA flight 77 DID hit the Pentagon. With any plane accident they laboriously retrieve all the bits and pieces of the wreckage, and the press has access. Why not now?

It's absurd to claim that so many body parts would all be preserved, but not the high-temp internal jet engine components? Come on! Check this typical plane wreckage:



Then check the Pentagon lawn:


I'm sorry, but there is not enough evidence to convice me that the 8' hole in the Pentagon facade - or the kerosene (jet fuel) fireball - would swallow up or incinerate a plane (but not human flesh).

On the following satellite photo four days prior to 9-11, there is a white telltale line that coincides with the plane's path:


Why?

Lastly, let's say you are a stressed Arab hijacker with tenuous control of a plane, half-filled with potentially desperate passengers. You are flying into HIGHLY secure and hostile airspace on a 'Kamikaze' mission. You have been carefully planning this with your buddies for years. You know the US military (just across the Potomac) can and will scramble jet fighters to intercept - absolutely every second counts. Failure is probable. So do you fly directly over the Whitehouse, circle around a bit, then come in low at the Pentagon??? Would you instead plan to dive bomb directly down upon your target - in case you're hit?



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
See that large line where the masonry came off the wall? Isn't it the size of the CAD plane's wing? Well, this is not proof at all. It was a plane made of aluminium, and the wall is of reinforced heavy concrete.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeanette
i personally believe none of it. no way is a solider going to allow any aircraft domestic or otherwise fly into pentagon airspace. the slightest deviance from the flight plan, and the plane would have been blown to pieces. the pentagon is close to the white house, a solider never would allow the president and key gov't officials to be put in harms way.


lol, if every plane had the slightest deviate from their flight plan, then you'd have dozens of planes being shot down every day.
Remember a few years ago a small plane flew into the White House? These things can happen. Someone else said this, but it's obvious you've never flown to, from, or through DC before.



and to top it off, they want the american people to believe that two hijackers armed with boxcutters over took a plane with 200+ americans and crashed it into the pentagon. yeah right!

2? Uh...there was more than two.

You have to remember, this was the flight with all the school kids on it.
You don't know what those hijackers did. I'm sure they probably killed the pilot and crew so if you were a school kid, would you be scared to death or thinking "hey, they just took out grown men, but I can take them"




and to let a plane fly into gov't airspace and crash into the pentagon?

Most buildings in Downtown DC have government offices in them, so most of DC of that are would be considered gov't airspace no?
The airport btw is a mile (2 at the most) away from the pentagon.



was there a plane?
...
believe their story, no i can't. but that's my opinion, and a damn good one if i say so myself.

I had a class that morning so I wasn't downtown at the time, but I too know people who saw the plane crash into it....believe their story vs. yours? Sure no prob.
Here's a good overhead view:
www.ashlandfire.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
E.G. : The one crashing in Pennsylvania those animals cut the throats of the pilots. I heard the audio, I did not hear anything like this before in any movie. Everyone on board was dead silent.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Does anyone have a engineering decree in aviation that could explain the physics and properties of what happens when a plane crashes into a concrete building?

Come on folks. The plane hit the Pentagon. As stated above. The Pentagon is a concrete and steel fortress.

Here are some specs on the Pentagon.

The original site was nothing more than wasteland, swamps and dumps. 5.5 million cubic yards of earth, and 41,492 concrete piles contributed to the foundation of the building. Additionally, 680,000 tons of sand and gravel, dredged from the nearby Potomac River, were processed into 435,000 cubic yards of concrete and molded into the Pentagon form. The building was constructed in the remarkably short time of 16 months and completed on January 15, 1943 at an approximate cost of $83 million.

Enough said.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join