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: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

You are ignoring the facts of what a plane is made of and it would not survive impact with the building.

Besides ignoring the speed...
You are ignoring the impact energy and the fact the plane did not survive the impact. It is called physics; are you familiar with physics at the high school, or college level. If so, it is easy to figure out, you must of made a mistake and forgot the velocity squared term in your energy calculation. If you need help, please present your calculation showing 77 can not destroy parts of the Pentagon as it did. You could seek help form a teacher, who can help you with the physics part you seem to be hung up on making false claims in error.

There are part of the plane very strong and the mass and velocity at impact need to be calculated to see what damage is done. The energy at impact was over 1000 pounds of TNT. That energy causes great damage, exactly what we see at the Pentagon. Have you read the report yet. What do you not understand? What do you disagree with? Physics is needed. Do not rely on the common sense approach that leaves out physics. What would Einstein do, and Sir Isaac Newton is cringing at your comments.

ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report.

If the plane was going 90 mph or 180 mph at impact, there would be little damage, about 10 to 40 times less damage. The kind of aircraft accident most of us are use to. Velocity, you must understand physics to get a grasp on the damage at the Pentagon from 77.




posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
the fact the plane did not survive the impact.


So you agree that the plane did not survive impact, so what punched out through the other side of the building?

Where is all the debris that would be outside the building since it did not survive impact?

[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Where is all the debris that would be outside the building since it did not survive impact?


Physics again. There is this silly thing call velocity. Also remember that pesky little theory "an object in motion stays in motion"? Well, 60 tons of force on wall....moving at 500mph...is going to push any debris into the structure. There was "some" debris outside....but a bulk of it was inside the Pentagon.

Why is it that CT'ers feel objects will just bounce off walls and just fall to the ground? Did anyone else take science in school? Velocity, momentum, force, were people sleeping during these courses?

Amazing...

[edit on 16-4-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
My question is how come there is very little (or absolutely none) damage to the rings between the 2 points? WTH?



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
There is this silly thing call velocity.


More like called BS. I love how you people keep bringing that up even though its been proven that,

1. The aluminunm airframe would not have survived impact. Which would have left lots of debris outside the building.

2. Several of the parts from the plane would survive impact. But their is no evidence of these and no reports to match parts shown to Flight 77.

Still waiting to see the debris from a 60 ton plane. You do not evne know what the walls are contructed of.

Please do research before posting.



[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
More like called BS. I love how you people keep bringing that up even though its been proven that,

1. The aluminunm airframe would not have survived impact. Which would have left lots of debris outside the building.


You are stating for a fact that the Pentagon walls were designed to take a 60 ton impact.....travelling at 500mph?

I'd like to see you back that claim up. Otherwise it is complete BS.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
I'd like to see you back that claim up.


Pretty easy since you do not know how the wall was constructed. Also as stated again and again an aluminum airframe would not pentatrate through the building, specailly since the nose cone is made from graphite composite.

i114.photobucket.com...

[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Pretty easy since you do not know how the wall was constructed.


If it is so easy, then show us your facts/data. Show us where the wall is certified to exceed the force of 60 tons at 500mph.

You said it was pretty easy....please back those claims.

Otherwise it is total BS.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
If it is so easy, then show us your facts/data.


I have showed you what the wall was constructed of.

Can you show evidence that a graphite composte nose cone would pentatrate. I mean its on you to prove since you are claiming the plane penatrated through the building.

[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have showed you what the wall was constructed of.


You showed us a nice picture from your own webspace.

I sure didnt see any data/facts stating the wall would withstand a 60 ton 500mph impact.

Did anyone see that bit of information?



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Did anyone see that bit of information?


Did anyone see his information on composite and aluminum pentrating through the all of walls at the pentagon?



[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Did anyone see his information on composite and aluminum pentrating through the all of walls at the pentagon?


So you were lying then when you said you could back the claim "pretty easy" that the penatgon wall could withstand a 60 ton 500mph impact?

Typical conspiracy theorist tactic. After 7 years....still unable to post the facts when asked.



[edit on 16-4-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
So you were lying then when you said you could back the claim "pretty easy" that the penatgon wall could withstand a 60 ton 500mph impact?


Only if you were lying that the plane could have penatrated all the way into the building?

I can prove what i post, can you ?

[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I can prove what i post...


Then prove it. Post the specs of the Pentagon wall stating it would withstand a 60 ton 500mph impact. You said you could easily do it...

Prove what you post.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Here's a great piece of research that answers a lot of questions...for those who dont believe a plane hit the pentagon.

youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Grock
 


I dont see this issue being addressed here. Where is the damage between the 2 impact points?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by dirtonwater
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Not really funny. Sad actually. Alot of people lost their lives on that plane. Sad how you people can minimalize it by suggesting these people were taken by the government and executed somewhere. I understand you people need to play you fantasy games here, but I just hope none of the family members of those on the plane see this trash.


Yeah, I was actually there- working- saw the whole thing and am forever damaged by it. I find it amazing that there is even any dispute here. I guess it was a Holy Hand Grenade, but I swear I saw a plane. Lemme go take another pill.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Then prove it. Post the specs of the Pentagon wall stating it would withstand a 60 ton 500mph impact.


After you post facts and evindece that a composite and aluminum airframe would penatrate all the way through the Pentagon.

I have been asking for ages, why can't you post poof?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by raven bombshell
but I swear I saw a plane.


Was it the 757 of Flight 77?

Why are more and more first responders coming forward speaking out against the official story?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
After you post facts and evindece that a composite and aluminum airframe would penatrate all the way through the Pentagon.


haha! I knew you were bull#ting when you said you could easily prove the Pentagon wall could sustain a 60 ton 500mph hit.

Typical CT strategy....post claims you cannot possibly back up with facts.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join