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 was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

page: 21
9
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


So, how thick do you think the two windows were at the point of impact? 24 inches as well?


And because I KNOW someone will jump in about how the windows were blast resistant....that means just that, they were resistant to blast forces, not a 757 at speed.




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Ha ha seems like the OS believers are shooting themselves in the foot here ! Let's hear more about these indestructable planes that vaporised on impact again this is amazing stuff !



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Respectfully a member posted before your post they want to get back on topic, and per the 911 Madness rules I'm yielding to that poster.

I answered your question as to the wall thickness as for the windows I do not know. I'm thinking you can look that info up as I did in order to answer your question as to wall thickness.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Things like jet engines which weigh about 6 tons each and made of high
strengthalloys


If i am correct, the engines are well back on the wings. And where are the engines, where did they get to?


The Keel beam which runs length of the aircraft, provides structural stength and supports the cabin floor/cargo bay


So 1 beam, thats all you can come up with that has any stuctural strength? Thanks for proving my point.


[edit on 8-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So I take it El AL Flight 1862 also shouldnt of happened, where a 747 crashed and cut right through not only a concrete wall, but an entire apartment building?


So you are trying to compare a apartment complex with the Pentagon. Thats so funny.

Also as you can see the building DID NOT competly collapse from the plane impact or fire.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


No you are complaining that a 757 traveling at over 400mph should not have been able to penetrate 24 inches of masonry and concrete. I showed a 747 on take off with one engine missing which managed to slice through an entire apartment building which is nearly 5-10x wider than a wall of the Pentagon. I take it kinetic energy was not your strongest part in physics?

Here is another good one: the B-25 that managed to punch through the Empire State Building while traveling at even slower speeds, even allowing an engine to go all the way through and out the other side.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Mate i gotta agree with REMISNE on this one there's no comparison ! The pentagon was 24 inches SOLID ! An apartment buildings 'skin' would be half that AT MOST ! and then its double skin of block with insulation gap between i presume ! That would'nt stand up to it ! You can whack a lump hammer through that on your own in no time !



[edit on 093131p://01America/Chicago09 by ProRipp]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek


No you are complaining that a 757 traveling at over 400mph should not have been able to penetrate 24 inches of masonry and concrete. I showed a 747 on take off with one engine missing which managed to slice through an entire apartment building which is nearly 5-10x wider than a wall of the Pentagon. I take it kinetic energy was not your strongest part in physics?



Epic fail sir

You are showing a apartment building , that has double brick walls,to

the design of a building with 24 inch thick , rebar reinforced walls.

You sir, say you know kinetic energy, your example is not even worth

considering.

Two buildings, 1 designed to keep the cold out, the other build to be

blast proof.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
No you are complaining that a 757 traveling at over 400mph should not have been able to penetrate 24 inches of masonry and concrete.


No. please read my post. I stated that it should not have been able to penatrate through the wall and collumns and get throough the 3 rings.


I showed a 747 on take off with one ngine missing which managed to slice through an entire apartment building which is nearly 5-10x wider than a wall of the Pentagon. I take it kinetic energy was not your strongest part in physics?


The apartment complex is not constructed like the Pentagon.

The apartment complex did not complatly collapse due to impact and fire


Here is another good one: the B-25 that managed to punch through the Empire State Building while traveling at even slower speeds, even allowing an engine to go all the way through and out the other side.


I love it how your comparisions just keep proving my points instead of yours.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Just one problem - there are no walls on the 2 lowest floors between
the exterior E Ring and the exit hole at the C ring

Had you done any research would have found this out



Many researchers have asserted that whatever produced the C-Ring hole had to pass through six masonry walls, since it had to traverse three rings -- C, D, and E. However the exterior walls between the outermost three rings did not go down to ground level, since the intervening light-wells were only three stories deep. The outer three rings were unified on the first and second floors, meaning that the only heavy structures between the facade and the C-Ring wall with the hole were occasional columns. Thus it is plausible that an engine could have passed through the three rings, missing the reinforced concrete pillars, and puncturing the C-Ring wall.


Plane had only to penetrate the outer E Ring wall - debris from AA77
including part of landing gear continued through building until hit
C Ring wall knocking 10 foot hole in it and collecting on the roadway
called A-E Drive . It did not penetrate into the B ring



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


OK, back on to your question here. I provided you with the FACT that the walls were/are 24 inches thick. Why do you doubt that still? The public records of the Pentagon construction including all updates to today are well documented.

And just for you Swampy! I called a friend of mine who still works for the government and he gave me the name of the primary company that the Pentagon contracts with for blast-proof products, including windows. They come in a variety of thicknesses.

Graham Window company

Corrected link & spelling

[edit on 9-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


And none of them are 24 inches thick. Not to mention they are designed to resist a blast wave, not an airliner moving fast.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Never said they were. If you can get your facts straight, I stated the WALLS were 24inches thick.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Oh, I have my facts straight.

Of course, Im not the one claiming that the Pentagon was impregnable due to its 24 inch thick outer wall.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Gotem straight uh? Well I never claimed that so you may want to review this thread then and find out who you were discussing that with.

Oh yea, respectfully speaking of course if your facts were "straight" you wouldn't be arguing about the OS.




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
It did not penetrate into the B ring


Thanks for agreeing with me that the airframe would have not made it far into the building.

Also its kid of funny if i was th landing gear that punched the big hol inthe 3rd ring, i mean wasn' the landing gear supossed to be up inside the wheel well?



[edit on 10-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Of course, Im not the one claiming that the Pentagon was impregnable due to its 24 inch thick outer wall.


Still have to try to put words in peoples mouths to make yourslef look better. Only makes you look immature.

No one stated the walls were impregnable.


[edit on 10-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 





Also its kid of funny if i was th landing gear that punched the big hol inthe 3rd ring, i mean wasn' the landing gear supossed to be up inside the wheel well?


You cant be #$%^serious ? Right ?

The landing gear could not have ended up where it did because is was
stowed?

How about the fact that the aircraft came apart as it slid through the
building....

Its called MOMENTUM - which states that the more massive an object
is the longer it retains it velocity- which is why the heavies pieces
wound up where they did - the flight recorders, parts of the jet
engine, landing gear are the most massive parts on aircraft, also
the strongest which meant they held togather .



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


This will set you free...



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



Hey friend look at this and tell me what you think


www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join