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.

 

Sept. 11 redux: Video shows jet vaporizing

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Here is a video that shows a jet traveling at 500mph and crashing into a wall and totally vaporizing into dust. For all of you who doubt a plane flew into the pentagon.
If this has been previously posted please close.


LINK
www.worldnetdaily.com...

[edit on 2-3-2008 by bakednutz]




posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:15 AM
link   
I am pretty sure the Pentagon walls were not 3.7 Meters thick of solid concrete.

"Lets compare apples to apples"



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TheEnforcer
 


It is true, the Pentagon is not constructed of '3.7 feet of solid concrete'. But, the walls do not float on a base of air either.

The point here, I believe, is something that seems to have been lost in discussions for the last several years. It's the tremendous power of Kinetic Energy, and its destructive potential.

The engines on an F-4 are pretty similar to the civilian version, the PW JT-9D, seen on the B727 and 'classic' B737 for decades. Called 'turbo-jet', these engines produce the majority of their thrust from the exhaust. In the interests of better fuel economy, and quiter operation requirements, the 'High-Bypass Fan' engine was developed, as far back as the late 1960s.

Point is, when you look at a modern airliner, you see a pretty large nacelle, and you may assume there is a BIG engine in there. Well, the nacelle is large to accomodate the Fan, called 'N1'...if you've heard of a 'ducted fan', well that's what it is. About 70 to 80% (or more) of the thrust produced by these engines comes from the N1 fan blades, much like a propellor in small airplanes. The large nacelles allow this air to flow around, and out, to provide most of the thrust.

The compressor and 'hot' sections of the core engine, are actually quite small, in comparison...couple of feet in diameter, maybe 5-7 feet in length, compared to the 7 or 8 or 9-foot diameter fan (N1).

The 'core' will consist of concentric shafts, with various compressor and turbine blades attached, via metal rings...the turbine blades, ones made of titanium alloys, (to withstand the higher heat and energies) will actually be smaller than the compressor blades...in diameter, I mean.

('hot' section refers to the turbine blades, after the compressed air is introduced to the ignition chamber, the fuel/air mixture is ignited, and exhausts with great force, thru a series of gradually expanding turbine blades, maybe as many as 13 to 15...all designed to maximize the extraction of energy potential).

This 'core' of a modern fan-jet is relatively small, as I mentioned, despite what you see when you look at the airplane's nacelle.

So two engines, totally destroyed by the kinetic forces? Still seems plausible, but it's up to our great ATS members to chime in!

Any metalurgists out there??

BTW, the compressor sections are usually a metal ring, with the blades attached...you can hear them 'tinkling'...best description I have for it...as the engines rotate in a wind, when on the ground. I believe the 'hot' section disks are cast in one piece...they are subjected to more stress in normal operations. But still, the blades are small, relative fragile since they aren't designed to withstand horizontal crash forces....



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 04:57 AM
link   
So how do you explain the video of the pentagon security cam that registrated an explosion but where was the jet?

yeah sure, that has to do with the frame caps right?

Well, the pentagon has over 200 - 300 high quality day and night sec camera's. Wich none of have frame caps. You do the math.

Also; the Pentagon wasn't really that strong so when a giant jet hits it with over 500 miles p/h, you really think there wasn't anymore damage?

You can tell me whatever you want, but my eyes do not and will not ever decieve me. You just keep listnening to the "official" statements of your leaders and you'll be allright.

It is impossible to educate one if he thinks he allready got it!

As for the video; I didn't even watch it b/c of what TheEnforcer stated;

Let's compare apples with apples please.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   
There is one huge difference between that F4 and the 757. The F4 did NOT penetrate the concrete. The 757 DID penetrate the walls of the pentagoon. When two objects collide there is equal force on both objects, regardless of which one or if any was moving. So if one object gives way the other object will stay relatively intact. If the concrete wall had gave way the F4 would not have disintegrated.

In other words if the 757 penetrated the wall what would have cause it to do what the F4 did? You can't have it both ways.

Sorry if my explanation is pore it's late, but the F4 vid actually proves the 757 should NOT have disappeared.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
There is one huge difference between that F4 and the 757. The F4 did NOT penetrate the concrete. The 757 DID penetrate the walls of the pentagoon. When two objects collide there is equal force on both objects, regardless of which one or if any was moving. So if one object gives way the other object will stay relatively intact. If the concrete wall had gave way the F4 would not have disintegrated.

In other words if the 757 penetrated the wall what would have cause it to do what the F4 did? You can't have it both ways.

Sorry if my explanation is pore it's late, but the F4 vid actually proves the 757 should NOT have disappeared.


On the contrary.

It shows what happens to lightweight aluminum aircraft skin, that the walls of the Pentagon were not as strong as the block used in the F4 test, etc.

That, along with the remaining wreckage inside the Pentagon, and all the other evidence, is conclusive, as it has been since 9/11/2001: AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

Let's move on to where you demonstrate 9/11 was an inside job.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
On the contrary.

It shows what happens to lightweight aluminum aircraft skin, that the walls of the Pentagon were not as strong as the block used in the F4 test, etc.

That, along with the remaining wreckage inside the Pentagon, and all the other evidence, is conclusive, as it has been since 9/11/2001: AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

Let's move on to where you demonstrate 9/11 was an inside job.


What wreckage? They found ONE engine... haha.

You can easily get one of those at a boing junkjard, sometimes even for free when they are all busted up.

So not very convincing jthomas



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by PureET

What wreckage? They found ONE engine... haha.

You can easily get one of those at a boing junkjard, sometimes even for free when they are all busted up.

So not very convincing jthomas


I'm confident you're not convinced by any evidence.



[Mod Edit - trim quotes]

Mod Note Please Review: Trim Those Quotes

[edit on 2/3/2008 by Sauron]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
On the contrary.

It shows what happens to lightweight aluminum aircraft skin, that the walls of the Pentagon were not as strong as the block used in the F4 test, etc.

That, along with the remaining wreckage inside the Pentagon, and all the other evidence, is conclusive, as it has been since 9/11/2001: AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

Let's move on to where you demonstrate 9/11 was an inside job.




Jthomas... Damn rookies at the NWO Planning committe failed to get the accurate number of engines to plant at the Pentagon! Find out who was in charge and execute them!




[Mod Edit - trim quotes]

Mod Note Please Review: Trim Those Quotes


[edit on 2/3/2008 by Sauron]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Okay now show us all the "IMPRESSIONS" of the Two Engines in the PENTAGON wall.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   


Okay now show us all the "IMPRESSIONS" of the Two Engines in the PENTAGON wall.


So what do you expect ? A cutout of the plane on the Pentagon wall
like in a Wiley Coyote/Roadrunner cartoon? I suppose if there was
such a picture you would be screaming it was faked !



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
My question is... how is anything of credible evidence, especially that which comes from a Lockheed Martin owned company? It just seems to me to be a feeble-minded attempt at re-covering the truth...

Deny!!!

[edit on 2-3-2008 by StoneGarden]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


There are no clear Wing Impressions, but stranger still no Engine Impressions. The engines are the strongest material of the plane. So again, where are the impressions???

If no impressions at least 2 large holes, and if not that a huge horizontal opening of the building the length of the plane, sort of like what we see on the Towers.



[edit on 2-3-2008 by talisman]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
You guys need to get out in the world:

fire.nist.gov...

You'll note the walls where the fuselage, tail, engines, and most of the wings hit are gone.

Please do some research for a change.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I am glad this video was finally posted on here. I am so sick and tired of all the conspiracy theories on this aspect of September 11th, as I had friends and acquaintences who were there and saw firsthand what happened. Everytime I hear a "New Theory" on how the Pentagon was not hit by the 757 I cringe, because it just takes away the blame from a bunch of extremists terrorists and attempts to place it on the shoulders of fellow Americans.

Family of mine grew up around the Pentagon, and I know the area better than most on here. I am very familiar with the building, the area, and that oh-so infamous day. I saw the damage firsthand as well, and it was HUGE, beyond belief, and much larger than "too small for a 757", which is what some on here keep claiming. I am very familiar with Military ordinance, Aircraft, and of course this particular structure, and when I combine the knowledge of those areas I feel I am capable of making a fairly accurate assessment. Looking at the damage in pictures, and conspiratorially criticizing it, is like viewing a 3 x 5 of the Grand Canyon and claiming you've been there.

I understand some may have doubts, and some may regularly question official stories, but I do know what happened at the Pentagon that day. I am glad to see some more evidence put forth, that will hopefully make you believe what I already know.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


There is nothing in that which points to Engine impressions in the wall. If not that like I said then a large horizontal hole like in the Towers. I only see one hole initially at the Pentagon. I don't see where the engines left "THEIR MARK".



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 
Like all those that blindly believe the gonernments theory, The wings folded back and went throught the hole in the building, where they ended up is anyones guess. Does anyone know the distance from the impact point, to the last hole in the inner most ring (C)? That sure was a pretty neat hole that was caused by a vaporized plane. Funny how the plane was vaporized and the resulting fire melted the aluminum, but enough dna was extracted, to identify the bodies.

The fact is, there were no marks on the pentagon where the engines SHOULD have hit, none.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by saturnsrings
 



I couldn`t have put it any better.
Sometimes I wonder if those who are arguing with the facts sole goal is to get us tired of repeating ourselves.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Jthomas... Damn rookies at the NWO Planning committe failed to get the accurate number of engines to plant at the Pentagon! Find out who was in charge and execute them!


Cpt.Obvious you seem pretty sure, in fact overly confidant, that the official story the government fed the public is the truth. Am I correct?

Seeing as you are so sure you must have done extensive research? You must have challanged the inconsistancies, and resolved them with evidence that supported the 'official story'? Am I correct?

Then could you please explain the NIST report for us?

Thanx buddy...



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Wow, talk about makeing points for the other side, this is a doozie. I can't figure out if this post is more funny than it is ironic. He's trying to bolster to "official" story, but in fact does the exact opposite, talk about shooting youself in the foot.

The plane in question "supposedly" did remain in tact whether it be a crumpling mass of rolling fire and aluminum, and had enough force and mass, to go through 9 feel of reinforce steel concrete, and punch out a perfectly round 10 foot diameter hole in the back of the C- Ring. So you've just shot down your own argument. Then you show us a video where a similiar plane cannot go through 3-6 feet of concrete?

So basically you and your video are supporting the conspiracists and the trth movement that it could not have been a 757, or large commercial boeing arliener because it would have vaporized , and dont hardly any damage past the first ring.

So thatnks for the video, and bolstering the truth movement.

But I'll tell you what can leave that sort of damage signature. A cruise Missle. Thats what hit the pentagon on p/11, and the decoy jet flew right through the explosion low, then peeled skyward, when all eyes were on the pentagon.

When people started to look up, there we're many cover planes for the decoy jet.

One that really stands out is the doomsday ABL jet, which could have lazed the target fro the cruise missle.

This scenario, makes alot more sense that an aluminum, (for get the fir and gas, has no bearing ion concrecrete) Boeing 757 went through 9 feet of reinforced concrete, making a nice little 15 -20 foot entrance hole, and leaving a perfectly cicular 10 foot exit hole, these are all characterististics of the damage a cruise missile does.

By the way starred and flagged, and thank you VERY much for helping the movement.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by Nola213]

[edit on 2-3-2008 by Nola213]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join