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.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 83
10
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
It also makes me wonder how the outer wall of the Pentagon was constructed VS the Power Plant wall. Do we have a structural comparison between those 2 things?

Also, what was the mass and speed of each plane?



Well the wall that they were testing with the F-4 was a specially reinforced wall for protecting nuclear plants.

www.sandia.gov...

The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines.


As far as comparing the impacts, The F-4 would have a lot smaller impact area due to size and shape, so it would pentatrate farther then the 757.

Also figureing the structure of the 2 aicraft, the F-4 has a large amount of steel in the structure where the 757 is almost all aluminum.





[edit on 17-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, I've seen the video....and, thanks for that detail as to the thickness of the wall....nearly 4 metres!

But....what was the outcome? Any info on that?

How much of the re-inforced concrete was penetrated? I know the airframe, the F-4 virtually disintegrated....what speed was it travelling at impact?

I ask because kinetic energy is amazing.....you've seen, no doubt, aftermath photos of tornados causing a piece of lumber...a 2X4...piercing a concrete wall??? Pretty incredible...

WW



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


to myself....I didn't read well, I'm dumb, just reviewing your source, ULTIMA.

As to the Pentagon structure, could you provide research on it? I know it was concrete, built in the 1940s....you also realize there were windows between support columns?

WW



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
How much of the re-inforced concrete was penetrated? I know the airframe, the F-4 virtually disintegrated....what speed was it travelling at impact?


If you saw the video then you saw that the F-4 was almost completly destroyed (just outter parts of wings survived) Almost no penatration to the wall. IF you read my post you would see the speed was 480 mph.

But the wall was a specailly designed hardened wall to protect nuclear plants. The wall at the Pentagon was no were near as thick or as heavily reinforced.

If an F-4 would have hit the Pentagon it would have easliy penatrated alot farther then a 757.

[edit on 17-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
As to the Pentagon structure, could you provide research on it? I know it was concrete, built in the 1940s....you also realize there were windows between support columns?


Well the new Pentaogn wall was reinforeced concrete with a layer of Kevlar around the windows for bomb proofing.

Here is some research into the Pentagon wall contruction, a diagram of what the wall is contstructed of.

i114.photobucket.com...

[edit on 17-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
How much of the re-inforced concrete was penetrated? I know the airframe, the F-4 virtually disintegrated....what speed was it travelling at impact?


If you saw the video then you saw that the F-4 was almost completly destroyed (just outter parts of wings survived) Almost no penatration to the wall. IF you read my post you would see the speed was 480 mph.

But the wall was a specailly designed hardened wall to protect nuclear plants. The wall at the Pentagon was no were near as thick or as heavily reinforced.

If an F-4 would have hit the Pentagon it would have easliy penatrated alot farther then a 757.

[edit on 17-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Could you be specific about the construction of the pentagon outer walls and the nuclear plant test wall? Thanks.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Could you be specific about the construction of the pentagon outer walls and the nuclear plant test wall? Thanks.


I already posted a diagram of what the Pentagon walls are contructed of.

nucnews.net...

"If you were to slam a plane into (a nuclear reactor), ... most likely that plane would not penetrate the containment building," said Paul Gaukler, an attorney with Shaw Pittman, which represents nuclear industry clients.

Gaukler pointed to a test conducted in 1988 by the Sandia National Laboratories in California where scientists slammed an F-4 Phantom fighter jet into a stimulated nuclear containment facility at 481 miles per hour.

The jet shattered into pieces and only penetrated the containment wall by two or three inches, he said. Nuclear power reactors are typically enclosed in concrete walls up to 4.5 feet (1.35 meters) thick.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
From your cross-section of the Pentagon wall, it's just concrete, brick, and limestone two feet thick?

Interesting...

[edit on 17-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
From your cross-section of the Pentagon wall, it's just concrete, brick, and limestone two feet thick?


Well that was the normal walls but you have to consider where the plane was supposed to have hit was renovated.

911research.wtc7.net...

The renovation program included the following improvements to the building:

Exterior walls reinforced with steel
Exterior walls backed with Kevlar
Blast-resistant windows installed



[edit on 17-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
More information on the F-4 and the reinforced wall.

www.nci.org...

As a letter to the editor of the New York Times by NCI Scientific Director Edwin Lyman, points out, the crash test "proves nothing, since the wall was not attached to the ground and was displaced nearly six feet."

Lyman goes on to quote directly from the Sandia test report: "The major portion of the impact energy went into movement of the target and not in producing structural damage."



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Of course. Obviously an actual layout of the as-is wall would be hard to find for security reasons.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


sorry I missed the pentagon diagram, could you either point it out or repost it?



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Of course. Obviously an actual layout of the as-is wall would be hard to find for security reasons.


Well there is enough information to know that it would have been almost impossible for a aluminum airframe to do the damage claimed by the official story.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
sorry I missed the pentagon diagram, could you either point it out or repost it?



Hers it is, its the basic wall construction, not the newer recontruction.
i114.photobucket.com...



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well there is enough information to know that it would have been almost impossible for a aluminum airframe to do the damage claimed by the official story.


"almost impossible".....so it isnt completely impossible. That means you think there is a small chance it could have done the damage claimed in the official story. Wow!



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
That means you think there is a small chance it could have done the damage claimed in the official story.


Its just too bad you cannot post evidence to support the official story.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Its just too bad you cannot post evidence to support the official story.



But this thread is talking about what evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy....not what evidence supports the official story.

Silly ULTIMA1



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
But this thread is talking about what evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy....not what evidence supports the official story.


Well then you should not have brought up the official story then. Its getting so funny how you bring stuff up and when someone proves you cannot post evidnece you have to change your story or claim that is not dealing with the thread.

Oh you poor little Disclosed. Here is your qoute for everyone to see that you stated about the official story.


That means you think there is a small chance it could have done the damage claimed in the official story. Wow!




[edit on 18-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Disclosed
 


Every thread becomes "what Ultima thinks and why 'believers' are immature and stupid" I'm surprised you didn't know that rule...
I'm not sure why an a/c at high speed would find it "almost impossible" to penetrate a wall, but I'm interested to hear the reasoning in a perverse way. Perhaps "most" of the energy would have been absorbed by the trees and light poles infront of the Pentagon...



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well then you should not have brought it up in the first place. Its getting do funny how you bring stuff up and when someone proves you worng you have to change your story or claim that is not dealing with the thread.


Umm...look back a couple posts. You brought it up, and I answered yoru post. Shall I quote it again?


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well there is enough information to know that it would have been almost impossible for a aluminum airframe to do the damage claimed by the official story.


You made the statement, I answered it....your own words.

Also, mods have been notified about you having to resort to childish namecalling again. NSA agents resorting to name calling?




[edit on 18-5-2008 by Disclosed]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join