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: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


I'm listening to you and Weedwhacker both. I know that he knows aircraft and that end of the equation.

Why.......... if there was going to be a photoshop of the Pentagon strike, would it have been so indistinct? Why not a nice sharp one, like your offering?

Seriously, please do this. You showed a still from a bit different from what I was talking about. Go to your video, the unadorneded one you called video #2. Stop it at 25 seconds. The shadows clearly outline backward slanted wings. It IS a white object, cyclindrical, long, wide, even in the diminished perspective of the winky dinky camera. I think it's a plane. I lack the wherewithall to prove WHAT plane.

Figures the Pentagon would have surveillance equipment installed by the lowest bidder.
I bet it cost a LOT.




posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Sorry I have not been back in awhile. I am having a nasty workload at the lab lately, which is made worse by constant loss of the internet due to the bad weather. I had no connection outside the server all night last night, and now I am just swamped with stuff to catch up on.

Needless to say, this is going to be short.


Originally posted by tezzajw
It's been a day, have you found a source for those pictures of scrap metal yet? The same pictures of scrap metal that you were claiming was the wreckage of AA77 at the Pentagon?

I never said I was looking for the source of those photos. After all, I only used two well known photos, that are all over the internet anyway. I think that your photo argument was with Swampfox, not me.


Originally posted by Swing Dangler
On a side note after this Memorial Day holiday, thank you for serving in the United States Military as a volunteer.

Yes, thank you for your service, and I apologize for being that sarcastic with you. But you also need to remember that when you side with the truth movement, you are actually accusing our military personnel of taking part in this plot. Besides military personnel its also an insult to aviation personnel, rescue personnel, and many others who lost comrades that day.


Originally posted by sueloujo
You really are making yourself sound so dumb....titanium IS tough.. and lighter than steel....that is why it is used.

It was stated that Titanium was tougher then steel, and that it was not able to be pierced by another sharp metal object. Which is incorrect.

Titanium is not that tough, it is not as tough as steel, but it is used because it has a good strength to weight ratio as an alloy. As stated above a steel blade can cut through a titanium blade. This originally came up in response to my remark that I would not carry a titanium dive knife, as it is inferior in strength to my steel one. The reason they are used in diving is because they are lighter, non-magnetic, and resist saltwater better then steel.


Unalloyed, pure titanium is very soft, with a Brinell hardness of ~100 (although the Rockwell "C" scale doesn't go down this far, if it did, the equivalent would be about 10-12 RC) and have a yield strength of ~150 MPa (compared with something like W1 steel which has a yield strength of ~1000-1500 MPa in hardened condition.) Based on this data, pure titanium is unsuitable for structural use.


Steel when hardened to RC 60 has tensile yield strength of 1,500 units/cross-sectional area (there are other more appropriate measures of strength for swords/knives, but we'll stick to tensile strength as an example), it also weighs 7,800 units per volume; an alpha-titanium alloy can be hardened to RC 40 and has yield strength of 850 units/cross-sectional-area and it weighs 4,500 units per volume

You catch that?
Steel can be hardened to RC60 with a strength of 1500Units/Crosssection.
Titanium alloy can only be hardened to RC40 with a strength of only 850 Units/ Crosssection.
However, the titanium only weights 4500 units compared to the 7800 units of steel…

Titanium is not that tough, it is much weaker then steel.

Truthers like to try and MAKE it sound like its tougher then steel though as it suits their agenda. Most folks know that steel would have a difficult time surviving in that environment, but titanium alloy sounds stronger, which is why truthers harp on it.


Originally posted by sueloujo
You show a picture of a bird strike on an engine's fragile "casing" which everyone knows is not what is being discussed here. Your argument is rediculous.

I showed that to prove how much of the front of the engine is NOT titanium, and is dead airspace.


Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Defcon 5, you have avoided this post. Can you explain this engine's appearance with your "fragile engine theory"?


I just don’t have time to get into this debate tonight, and the server is starting to run slow again. I did say that I was avoiding all the other questions until we got the titanium bit sorted out, so you should have expected to not have that answered yet.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by StevieC9
 


Nope. Actually the drawings of a Rolls Royce RB-211 engine, match the wreckage found at the Pentagon.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by SPreston
 


Why.......... if there was going to be a photoshop of the Pentagon strike, would it have been so indistinct? Why not a nice sharp one, like your offering?

Seriously, please do this. You showed a still from a bit different from what I was talking about. Go to your video, the unadorneded one you called video #2. Stop it at 25 seconds. The shadows clearly outline backward slanted wings. It IS a white object, cyclindrical, long, wide, even in the diminished perspective of the winky dinky camera. I think it's a plane. I lack the wherewithall to prove WHAT plane.



I already did that. It is the exact same frame from the exact same photoshopped videos that were ordered released by a judge via FOIA lawsuit in 2006. There is no aircraft or missile there; just your imagination and some photoshopped blobs and a photoshopped heavy white smoke trail.

Here is frame 00:25 from the parking lot security video #2.



Here is frame 01:27 from the parking lot security video #1.



Here is the very next frame from video #1.



And the one I posted earlier is one of the leaked still frames that screwed the 9-11 perps way back in 2002. You can tell it is one of the still frames because the halfwits got the date/time wrong at the bottom by 32 hours. The 1st explosion at the Pentagon officially happened at 9:37 AM on 9-11; but the morons at the FBI laboratory apparently cannot tell time and got it a day and eight hours late.



Why? Why didn't the 9-11 perps release a clearer image of a 757 in the parking lot security videos?

Because whichever insider who 'leaked' the still frames back in 2002 totally screwed over the 9-11 perps, because they were not done photoshopping, and those key leaked frames prevented the 9-11 perps from further photoshopping the videos and adding a better clearer larger American Airlines 757 aircraft to the videos like this image below. Screwed.

Thank you Mr LEAKER.




posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I never said I was looking for the source of those photos. After all, I only used two well known photos, that are all over the internet anyway.

You posted two images of wreckage that you alleged came from the alleged Flight AA77 at the Pentagon, yet you can't provide the chain of custody for them. That's spreading disinfo, defcon5.

Feel free to post the chain of custody for those images, or admit that they're useless in supporting your conjecture.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5Hows about the piling at Wick and I-94 that did the same thing to NW255 in DTW. Look, the Train Trussel and the overpass at I-94 had even less damage then the Pentagon, so there must be a conspiracy there as well, right?Oh, BTW they didn't take pictures of the bodies, or every scrap of aircraft metal at that scene either, so I guess there must be a cover-up there as well.

Actually there are numerous pictures taken of the crash in question.

 
Is there any reason why you didn't post the picture that clearly shows parts from a large airliner after crashing into numerous items before the bridge? A Plane Did Crash As Visible In This Pictuer

I noticed you left out this description as part of the crash:


Flight 255 began its takeoff rotation, but was never able to achieve liftoff and stalled as it tried to liftoff the runway. It rolled about 40 degrees to the left, [bold]struck a light pole near the end of the runway[/bold] with its left wing, struck the roof of a car rental building, and crashed into I-94 expressway, colliding with several motorists and light poles.-Wiki

So this one hits a few lightpoles, roof of a building, hits the ground, and a few cars, and eventually a bridge and we still can see debris from the plane including the nose and front wheels. They ain't that 'fragile'!

By the way, here are some more pictures of debris and plane parts in the crash you mentioned: Photo Gallery- Flight 255

The point is you are making a bogus comparison to the Pentagon. The pilings in the bridge were some of the last things to be hit. The nose and front wheels actually survived this crash.

Oh and you forgot an explanation to the lack of debris on the lawn from the wings exploding and disintegrating as well....er never mind, they were all sucked into the building.





Spreston-It is the exact same frame from the exact same photoshopped videos that were ordered released by a judge via FOIA lawsuit in 2006. There is no aircraft or missile there; just your imagination and some photoshopped blobs and a photoshopped heavy white smoke trail.

I also noticed no shadow being produced by the alleged plane in the photograph from frame 00:25 from the parking lot security video #2.

defcon5 ,another question regarding the Purdue simulation: How can the plane at a point with the greatest amount of force and momentum not destroy the outer columns, but is shown destroying the next inner ring columns?
Did the plane after its momentum being reduce from the first wall impact, actually gain momentum to destroy the inner columns in violation of physics?

Swampfox, have you addressed this issue below?



Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 In addition, I do not accept this "camera" shot as proof. No chain of custody....no confirmation of any kind that it is an actual shot taken that day and not a photo shop job done with an internet photo at a later date.Source: ATS


Do you apply the chain of custody to only selected arguments when you should apply it to all arguments?

I also noticed EVERY skeptic tends to avoid the numerous eyewitnesses who place the plane North of the Citgo, the FDR that places the plane too high,. the FAA animation placing the plane North of the Citgo. All of this course proving the plane did not hit the light poles nor create the "damage" cone as told to us by the official narrative.
And for the record, I don't sit in my basement making Youtube! videos, but I do occasionally glance at the multiple higher education degrees hanging on the wall while enjoying time with my family and friends. Remember, it was Time Magazine that called 9/11 Truth a mainstream political movement, and for once, I agree with this mainstream media outlet.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Because whichever insider who 'leaked' the still frames back in 2002 totally screwed over the 9-11 perps, because they were not done photoshopping, and those key leaked frames prevented the 9-11 perps from further photoshopping the videos and adding a better clearer larger American Airlines 757 aircraft to the videos like this image below. Screwed.

Thank you Mr LEAKER.




SPreston, I am used to seeing rather spurious and odd claims from you, but are you really suggesting that the scale on the pentagon videos is wrong by a factor of 2 or so? You are aware of just how large the Pentagon is right?

For the people who have undoubtedly seen this gif and been confused, this is the actual apparent size of the plane as provided by a 3d animation: www.youtube.com...

As you can see, SPreston apparently has no idea where the plane actually impacted the Pentagon, or alternately no idea of the scales involved. It is truly mindboggling that anyone believes someone would fake a plane impact video but not even take the 30 seconds needed to calculate apparent size.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Pay close attention to 3:25 of the video, kind of makes you go hummmm. www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqa8b_v sorry i don"t know how to post videos yet. It shows a Cruise missle painted in United Airlines colors

[edit on 11-6-2009 by jiggersup]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggersup
 
Well that didn"t work. on youtube, search " veritas show with mel febergas promo 5 of 5 . sorry i will have to get my daughter to teach me how to post videos.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggersup
 


jiggersup, this is probably the video you mean.



From what I "saw" it was "painted" in AA colors, not UA.

AND, I suspect photoshop anyway.

Anyone out there with info???



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

posted by SPreston

Thank you Mr LEAKER.





posted by exponent

As you can see, SPreston apparently has no idea where the plane actually impacted the Pentagon, or alternately no idea of the scales involved. It is truly mindboggling that anyone believes someone would fake a plane impact video but not even take the 30 seconds needed to calculate apparent size.


Yes Mr exponent, I am quite aware of the scales involved and the size of the Pentagon. (roof 77 feet high and 757 tail 44 feet above ground level) Of course you do realize that turbofan engines cannot plow through a lawn underground no matter how fast; don't you?

Oh you tried to razzle dazzle us with Military Industrial Complex contractor Integrated Consultants and disinformation specialist Mike Wilson again? He even admits to conning us doesn't he right in the video?



Military Industrial Complex contractor and rabid 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY defender Purdue University was apparently quite careful with scale in preparing their simulation.



And even the official Pentagon Building Performance Report, although showing an engine underground, accurately displays the tail even with the top of the windows on the 4th floor (about 42 feet AGL?)



So I reckon the scale in that animation is about right; much better than the photoshopped releases. It is the photoshopping in the parking lot security videos which is wrong; but you already knew that didn't you?

NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - SENSITIVE INFORMATION

What is mindboggling Mr exponent is that Mr LEAKER above prevented the 9-11 perps from photoshopping the parking lot security videos any further by leaking them way back in 2002. Aren't you happy he screwed over the 9-11 perps? Aren't you glad they could not improve on their sloppy photoshopping and NeoCON the American sheeple further?



[edit on 6/11/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to defcon5

What you see in the picture is rubble.

Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to
say about the part in the photo with a rotor :

'It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with...''

(www.kasjo.net...)

defcon5,
don't lecture us as if what you say is correct and that we should not question it just because you have made your usual nonsense comments regarding it.

Spreston summed it up very well :

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

To which I would add that it is impossible for that huge plane to get through that
small hole.
Not difficult, IMPOSSIBLE.





posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mumblyjoe
 


Things like luggage, seats and such would be mostly consumed in post crash fires. Even then rescuers reporting finding several aircraft seats in the rubble - some with bodies still in them .

Debris on Pentagon lawn







Debris at C Ring wall





Reports of aircraft seats in rubble



Various pieces of aircraft debris were found within the wreckage at the Pentagon. While evacuating the Navy Command Center, Lt. Kevin Shaeffer came across the aircraft's nose cone and landing gear in the service road between rings B and C.[63] Early in the morning on Friday, September 14, Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue Team members and Brian Moravitz came across an "intact seat from the plane's cockpit",[64] while FBI and NTSB investigators located the two black boxes near the punch out hole in the A-E drive,[65] nearly 300 feet (91 m) into the building.[35] The cockpit voice recorder was too badly damaged and charred to retrieve any information,[66] though the flight data recorder yielded useful information.[31] In addition to aircraft debris, investigators also found a part of Nawaf al-Hazmi's identification card.[67] Personal effects belonging to passengers and office workers were also found, and taken to Fort Myer.[68]




Mark Willams: "When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him. 'It was the worst thing you can imagine,' said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. 'I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside.'
www.usatoday.com...





"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."
–Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept
www.rense.com...



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Reply to thdman

(With all due respect), the photos are complete and utter nonsence.

(First picture).
Does that look like the debris from a plane that has been ingulfed in fire ?
The same fire that melted 2 six-tonne engines and left no trace of them.
What absolute nonsence.

(Second and third picture).
That is just lauaghable. Pathetic. If fact, if you see the rubble behind it, there was none of that just after the 'impact'. Strangely, the rubble arrived later.

(Fourth picture).
Rubble.

(Fifth picture).
Neat hole in wall with rubble.

The statements are a fairy tale, just like ''levi-man'' who instantly knew that fire had warped the frame of the twin towers causing them to collapse. They cannot find the 2 engines but they did find ''a part of Nawaf al-Hazmi's identification card'' ?

You know, this would be lauaghable if it was not so tragic. Remember, it only takes one part of this to be proven wrong and the whole pack of cards comes tumbling down. You cannot have some of it true and some of it a lie. There are so many faults to the 911 'story', that is exactly what it is, a story, that I cannot wait for that murdering, lying, bas*ards be brought to justice.

Please believe whatever you like but I dont believe the 911 fairy tale.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mumblyjoe
 


Why are the photos nonensense? Because they dont comport with your
tin foil loon conspiracy theories?


How you ever been to a plane crash site? Been to a plane crash (
Lear 35A) where plane was totally disintergrated - no jet engines, no
bodies just "human hamburger", only thing recognizable was piece of
tail fin


High speed plane crashes dont leave a lot - just metallic confetti as most of
plane is smashed to pieces



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Reply to thdman

No, thankfully I have never been to a plane crash site but even I, (with my tin foil hat), am not daft enough to think that a plane is going to fold its wings behind it, tuck the tail down, and leave no mark of the engines smashing through the wall...

That is a neat trick, so thdman, tell me how it did that ?

The pictures are nonsense because they look like rubble that has been placed there, not a huge 757 smashing into the Pentagon in a burning fireball.
The fourth picture is rusted scrap metal.

Oh wait a minute, there is some rubble at the bottom of my road, gosh, must have been a crashed 757 and I didn't notice.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Even then rescuers reporting finding several aircraft seats in the rubble - some with bodies still in them .

Unproven. Unverifiable.

Read this thread to see how every government loyalist had the chance to prove that airliner bodies were found strapped to seats - and they failed to do so.

In this post, thedman admitted that he can only supply witness statements, without any other supporting evidence, to show that there were bodies found strapped to seats in the Pentagon.

Now, in this thread, thedman still wants to try and promote the unsupported claim that there were bodies strapped to airline seats.

Not one government loyalist was able to answer which body was found strapped to any single seat or where it was allegedly located.

Nice try with the disinfo, thedman. Just as well some of us can remember the old threads.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Debris at C Ring wall



Well, conveniently enough, that "wtc7lies" page shows a photo of a Bobcat Skid Loader with a hydraulic front-end bucket (complete with a claw attachment), like those that could be used to move around and lift heavy debris (or scrap engine blocks or heavy steel pipe or large rocks). FWIW, I used to operate a Bobcat with front end loader like this (but without the claw attachment) to move dirt, rocks, sand, etc. for hours on end.



Do we have any "chain of custody" evidence (for Swampfox and tezzajw) on those photos or do you know where, when, and by whom they were taken, thedman?



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by rhunter
 


I'll accept your expertise in identifying the Bobcat loader - now if you
look at the picture can see it composed of parts of the jet landing gear
some of the heaviest pieces on an aircraft

The pictures were taken during the cleanup/recovery phase of the
operation to document the location of the debris.

Now think for a second - why would someone try to "plant" evidence
in broad daylight, using heavy equipment which is both noisy and
bulky (not like you can hide it easily). If you were "planting" parts
then why would you take pictures of it and then post on an open internet
site

Come on use some logic and common sense....



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by rhunter
 


Looking at your picture (can't seem to link it) with the 'BobCat' in the left of the frame:

I see (based on my knowledge, up close and personal, with the B757) two wheel hubs, seemingly still connected on the shared axle.

(The tell-tale are the 'bumps' you can see on what would be the part of the wheel closest to the landing gear strut -- if it were there. Those 'bumps' are part of the brake mechanism).

Further, in the 'debris', I see remnants of engine parts, especially some turbine, and/or compressor blades....most probably from the "core" sections of the engine, as they would be the strongest.


In all, I see that by the time that photo was taken, the debris had been 'swept aside' into a pile. That is not an example of the distribution of the component pieces as part of the impact scenario.

Either they were satisfied with 'other' photos and documentation of the locations of each piece, or they didn't bother with "normal" accident investigation procedures, at that point, since it was an act of terrorism.

YOU, in an airplane accident when you do not know the cause then due diligence is used to accurately mark the location of and record, in detail, every part or piece, in order to discover what happened.

IF you already know that it was an intentional act, then the crash investigation changes...it becomes a crime scene.

PLUS....the Pentagon, last I checked, is a Military installation. In the hectic aftermath, there's no telling what minor 'muckety-muck' Sgt or Col, or whomever may have given orders to 'clear that area', without thinking. Possibly for Emergency vehicles to get better access?? Just specualting.

Of course, NO ONE would wish to come forward, after the fact....they'd be too busy CYA.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join