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.

 

Possible Proof that a Missile Hit the Pentagon on Sept 11???

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mikellmikell
 

You make a good point.

The only time I have seen video of the backwash from a jetliner pushing a vehicle on the ground around was when the jetliner was, itself, parked on the ground. The ground must force more of the exhaust thrust into one direction, increasing it's force.




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


That is impact air pressure, you are still looking at between 2-4 megajoules of energy at 2 megajoules it is 1,475,143 foot pounds of force. even limestone is not going to prevent that.

An aircraft is made of aluminum alloy that is composed to magnesium and titanium for strenght. The strongest part is the underbelly which is designed to wtihstand landing shock etc.

It would have punched through the wall with that much force, but you still would have seen the imapct dust and air push up, along the sides and ground.

The damage pictures (most of the ones used) show very little as there are streams of foam everywhere due to the fuel fires.
The ones after the collapse are also not very good for imapct damage estimation as the impact hole is gone. but by looking at all of them in composit you can see the rough outline of the aircraft shape.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Achor has a valid point. The kinetic energy of the aircraft is enough to vaporize and ignite Jet-A. The tanks compress and burst, under pressure, on impact, spraying a hot mist of fuel that then ignites. This is not as powerful as a FAE bomb but it is still exceptionally destructive because of the quantity of fuel involved and the incendiary effects of unvaporized fuel.
This type of deflagration has the properties Achor mentioned a lower, longer lasting pressure wave rather than the sharp spike of a highly brisant explosive.
Bottom line: Window bulging and ear popping do not prove a missile strike. The damage also says no missile strike.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
It was an air burst laser guided bomb dropped from altitude, i think.

The whole missile thing only comes up because of the streak in the fabricated pentagon tapes. It had to have been conducted by the military, and the military wouldnt use a missile it to loud to noticeable and to distinct. A jdam can just floats the the ground and land in your coffe cup faster than you can blink.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Retikx
 

Too many witnesses saw a big aircraft. The JDAMs are small.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Achorwrath
 

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't buy the notion of the fuel/air aspects of the explosion that you are describing and I don't think the fuselage of the airplane would have the punching power to go through the rings of the Pentagon as it would have to have done.

In the scenario put forward by the government, the airplane hit the wall at an angle and vanished into a hole. In reality, an airplane hitting the wall at an angle like that might have penetrated to some extent but most of the fuselage would have smeared along the wall on the outside, torn apart by it's own angular momentum.

The government's story is a fantasy that just doesn't add up.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Don't let your gut feelings based on Hollywood thrillers distort reality. Something that massive at those speeds could well do what is claimed. You saw what happened with the towers; planes came out the other sides after cutting through steel columns.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dimensionaljumper
 


Sad and Pathetic...

"It seemed like a missle..." and you say that is PROOF?

His experience is feeling missle strikes?

Come on...

Once you types stop calling anyone who disagrees with you SHEEPLE (so clever) disparaging their views and brains and relaize that YOU ARE NOT THE TRUTH. BECAUSE YOU SAY IT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!

You want to talk then stop with the insults.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Issues of what the planes could or could not do have been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. I have been involved in those discussions.

I looked up aviation aluminum at the time. I know it has a higher tensile strength than the structural steel used in the area of the WTC struck by the planes. If the whole issue came down to which material had the greater tensile strength, it would be a no brainer.

The problem is that there are other issues as well. Spider webs have greater tensile strength than steel, too. Do you get my point?

As I said before, I stand by what I have written.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by pteridine
 


The problem is that there are other issues as well. Spider webs have greater tensile strength than steel, too. Do you get my point?

As I said before, I stand by what I have written.


Given that there are other issues, what happened at the Pentagon?
It would have to account for the fuel fires and destruction within the building. It would have to look and sound like a large airliner.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Are people still pushing the "no plane" hit the Pentagon, is it any wonder no one pay's attention. Why go to all the trouble to replicate a plane hitting when they could just use the plane itself?




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join