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.

 

Explain these photos

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


Perhaps you could point out which "non aluminum" part could make that large and perfectly round exit hole? Better yet, point it out in one of the photos.

Thanks.


as any competent engineer would explain, the hole was caused by a clump of debris pushed by a combination of inertia of a 500MPH impact and the expolsion of the fuel, which would exactly explain the charred brick and debris shown in this picture. the pieces in the wreckage all match a 757, including the fuselage fragment and wheel shown in this picture. if you notice, the debris pile is lying at the same trajectory angle as would have been needed to get to the outer wall to this wall. there is also more debris not shown in this pic, that made it farther out. eyewitnesses said they saw a 757 hit the building. now let's hear what you think made the hole.






more debris that made it out farther.







[edit on 15-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]




posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
we arent talking about wether the engine parts match or not (which they do, you are making things up again)


Their are no official reports released that match any of the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes. You are the one making things up.


Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
example above, ultima shows me a pictures of a totally unrelated plane with damage to the exterior explaining


The photo is not unrelated. It has everything to do with the amount of damage that would be casued to an aluminum airframe.

Oh and case you did not know most of a airliner is aluminum. Please show and explain to me what part made the exit hole.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
we arent talking about wether the engine parts match or not (which they do, you are making things up again)


Their are no official reports released that match any of the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes. You are the one making things up.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


there are no official reports released that match something other than the 9/11 planes. lol, ridiculous argument. you said the engine parts shown in the photos don't match, they do. how can you say for sure they don't match if there is no official report???? MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

so could plane debris make the exit hole or not, you still haven't given any data to show it couldn't.

also, you wouldn't believe an "official report" anyway so that's a moot point. the pictures are official and the eyewitness accounts are official and they all match an AA 757.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
we arent talking about wether the engine parts match or not (which they do, you are making things up again)


Their are no official reports released that match any of the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes. You are the one making things up.


Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
example above, ultima shows me a pictures of a totally unrelated plane with damage to the exterior explaining


The photo is not unrelated. It has everything to do with the amount of damage that would be casued to an aluminum airframe.

Oh and case you did not know most of a airliner is aluminum. Please show and explain to me what part made the exit hole.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


i already explained it above. and the photo is 100% unrelated, a plane that crash landed with all the parts intact has nothing to do with a 757 hitting the pentagon.

THE OFFICIAL REPORT SAID FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON. there you go, so since you go off the official report, you just answered what hit the pentagon.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
you said the engine parts shown in the photos don't match, they do. how can you say for sure they don't match if there is no official report???? .


I will say it again since you seem to have a hard time understanding facts. Their are no official reports released that match any of the parts found to flight 77.

Look up a photo of an RB211 which was used on Flight 77 and try to match it to the engine found outside the Pentagon.

I will be waiting for your facts and evidnece.


[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
i already explained it above. and the photo is 100% unrelated, a plane that crash landed with all the parts intact has nothing to do with a 757 hitting the pentagon.


So are you saying that Flight 77 was missing parts before hitting the Pentagon?

The photo is showing what happenes to an aluminum airframs when it hits something, it does not matter if its trees or a wall its still going to be destroyed.

Their are no facts and evindece to support ther official story, just like flight 77 hitting the pentagon.



[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
you said the engine parts shown in the photos don't match, they do. how can you say for sure they don't match if there is no official report???? .


I will say it again since you seem to have a hard time understanding facts. Their are no official reports released that match any of the parts found to flight 77.

Look up a photo of an RB211 which was used on Flight 77 and try to match it to the engine found outside the Pentagon.

I will be waiting for your facts and evidnece.


[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


show me the engine picture you believe is not a part of RB211. the official report says it was flight 77.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
i already explained it above. and the photo is 100% unrelated, a plane that crash landed with all the parts intact has nothing to do with a 757 hitting the pentagon.


So are you saying that Flight 77 was missing parts before hitting the Pentagon?

The photo is showing what happenes to an aluminum airframs when it hits something, it does not matter if its trees or a wall its still going to be destroyed.

Their are no facts and evindece to support ther official story, just like flight 77 hitting the pentagon.



[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


im saying your photo shows nothing about how a plane would react if it hit the pentagon. your photo still has the engines and all of the non aluminum parts in tact (which shows nothing how a plane would react when enternig a building, im not saying 77 was missing parts) and it didnt even blow up, which would cause more of a blast. 100% irrelevent. yes, we know a plane would break up when it crashed, nobody is debating that.

in otherwards, you are saying if the plane in your picture hit WTC7 the damage would be exact and no engines or anything would be hurled forward. absurd.
[edit on 15-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

[edit on 15-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
im saying your photo shows nothing about how a plane would react if it hit the pentagon.


It does shows what happenes to a fragile aluminum airframe when it hits something.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
double post, please erase

[edit on 15-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
im saying your photo shows nothing about how a plane would react if it hit the pentagon.


It does shows what happenes to a fragile aluminum airframe when it hits something.



it doesnt show what would happen to non aluminum parts if they breached at building at 460MPH.



[edit on 15-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
SHOW ME THE PICTURES THAT DON'T MATCH PARTS FROM A 757 ENGINE.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
it doesnt show what would happen to non aluminum parts if they breached at building at 460MPH.


Then show me these non aluminum parts that belong to flight 77.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
SHOW ME THE PICTURES THAT DON'T MATCH PARTS FROM A 757 ENGINE.


Your the one that maintains they are from a 757, so you need to show me the evidnece that they do



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
SHOW ME THE PICTURES THAT DON'T MATCH PARTS FROM A 757 ENGINE.


Your the one that maintains they are from a 757, so you need to show me the evidnece that they do


This illustration of an RB211-535 engine assembly shows a combustion chamber casing that appears to be a good match for the casing fragment in the photograph below: the pattern of fuel inlet nozzle holes in the drawing is similar to that of the crumpled fragment.







posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   


The above illustration from Rolls-Royce shows another cut-away of the RB211-535 that provides a good view of the internal components of the engine. In particular, note the frame just aft of the turbine stages. The spacing of the stator vanes shown here matches those seen in the Pentagon photo well and provides additional evidence that the debris is in fact from an RB211 engine.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
This illustration of an RB211-535 engine assembly shows a combustion chamber casing that appears to be a good match for the casing fragment in the photograph below: .


Thats not really evidence since the photos are unsourced.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Thats not really evidence since the photos are unsourced.


Thats odd, it was evidence in the Moussaoui trial. The judge felt it was evidence....otherwise it would have been thrown out.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
This illustration of an RB211-535 engine assembly shows a combustion chamber casing that appears to be a good match for the casing fragment in the photograph below: .


Thats not really evidence since the photos are unsourced.


LMAO. ok. so what "sourced" photos show engines parts not from an RB211? i knew you were going to say something ridiculous even know the parts DO match, that's why i asked and watched you not answer. so will you show me "sourced" parts that don't match something other than an RB211? and define SOURCED. pictures of the debris are "sourced" and the diagram is sourced by Boeing. so they ARE sourced.

btw, you still haven't shown that non aluminum parts from a jet impact at 460MPH would not breach the three rings, the original debate.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
LMAO. ok. so what "sourced" photos show engines parts not from an RB211?


I will state it again.

There are no released reports that match any parts found to the 9/11 planes.

So you to state that a 757 or flight 77 hit the Petagon is just an opinion not a fact.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join