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 are those engine parts and luggages?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
let me guess the fire melted the engines?

where are those luggages? they disappeared?


I laugh at ANYONE who think it was done by bin laden
Just look at these video and do some damn research

first one is professional pilots saying you just cant simply do the things the terrorist did
www.youtube.com...
this is shows why a 757 could not of crashed
www.youtube.com...


PS i know its hard to believe its done by the Gov, but ey we can catch them out and make the world better

[edit on 24-5-2009 by dino1989]




posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Hell there is plenty of aluminium on those craft to melt away, but hey!
There is also plenty of parts that wouldn't even come cloese to melting point by those temperatures, blades, axles, bearings, screws, etc etc and all the rest...

WHATEVER we citizens have a deprived level of judgement, we believe anything...



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
But those passports of the "terrorists" were sure tough and very lucky to survive the inferno!


Anyone with only half a brain should be able to see that this story is more full of holes than swiss cheese.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Lots of pics of the engines. lots of other parts found too. you should stick with the other aspects of this theory. Constantly bringing up points that are false ruin the credibility of the story.IMO.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
The engines are there in parts that are inside the building. BTW, engines are designed to disintegrate a certain way so in the case of catastrophic failure they do not damage the wings. So if you expecting to see intact engines, your expecting wrong. Most of the Engine is nothing more then housing and fan blades anyway.

The rest of the debris was carried into the structure by inertia. I do not understand why people keep pointing to the lack of debris on the lawn, when its BEHIND the impact point, the impact point is the wall, and the debris field is inside the building.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I don't think one needs to point to this as proof of a conspiracy. The fact that the buildings collapsed at "free fall" should be enough.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
...BTW, engines are designed to disintegrate a certain way so in the case of catastrophic failure they do not damage the wings.


This is not true engine cases are designed to be shatter proof so that if the rotors fail for some reason they stay inside the casing, and do not cause damage to the wings or fuselage.


Most of the Engine is nothing more then housing and fan blades anyway.


What about the casings, the rotor shafts...?


The rest of the debris was carried into the structure by inertia. I do not understand why people keep pointing to the lack of debris on the lawn, when its BEHIND the impact point, the impact point is the wall, and the debris field is inside the building.


Well some of us can see major physical problems with all the plane being inside the building. How did the engines get in there when there was no holes for them to have gone through? Or the vertical stabilizer that also had no hole to go through? Or the wings that people try to point out left marks on the wall, where did they go? Obviously not inside as again they didn't break through the wall, they left marks showing you that no?

That's a lot of plane to be crammed into the office it supposedly slammed into.

BTW I'm referring to the pentagon here obviously, not the WTC.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope
This is not true engine cases are designed to be shatter proof so that if the rotors fail for some reason they stay inside the casing, and do not cause damage to the wings or fuselage.

No, the engine housing is made of composite fiberglass material. I have watched a mechanic accidentally put a hole in one with a maintenance ladder. There is a smaller metal casing inside the engine which is designed to stop a shattered blade from hitting the aircraft body by absorbing the impact across its larger surface. It is not designed to take a high speed collision from the front.


Originally posted by Wally Hope
What about the casings, the rotor shafts...?

The casing is fiberglass, it would not handle the impact. The interior rings, that hold the fan blades did survive, same with the rotor shafts. There are photos of these on the net all over the place.




Originally posted by Wally Hope
Well some of us can see major physical problems with all the plane being inside the building. How did the engines get in there when there was no holes for them to have gone through?

How do you figure...



Originally posted by Wally Hope
Or the vertical stabilizer that also had no hole to go through?

As the tail of a 757 has no engine in it, it does not have the extra support that folks are used to seeing in older crashes, which involved aircraft with tail mounted engines. There is some extra damage from the tail section, but the majority of the tail would have simply sheared off and been pulled into the building.


Originally posted by Wally Hope
Or the wings that people try to point out left marks on the wall, where did they go?

There are only 20 feet of the thinest part of the wing with no large hole. These simply would have sheared, similar to the tail, and been dragged inside.


Originally posted by Wally Hope
Obviously not inside as again they didn't break through the wall, they left marks showing you that no?

They left plenty of damage, but the vertical columns also broke the wings at the same time.





Originally posted by Wally Hope
That's a lot of plane to be crammed into the office it supposedly slammed into.

With gear up they fit into a single story industrial building. We used to park these at my airport, with the nose under the second story of a three story building. With the gear down the nose was no bigger then the second story of the building.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Why did you use the Purdue University nonsense as evidence? They did not even bother to include engines in their silly simulation, and the tail stabilizer passes through the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th floors unhindered.



Larger version

The simulation is a joke. These Military Industrial Complex contractors cannot be trusted with the truth.



[edit on 5/24/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Engines are designed to disintegrate on impact with an object to protect the wings, they are not really a necessity in that animation. I chose that animation simply to show how the pillars slice into the wings, which is a fact. This was also see in the NW crash into an overpass piling in DTW.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

posted by defcon5
reply to post by SPreston
 


Engines are designed to disintegrate on impact with an object to protect the wings, they are not really a necessity in that animation. I chose that animation simply to show how the pillars slice into the wings, which is a fact. This was also see in the NW crash into an overpass piling in DTW.


Where is the explosion at the wall shown in the parking lot security videos in this silly Purdue University simulation, and do all 757s have magic tail stabilizers which can pass through walls without damage?



How are the Purdue aircraft fuselage and wings entering the 1st floor in one piece, when the parking lot security videos show a massive explosion outside the wall which would have destroyed the fuselage and wings?

Why is it that government loyalists accept and defend such shoddy science so easily?




[edit on 5/24/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Um, I've been to the Pentagon since 9/11. Did you know the walls there are still there? Come on people, wake up. They were never hit by anything, it was a big scam.

Sheeple.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by defcon5
reply to post by SPreston
 




Why is the plane nose on the right side of this picture? I thought the explosion was caused by the plane.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


That is the background you are seeing.

Actually there is no visible aircraft in any of the 'leaked' still frames. Obviously the Pentagon parking lot security videos were photoshopped, and the 'leaker' screwed the 9-11 perps by releasing the stills before the videos were complete. We were left with these shoddy videos with no aircraft and a fake looking explosion.

Still 1


Still 2


Still 4


Video 2


No luggage
No seats
No passengers strapped into seats
No wings
No tail stabilizer
No landing gear
9 steel wheels missing
9 rubber tires missing
A lot of alleged eyewitnesses missing
The real aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex instead



[edit on 5/25/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Where is the explosion at the wall shown in the parking lot security videos in this silly Purdue University simulation

They are not showing that, they are showing how the columns split the airframe, is this difficult for you to understand? It is not intended to be a compete recreation of the event, only how the parts flowed through the columns. Again I chose it simply because it showed how the wings are split by the pilings.

Of course you have to derail the topic now into a discussion of that video, which I did not even use, only one frame to show the pilings splitting the wing.


Originally posted by SPreston
and do all 757s have magic tail stabilizers which can pass through walls without damage?

The stabilizers on a 757 and 767 are empty airframe, and not very strong compared to the tails on aircraft with tail mounted aircraft.... However I already addressed this, why is it coming up again?

Originally posted by defcon5
How do you figure...



Originally posted by Wally Hope
Or the vertical stabilizer that also had no hole to go through?

As the tail of a 757 has no engine in it, it does not have the extra support that folks are used to seeing in older crashes, which involved aircraft with tail mounted engines. There is some extra damage from the tail section, but the majority of the tail would have simply sheared off and been pulled into the building.


But thank you for once again proving...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Many people find truth movement folks to be even more annoying then Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, etc…I know that they get on my last never with their brainwashed reputation of incorrect “facts”.

Typical conversations with them go like this:
“what happened to the wings?”
“well… this happened to the wings.”
“Yeah… But…But… What happened to the wings?”



Originally posted by Wally Hope
How are the Purdue aircraft fuselage and wings entering the 1st floor in one piece, when the parking lot security videos show a massive explosion outside the wall which would have destroyed the fuselage and wings?

More then half the fuselage is forward of the wing tanks, and would enter first. The tanks do not explode until they rupture when the wing is hit. The plane is over halfway inside the building by this point.

But...
Drop the Purdue thing already, I used one picture that I pulled on an image search off the Internet. Believe me that is how the wings separate, there is existing video showing the same type of thing being done with wing splitters.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
We were left with these shoddy videos with no aircraft and a fake looking explosion.



Here is the tail which is taller then the tree line behind it. Meaning it is a significantly tall tail.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
No, the engine housing is made of composite fiberglass material. ....I have watched a mechanic accidentally put a hole in one with a maintenance ladder...


No you are confusing the airframe the engine sits in, I am talking about the actual engine casing which holds the compressor and combustion chambers. There is no way you're putting an aluminum ladder through an engine casing that is made from a nickel titanium alloy.

Try again...

Those pics do not make 2 engines. Where are the rest of the rotor hubs, should be about 20? Where are the rotor shafts, should be 2? Where are the casings?

And again how did they end up inside the building when there was nowhere for them get through the wall?

And explain how the tail sheared off and got pulled into the building, by what physical process is that possible?

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Larger version

The simulation is a joke. These Military Industrial Complex contractors cannot be trusted with the truth.


Yeah that is ridiculous, it doesn't even have the reinforced wall it would have first met. Do they think it already had a hole in it?

Ridiculous.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Engines are designed to disintegrate on impact with an object to protect the wings, they are not really a necessity in that animation.


You keep saying this like it's the truth. The engines sits inside a shroud that is part of the airframe. When it hits something the shroud may break off where it's attached to the wing spars, but the engine inside will not shatter.

How do you explain the pics from New York and Shanksville that show engines intact but a little crushed, why did they not shatter into pieces as you claim? Objects that shatter do not crush.

You'd better back your claims up with some evidence because right now you're not looking very credible.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join