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.

 

Where did the engines impact?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I inadvertently highjacked a post with this photo the other day and for that I apologize. I would very much like someone to thoughtfully and logically answer this question with regards to flight 77 which is reported to have hit the Pentagon.

Where did the two 6 ton engines impact the building at over 500 mph?

farm4.static.flickr.com...

I would really like to stay away from an argument here as it so often happens with anything surrounding 9/11.

I would encourage lively debate and clear concise facts.

Do we know for certain that a plane, let alone flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

The photo is an accurate representation of what must have taken place, but it doesn't add up.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by KMFNWO]




posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I believe at one point they were saying that the engines were vapourised.

My personal belief is that this is quite an important factor in uncovering the truth, well done.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Doesn't the official story have the plane a lot closer to the ground than your sketch indicates and also tilted down on the left wing?

The ground floor seems to have taken all the damage and, as I recall, engine components found inside the building as well as outside.




[edit on 20/3/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


I hardly think a slight inclination here and there would cause an airplane to make a tiny hole with no damage to where the wings supposedly were. Also does anyone else find it funny that the plane is flying a few metres (10 feet) above the ground? You would have to be a highly skilled pilot to pull that off, not some guy with a box cutter.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rubber Bullet
I hardly think a slight inclination here and there would cause an airplane to make a tiny hole with no damage to where the wings supposedly were.



The 'small' hole supposedly made by the body of the aircraft is at least 16' in diameter going by the pictures I've seen. The diameter of the plane body was 12.5' so that hole is very consistent with the suggested 757 and allowing for the tilted attitude, the engine impact points become more obvious. It appears the thinner sections of wing (like the tips) were no match for the reinforced walls unlike the plane body and engines.



[edit on 20/3/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by donotdoit
 
Thanks for the links to the pictures, but what are you trying to show? If you are showing a 757 I sure don't see it, a missile or small private jet maybe, but no 757. As I've stated in other threads, the camera is about 200 yards from the impact point, a 757 would be many times larger than what is shown in the pictures. I still haven't gotten a response from the debunkers as to what is in the pictures and videos, because it isn't a passenger jet.

They then will say, what about the 1000's of witnesses, whom saw a 757 hit the pentagon, but those same people will say, your eyes play tricks on you when you see a ufo or you're not a trained observer, they get to play on both sides of the fence, while truthers and ufo believers only play one side. maybe those 1000's of witnesses are mistaken and not trained observers.

I as a truther get to say, What about those witnesses, whom say they heard a missile, or those whom smelled cordite? Oh, I'm sure they were not trained in identifying missiles or their noses weren't properly trained in detecting cordite.

I still enjoy the debate though.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I've never really contributed to is topic but from what I have read, so many things stand out to point to an aircraft NOT hitting the pentagon;

1) If it was travelling 500mph, wouldn't the light poles have disintegrated or ripped off the wings of the aircraft, not just snapped out of the ground?

2) you would expect the cabin to disintegrate and the engines to create most of the damage.. clearly not the case

3) the fireball that was seen on the CCTV and the following fire is just not right looking at where the engines and the fuel are on the aircraft compared to where the hole is.

4) the debris just seems to be out of place and ... lacking.

However i do believe that planes did hit the twin towers.. weather it be terrorists or a government strategy, I am still unsure.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by fiftyfifty]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by saturnsrings
 

The pic shows the relative dimension of a 757 compared to the known dimensions of the Pentagon. A 757 has a wingspan of about 125' and a body diameter of 12.5' so the left wing would be ~56' long and the main body and engine impact points have holes just where they could be expected to be found.

Involvement of a missile in addition to the 757 (intended to bring it down but just a tad late) is a real possibility but the observed damage appears to fit a 757 sized plane.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
1) If it was travelling 500mph, wouldn't the light poles have disintegrated or ripped off the wings of the aircraft, not just snapped out of the ground?


I can't speak specifically for the actual lighting standards used near the Pentagon but I was involved in many similar highway lighting schemes at the design and construction level and the standards were designed to shear off at ground level as a safety factor in the event of a vehicle collision. Consider the energy of a 100 ton plane at that speed and it wouldn't go totally undamaged but the poles would be knocked down like skittles.



2) you would expect the cabin to disintegrate and the engines to create most of the damage.. clearly not the case


There was a lot more to the plane than just the cabin - 100000kg of metal compacting to a denser mass and many metal components like the keel beam and wing box were easily strong enough to smash through those walls.



3) the fireball that was seen on the CCTV and the following fire is just not right looking at where the engines and the fuel are on the aircraft compared to where the hole is.


The plane had 3 fuel tanks, one in each wing and one in the body, allowing fuel to be delivered to large area of the building. The CCTV cameras are a good point but I believe it's been covered many times. The cameras sent live pictures back to a central control station where approx 1 frame/second was recorded from each and their function was to monitor the grounds for suspicious activity, not the sky. That sequence from the gate cam may be as good as it gets.



4) the debris just seems to be out of place and ... lacking.


The few pics taken before the partial collapse indicate a lot of small pieces of 'something' all over the place. I wouldn't expect much intact wreckage after such an impact apart from some engine components, landing gear, keel etc. as these were the toughest parts of the plane.


But I do agree there's still plenty of mystery remaining about the whole event.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   
The pentagon has 87 video camera's the we know of on the outside. Yet the only video's we get to see are the result of won lawsuits by gas station and hotel managers.

It's seems to me that if my country was torn in half thinking their own government is behind the "worst event in UA history" and I had a dozen or even one tape to end that debate and say "I told you so, look at this video, huge airliner right there" and rejoin the country I would release it.

Why have they not? That's all I need for me from a government that has historically proven to lie top the people. Wake the F*CK UP!!!! PEOPLE!!



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Throbber
I believe at one point they were saying that the engines were vapourised.



Don't you mean vapoorized?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by KMFNWO
 

I don't have time to explain it in-depth again, but here is a graphic explanation:


Not the best but a post explaining the overall entry wound size:
link

The perplexing repeated location of damage on the second floor covered here.

In short, the reason the hole on the 2nd floor is too small for a 757 fusealge and engines with no wing marks or tailfin marks above is this:
it hit the first floor, where there's plenty of damage to allow both engines and fuselage and much of the wings, with the upper 1/4 of the fuselage, outer 2/3 of right wing, and the base of the tailfin are what went above the slab into foor 2.

That's it.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join