When did they ID AA77's parts?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyone wish to do the maths, so we can convince someone who needs convincing?

Sorry but your not going to convince me a thin aluminum airframe at any speed is going to make it all the way into reinforced walls and collumns.

I mean look at the planes that hit the towers, they were shreded by the steel beams and do not do major damage to the towers.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
People with degrees in physics could probably supply some maths...but as I remember the kinetic energy of a body in motion increases as the square of the velocity.

So, at about 480 knots???

Anyone wish to do the maths, so we can convince someone who needs convincing?

Nah, would be a wasted effort. Purdue's computer modeling did that math already, but some people just wish to live in denial. Sort of like using a witness who saw the plane hit the Pentagon to prove that the plane did not go into the Pentagon and then somehow flew over the Pentagon. Not a rational world math would work in.

Originally posted by 911files
Nah, would be a wasted effort. Purdue's computer modeling did that math already, but some people just wish to live in denial. Sort of like using a witness who saw the plane hit the Pentagon to prove that the plane did not go into the Pentagon and then somehow flew over the Pentagon. Not a rational world math would work in.

So you pick and choose what witness to believe, i see how you guys work now. Talk about rational.

In this quote, jthomas stated the following:

Originally posted by jthomas
The aircraft was identified - even before it hit the Pentagon.

jthomas is trying to convince the thread that the aircraft was identified immediately.


In this quote, jthomas stated the following, in response to REMISNE:

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by REMISNE
It was identified as AA77, a Boeing 757, immediately. That you slipped up and admitted an aircraft hit the Pentagon leaves you in the hopeless position of refuting the evidence that it was AA77.

Show me any real evidence or official FBI criminal report that identified the plane as AA77 immediatly or admit you are wrong.

jthomas is trying to convince the thread that the aircraft was not identified immediately.


jthomas, why did you contradict yourself?

Originally posted by jthomas
Let me repeat. Read carefully:

"Since you agree you cannot tell us of what the debris in the background is composed, then you would agree that you cannot tell us that the debris does not contain wing debris. You can only say, 'I don't know.' "

That was easy.

IT IS NOT FROM A DAMN WING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO SAY IT BEFORE YOU GET IT?

Originally posted by Sean48

firefightersfor911truth.org...

FF for 911.. hahah. yeah that site is credible (not). I've spoken with FDNY members and they consider the site a joke and it doesn't represent any member within the FDNY's views on 9/11/2001.

"Sorry but your not going to convince me a thin aluminum airframe at any speed is going to make it all the way into reinforced walls and collumns."

Only a gullible sucker who was born yesterday would believe that pile of horse manure. Take a look at the significant damage birds can cause when they strike the body of an aircraft

www.tripbase.com...
aviationglossary.com...

Gee, I didn't know those pesky birds were more durable than the Pentagon's concrete reinforced walls. Maybe they should have reconstructed the Pentagon using deceased birds.

And by the way, the theory of other stronger aircraft parts making a neat circular hole into a reinforced concrete building during such a random and violent collision, where material is flying all over the place, is as laughable as the plane vaporizing or disintegrating on impact.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


And by the way, the theory of other stronger aircraft parts making a neat circular hole into a reinforced concrete building during such a random and violent collision, where material is flying all over the place, is as laughable as the plane vaporizing or disintegrating on impact.

lot of horse manure in this post, but what can a no planer do. of course offer nothing but horse manure.


something traveling at over 400 mph can do a great amount of damage.

If you say that aluminum can't cut through a concrete wall, well then WATER can't crush a car or cut steel either right?

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

"lot of horse manure in this post, but what can a no planer do. of course offer nothing but horse manure."

You should know, since it is obviously part of your mainstream media daily diet.

"something traveling at over 400 mph can do a great amount of damage."

Agreed. Now if the Government can only release the videos so we can find out for sure what that "something" really was.

"If you say that aluminum can't cut through a concrete wall, well then WATER can't crush a car or cut steel either right?"

My post stated nothing about water. Only a mentally challenged imbecile Neanderthal who has no debating skills would divert the topic toward such a ridiculous and irrelevant tangent.

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Well, it doesn't have THAT paint on the wings,

Are you just trying to be argumentative for no reason? We both agree that what Jthomas presented is not a wing part. One thing we can use to tell that is the paint job. Your example does nothing to disprove that, as you even admit. So...the point of this picture and response is...?

Originally posted by Lillydale
Your example does nothing to disprove that, as you even admit. So...the point of this picture and response is...?

So weedy- your answer is???

On a second line (and totally OFF TOPIC)- so what are the forums' preference for all-season vs. "studded" snow tires?

Edit: It was relevant as HELL on my drive home from work earlier...

[edit on 31-12-2009 by rhunter]

reply to post by Lillydale


Ha Ha!!!

This I find to be particularly hilarious, coming from this particular poster ---

Are you just trying to be argumentative for no reason?

Nice bit of "I'm rubber, you're glue..." attempt at gamesmanship and deflection, there. Ahem ... IF you could not understand the point, then why should I bother to repeat it? It's there to re-read, rinse, and repeat as necessary. But, just-in-case.....(sigh)

So...the point of this picture and response is...?

Well, I thought it should have been perfectly obvious.

You see, from the way I read jthomas' post, he was referring to the debris in the BACKGROUND of the photo. Y'all didn't bother to address that aspect of his direction, but kept focusing on the piece of debris in the foreground.

Then, in a display of yet more incorrect disinfo, Lillydale stated something to the effect that American Airlines wings had no paint on them, at least that was the gist that i understood.

The example was from KLM (looked like a B-737 to me) but is representative of the over-wing emergency exits on most passenger jets.

Finding images of any similar paint designs on debris from the Pentagon crash site would go a long way to dispel the oft-claimed red herring, by conspiracy theorists, that the "impossible" events there are to include the wings "folding back" --- because, as is usually the case, the conspiracy websites misrepresent the area of the wall where the primary impact took place, and instead use the exit hole on one of the inner ring walls as "proof" that the B-757 couldn't fit through that "16-foot hole" and then go on to ridicule the "wings folded back" nonsense, when it was THEM who began that tidbit in the first place....

The circularity of their "logic" is readily apparent.

Of course, my way of attempting to use logic will no doubt be spun in some new, and creative way after this latest attempt to bring sanity to a discussion. The spin from the "truthers" is dazzling in its ability to obfuscate, distract, and deflect rational discussion, as it is largely based on innuendo, disinfo, and what appears to be downright intentional LYING from certain camps.

Not to inflame a "board war", but (and this is totally relevant to mention in this thread, because the Flight Recorder CAN be considered to be a "part", and it WAS identified) the incredibly blatant blunder (or was it an intentional LIE?) by a certain conspiracy advocate's site, one allegedly composed of such top-notch, vaunted aviation "professionals" as it claims, was caught in a red-faced, bold-faced mistake (or LIE) about a parameter in the data of the FDR, and that HAS been covered to death in another ATS thread.

Anyone see, now, WHY the images of the upper surfaces of a jet's wing might help IF any of the actual wing section(s) managed to not be totally destroyed, and possibly flung clear of the impact zone, as often happens in the chaotic energies and mostly unpredictable vectors of every single piece and component, during the crash sequence?

Too complicated? Sorry, but I've found that if I don't write as much detail as possible, every little misconception in certain reader's minds will get spun into something that was NOT the intent in the first place.

What is that game called, again? Does anyone know the answer to that? (I have an idea, but not sure it describes it adequately).







[edit on 31 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by RipCurl
If you say that aluminum can't cut through a concrete wall,

I did not say aluminum can't cut through a concrete wall.

Why must you people try to put words in peoples mouths to try to make yourself look better?

I stated a fact that the plane is not going to make it all the way into the building becasue of the consruction of the plane and the building.


[edit on 31-12-2009 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


Except that the exterior wall of the WTC was not solid steel beams, but
lattice of panels bolted together

Aircraft impact sheared the bolts holding panels in place

Originally posted by thedman
Aircraft impact sheared the bolts holding panels in place

But as the computer models have shown the planes barely made it into the building as they were shredded upon entering the towers.

So if a plane can barely make through the lattice do you think a plane will make it through reinfored walls and collumns?


[edit on 31-12-2009 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE

I stated a fact that the plane is not going to make it all the way into the building becasue of the consruction of the plane and the building

You really think that your above post is a "fact"? The Pentagon, was not an impenetrable fortress. Sure, they had done some reconditioning to make it bomb resistant, but very little could be done to stop a missile attack (and yes, that is exactly what Flight 77 became that day, one huge, twin engined 757 missile).

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You really think that your above post is a "fact"? The Pentagon, was not an impenetrable fortress. Sure, they had done some reconditioning to make it bomb resistant, but very little could be done to stop a missile attack (and yes, that is exactly what Flight 77 became that day, one huge, twin engined 757 missile).

But as the computer models have shown the planes barely made it into the building as they were shredded upon entering the towers.

So if a plane can barely make through the lattice do you think a plane will make it through reinfored walls and collumns?

reply to post by REMISNE


Is someone going to have to post that YouTube video, again to demonstrate the logical fallacy that keeps being repeated, REMISNE?? (not his real name)

Ya know the one I mean, right? A jet, in an intentionally planned and filmed event, is placed on a rocket sled to accelerate it to upwards of 500 MPH, to slam it into a concrete block.

Again, the actual PURPOSE of that test was the CONCRETE BLOCK! It was to see if that reinforced material would be adequate for its intended use in nuclear power plant construction, in the event of a terrorist attack (or accidental) with an airplane.

(Hint: Guess which object "won" that contest?)

NOW, the reason that is a viable demonstration for REMISNE (not his real name) is to show how, because of some bloke named Newton...no, actually, he just wrote down his "laws" describing a truth in physics...the effect of velocity on an object imparts it with an incredible amount of energy.

More velocity, more energy.

Hit yourself in the head with a hammer, while swinging it slowly. THEN, swing it real fast!!

(Note to young children, or to anyone who may happen to be reading --- IF you are the aforementioned young child, or IF you were once informed that a Labrador Retriever had more brains cells than you, please remember that the paragraph about the hammer was NOT to be taken literally. Thank you. Legal disclaimer, over).

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Is someone going to have to post that YouTube video, again to demonstrate the logical fallacy that keeps being repeated, REMISNE?? (not his real name)

Yes i have seen the video (was a crew chief on RF-4s) and that block did move from the impact and their were wing debris left from the impact. (By the way REMISNE is my name)

So i will ask you the same qustion. If the planes barely made it in to the towers from being shredded, how far do you think a airliner is going to get through the reinfored walls and collumns of the Pentagon?


[edit on 31-12-2009 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


At the risk of repeating myself, and a bunch of others, who have mentioned this over and over again (for the benefit of any who may have just recently tuned in to this):

...and their were wing debris left from the impact.

Once more, with feeling --- the video being referred to was the F-4 on the rocket sled versus the Big Concrete Block. (care of YouTube, somewhere.)

In that test, the wingspan of the F-4 was wider than the total width of the Big Concrete Block. The outer portions of the wings that extended BEYOND the width of the B.C.B. naturally continued forward as they still had the MOMENTUM from their incredible vast speed.

Kinda sorta like how, ya know, a certain OTHER airplane under discussion could have parts that aren't impeded by a rather smaller (and certainly MUCH less re-inforced) B.C.B, such as the columns and facade of the outer walls of the Pentagon.

If the planes barely made it in to the towers from being shredded, how far do you think a airliner is going to get through the reinfored walls and collumns of the Pentagon?

Almost, barely tending OT --- but still, it is SO WRONG (the assertion that the Twin Towers' attacking airplanes "barely" made it inside the buildings) it MUST be addressed.

I don't have time to go find the PHOTOS of the exterior facades of the Towers. They are available, to everyone, and they completely destroy this attempt at obfuscation and deflection, once again. This tactic has grown stale, is it too late to learn another???

For further enlightenment, regarding all three buildings in question, there are plenty of computer simulation videos that have been produced, also can be found via a simple Googleish search. Just one that opos into my memory banks is from Purdue University.

But, of course...Purdue is likely part of the "ebil gov'mint plot"....
(Or is that being confused with the company that sells products resembling chicken carcasses? Let's open that in another thread...)

Run for the hills!!! They're everywhere!!!