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 AA77's wings?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Perhaps the real reason why the Pentagon crash video has never been released in its entirety is due to the similar theoresis behind the "Falling Man" image. Perhaps the American Government is so scared of showing the streaming image of the Aircraft hitting (supposedly) the most secretive intelligence office in the world, that they simply refuse to admit the fact they have the tape to show face.
Maybe it shows something so horrific to them that they will think it'll create a media frenzy or public outcry, look at the 9/11 falling man. We all knew people were falling yet so many media outlets refused to print images of the people because they wanted the 9/11 deaths to be secretive. To this day that we know of the "jumpers" are the only public visual image of the deaths involved in 9/11.
What the Pentagon is hiding I dont know, all I can simply say is that to me I think whats on those tapes they arent showing because theyd consider it too graphic/taboo for the American public to accept.




posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigenous equity


Why post questions if you refuse to acknowledge the responses. Its not brain surgery, its basic principles of logic and simple physics. People have explained pretty well why wings will never be found, educate yourself a bit and do some of your own research.

Sheet metal disintegrates when its flying several hundred miles an hour into reinforced concrete. If you cannot understand this, then there is no sense continuing to explain what happens when things go boom.


Please show me facts, science and evidence to support that claim.

Please offer some proof that a) sheet metal "DISINTEGRATES" when its flying several hundred mph into reinforced concrete. and b) then show me how a boeing 757 wings are nothing more than generic "sheet metal".

and I'll ignore how many other issues you've ignored for the moment

I look forward to your immediate response since you seem to be an "EXPERT"



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
No need for multiple lengthy paragraphs about nothing. Keep it simple. Where did the wings go?


Even though there have been multiple very good answers to this question, I'll try to help matters along.

The wings turned into a whole bunch of eency-weency pieces when they slammed into the building.

If you have a problem with that answer, let me pose the question to you that I posed to TF last week (and he seems to have trouble figuring out).

What do you think the kinetic energy solution would be of a 55' long aircraft wing traveling at 750 feet per second would do when it hit a reinforced concrete, cinder block and limestone wall such as the Pentagon?

What would that kinetic energy solution result in? The sing bouncing off? The wing shearing off? The wing punching a WTC/Wile E. Coyote hole through the brick and limestone and concrete wall? You tell US. What WOULD it do?

Kinetic energy. The components are all discoverable - mass, usually expressed in kilograms, and speed, usually expressed in meters per second. Go find the formula, plug in the components and get back to us with what a) a joule is and b) what the total joule computation is for the above calculation would be.

Next, go do some research on what the outer wall of the Pentagon is made of and then apply the previously calculated energy solution of the aircraft wing impacting the wall.

Then if you still believe there should be large recognizable pieces of an aircraft wing sitting out on the Pentagon lawn, please explain how that could be possible.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451What do you think the kinetic energy solution would be of a 55' long aircraft wing traveling at 750 feet per second would do when it hit a reinforced concrete, cinder block and limestone wall such as the Pentagon?

What would that kinetic energy solution result in? The sing bouncing off? The wing shearing off? The wing punching a WTC/Wile E. Coyote hole through the brick and limestone and concrete wall? You tell US. What WOULD it do?

Kinetic energy. The components are all discoverable - mass, usually expressed in kilograms, and speed, usually expressed in meters per second. Go find the formula, plug in the components and get back to us with what a) a joule is and b) what the total joule computation is for the above calculation would be.

Next, go do some research on what the outer wall of the Pentagon is made of and then apply the previously calculated energy solution of the aircraft wing impacting the wall.

Then if you still believe there should be large recognizable pieces of an aircraft wing sitting out on the Pentagon lawn, please explain how that could be possible.



Okay Mr Expert, If your speculative "theory" (and thats all it is) is correct, how do you:

A)account for this "flimsy" 90 ton boeing jet being able to "penetrate" all the way to and thru the C-RING and punching out a nice tidy round exit HOLE? Oh, and be sure to explain where that "piece" is outside the C ring since to have punched such a hole after SURVIVING the initial impact and journey through such an incredibly strong wall, there should be some sort of hull remnants of this "object" found outside the C ring intact. Such an EXIT HOLE as we see, could not have been created by fragments of that aircraft.

B) account for the lack of crumpling or any reaction at all to 175 (fuelselage and wings) as it impacted the WTC?

Can't wait to hear your expert response


[edit on 14-9-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ROBL240
I think whats on those tapes they arent showing because theyd consider it too graphic/taboo for the American public to accept.


That makes no sense. Several videos of the second WTC jet collision have been shown repeatedly. The Pentagon strike would be no more horrific, dramatic or graphic than these.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   


Okay Mr Expert, If your speculative "theory" (and thats all it is) is correct...


Oh, my aching side and body! THIS is a classic reason why the Troother element in this whole thing is so precious.

"Kinetic energy" is a "speculative theory". Oh my goodness.

What's next? Gravity is someone's idea of a joke?.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Originally posted by ROBL240
I think whats on those tapes they arent showing because theyd consider it too graphic/taboo for the American public to accept.


That makes no sense. Several videos of the second WTC jet collision have been shown repeatedly. The Pentagon strike would be no more horrific, dramatic or graphic than these.



It would be if the *undoctored* video's actually show Death or workers jumping out the Pentagon doors/windows with their clothes aflame covered in burning jet fuel.
The same thing was said about the 9/11 Jumpers, the Media considered it too horrific to show to the "sheeple" so they simply denied that anyone had jumped from the Towers that day. They wouldn't want the American public to actually see people dying would they.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

pilotsfor911truth.org...
This is one of my favorite articles and I think this sum up what really happened. You don’t have to be pilot, or an investigator to know the WOOL has been pulled over your eyes. The government is playing on your intelligent and yes, millions of you bought into the lies, but not me, they did not fool me. Not everyone is brain washed from watching disinformation television. Those of you that are, need to turn that garbage off and stop depending on it for truthful information. Can you all say PROPERGANDA!


So Cap'n Robby pulled the wool over your eyes, too. I am not surprised you would fall for another fraud and charlatan of the 9/11 Denial Movement.

You see my avatar to the left? The top frame is from Cap'n Robby's animation of his claim of what happened: a flyover of the Pentagon. It is a frame from the "cockpit view" as the jet supposedly "started it's climb over and away from the Pentagon."

Well that portion of his animation is what he was confronted with and what made him go into a childish temper tantrum when I created the bottom two frames to accurately represent his animation from a different viewing location - demonstrating how easy it would have been to see HIS claimed flyover from another position. He got so mad and angry that I had made mincemeat of his claim that he had to delete it from his forum and ban me for being an intellectually honest skeptic of his "fantasy flyover." At least he didn't threaten my life like he did against skeptic and documenter of 9/11 Turth Movement lies, Mark Roberts:


“Mark Roberts deserves to die a traitors [sic] death for trying to suppress 9/11 families from seeking the Truth.”
–"Pilots for Truth" founder, and ex-commercial pilot, Robert Balsamo

...And a few months later:
"Mark Roberts does deserve to die a traitors death....

"I will not apologize for it this time. I will be there for his death should America fall into Civil War. That is not a threat...that is a promise."

"If he gets in my way of defending our Constitution.. it will be my pleasure to put a bullet in his head to defend our Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic."
–"Pilots for Truth" founder Robert Balsamo, panicking after I challenged him to a debate. (Punctuation left as is.)

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


And to think that you make it possible for that fraud and charlatan to continue to spew absolute nonsense and take advantage of you gullible "Truthers."

Amazing.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigenous equity
 


You all continue to ignore the facts that I have presented. Do you have selective seeing?
The proof is there was no plane crash period. The plane was still airborne PASS the crash site what is it you do not under stand?


Sheet metal disintegrates when its flying several hundred miles an hour into reinforced concrete. If you cannot understand this, then there is no sense continuing to explain what happens when things go boom.


The plane was NOT made of sheet metal, it was made of aluminum.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash

- According To ATC/Radar


04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
Radar Coast Mode activates when a transponder is inoperative (or turned off) and primary radar tracking is lost, which enables ATC to have some sort of reference of the flight after losing radar coverage of the physical aircraft. When an aircraft target enters "Coast Mode", ATC is alerted in the form of a blue tag on the target as well as the tag letters switching to CST. ATC will readily recognize when an aircraft enters "Coast Mode".
According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Flight Path Study, United 93 allegedly impacted the ground at 10:03am, September 11, 2001. The following transcript excerpts are provided by the Federal Aviation Administration. It is a conversation between Air Traffic Control System Command Center - East, Management Officers (ntmo-e) and other various facilities. The conversation is as follows in real time:
pilotsfor911truth.org...


Still avoiding the TRUTH jthomas, shifting goal posts, waving your straw man, it is not working the more you do it the more you have exposed yourself to being a disinformationist.

UNITED 93 WAS STILL AIRBORN AFTER CRASH

SITE!






[edit on 14-9-2009 by impressme]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 





Really? Who saw it?

And Internet Discussion Forum Rule #5 states that the first person who uses BIG FONT loses since they obviously cannot get their point across through cogent verbiage.



Ridiculing me will not stop people from reading the truth but it will stop people from reading anything you post, when you make immature comments like this.

As far as your comment about P4T it is a web site constructed of nothing but facts from pilots around the world you can call it what you want but YOU will not be able to discourage people from go there and reading the TRUTH.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Yes, I was innapropriate about it but I was trying to say kinda the same thing. I can be a jerk here, easily. I also know how quickly that closes people's minds to what I have to say. I think it is great if someone comes in here with an actual valid point to make no matter which side it is on. The problem is adding ridicule in the post. That seems to nullify the rest. I am going to try my best and I would appreciate it if everyone else could try to be nice. From now on, anyway.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigenous equity


Why post questions if you refuse to acknowledge the responses. Its not brain surgery, its basic principles of logic and simple physics. People have explained pretty well why wings will never be found, educate yourself a bit and do some of your own research.


Who did and where?


Sheet metal disintegrates when its flying several hundred miles an hour into reinforced concrete. If you cannot understand this, then there is no sense continuing to explain what happens when things go boom.


LOL. That is your answer? The wings just evaporated on impact? Can you demonstrate that with some science? Can you get some other OSers to back you up on this because they say the wings folded into the plane so far. Yeah, I paid attention to the ONE whole answer I got so don't worry about why I posted the question.


If you have never been close to explosions, or large scale crashes, you don't know what to expect to find as rubble. People really think you will find large pieces of wing, fuselage, engines in the aftermath of high speed impact and explosions..?


Did I ever ask for large pieces of anything? Are you another of these comprehension challenged folk?


Get yourself reference materials regarding behavior of materials in extreme conditions, there are some great publications regarding material stress points and physics of high speed impacts. read them. Understand them. Then come back


Uh huh. Gotch, just a sec.....

OK All read up. I cannot find the chapter or page or section or whatever that explains how metal completely disintegrates in high speed impact. I guess I need some smart guy like you to point it out or explain to me or whatever.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ROBL240
 


Just a question, what are you thinking of that would be so graphic or disturbing? I mean we are already supposed to believe a plane crashed there and I love the "Fina Destination" movies so my idea of graphic....well you know. I am just curious what it is you might mean.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by Lillydale
No need for multiple lengthy paragraphs about nothing. Keep it simple. Where did the wings go?


Even though there have been multiple very good answers to this question, I'll try to help matters along.

The wings turned into a whole bunch of eency-weency pieces when they slammed into the building.


You are going to have to show me in the picture right after the impact where exactly this all took place.


If you have a problem with that answer,
and i do

let me pose the question to you that I posed to TF last week (and he seems to have trouble figuring out).

What do you think the kinetic energy solution would be of a 55' long aircraft wing traveling at 750 feet per second would do when it hit a reinforced concrete, cinder block and limestone wall such as the Pentagon?


Hmmmmm. That is a toughy. Well...and this is just me here, don't say I said I was a physics expert but...if I had to guess...I would have to say

It is NOT actually a question.

Perhaps you worded it differently when you asked someone else but that is not a question. It is two halves from different questions.


What would that kinetic energy solution result in? The sing bouncing off? The wing shearing off? The wing punching a WTC/Wile E. Coyote hole through the brick and limestone and concrete wall? You tell US. What WOULD it do?

Kinetic energy. The components are all discoverable - mass, usually expressed in kilograms, and speed, usually expressed in meters per second. Go find the formula, plug in the components and get back to us with what a) a joule is and b) what the total joule computation is for the above calculation would be.

Next, go do some research on what the outer wall of the Pentagon is made of and then apply the previously calculated energy solution of the aircraft wing impacting the wall.

Then if you still believe there should be large recognizable pieces of an aircraft wing sitting out on the Pentagon lawn, please explain how that could be possible.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by trebor451]


OK, after your nonquestion I lost interest, really. This was a response to me asking you keep it short and just answer. Look, it is long, rambling, and not an answer is it? You tried to pose a question.

I did not ask for questions I am really starting to think that none of you have an answer and it is killing you.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I guess the first question is; are there any aircraft engineers that have posted any answer to your question prior to this question? I suspect not.

Wings do not just vaporize on impact nor will they generally remain as a single piece. However, they will penetrate to a point before shearing and breaking into smaller pieces. The walls of the Pentagon show no evidence of impact by the wings nor vertical stab. The main spar is not some flimsy piece of aluminum that will just turn into tiny pieces on impact. So the OP's question is valid, where are the wings or at least pieces (main spar). None were to be found, hmmmmm.

I also doubt that there are any here that are trained in accident investigation either. As to what actually impacted the Pentagon is unknown albeit not a 757.

The wings were not the only issue. In the case of the engines, what happened to the gas generators (core engine)? The core does not turn into tiny pieces nor does it vaporize on impact. Though there was a picture of a core out on the lawn. I guess it bounced off the wall. So what happened to the other? Oh, I almost forgot, it vaporized.

Now before anyone asks, I am retired aircraft engineer and trained in accident investigation. Asking all the questions regarding to exactly what happened on 9/11 is admirable but regrettably will get us nowhere. Until the gov comes clean (not going to happen) we can speculate until the cows come home and never be any closer to the truth. If you really want to know the truth, follow the money but you won't like what you find.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by pstrron
So the OP's question is valid, where are the wings or at least pieces (main spar). None were to be found, hmmmmm.


I am hoping that everyone knew that I did not expect anyone to point out entire intact wings. I simply meant, there should be wings on a plane and if that was a plane then it had wings, where did those wings go off to?

The wings were not the only issue.

Oh there are all kinds of issues but I have seen how well these detractors muddy the waters so I was thinking I would break it down to as simple a question as I could and give them nowhere to run and hide. I think the engines could be an entire thread on their own. I mean insult to you, I just feel that these folks need things to be really really really simplified before they can understand it. They have know actual knowledge of anything about 9/11 but what they have learned to repeat. I thought I would test my theory.

Seeing as how it has been 24 hours and not one try from any of them to give us a new explanation as well as no one coming back to back up any of the things they said already, I would say my theory was correct.


Now before anyone asks, I am retired aircraft engineer and trained in accident investigation. Asking all the questions regarding to exactly what happened on 9/11 is admirable but regrettably will get us nowhere. Until the gov comes clean (not going to happen) we can speculate until the cows come home and never be any closer to the truth. If you really want to know the truth, follow the money but you won't like what you find.


I believe the truth will not come out in my lifetime but I think it helps (I hope it helps) for the government to now see we are awake and we are watching and we are ready to record and youtube the next thing like crazy. We will not be caught in such shock. We will be ready with out stupid camera phones and analyzing everything to death. Who knows but I hate to just lay down and accept it no matter how hopeless it may be.

And now....

Since it seems to be out of steam here...I now declare this thread as proof that the object that flew into the pentagon had no wings on it. Since it had no wings on it, it could not be AA77. Time to move on to the next question.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451


Okay Mr Expert, If your speculative "theory" (and thats all it is) is correct...


Oh, my aching side and body! THIS is a classic reason why the Troother element in this whole thing is so precious.

"Kinetic energy" is a "speculative theory". Oh my goodness.

What's next? Gravity is someone's idea of a joke?.



No, this is classic example of someone thats either a shill, troll or in denial and uses classic disinfo tactics to divert the issue and obfuscate in order to perpetuate more confusion and keep from having to address the context of what was asked.

Nice Post-edit, Nice try. You're not fooling anyone.

Now answer the central questions that I posed cuz
when you don't, its an obvious sign you've lost the argument.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join