It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# U.S. Government admits nose cone of Flight 77 SURVIVED Pentagon crash!

page: 9
51
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Well done

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
This is probably one of the best arguments there is stating than an airplane actually hit the Pentagon (you know, since they won't release any video tapes from the 6 cameras on that Pentagon wall that was hit).

There are a lot of problems with that video though...
1) An F4 Phantom jet is only about 50 feet long and a Boeing 757-300 is about 180 feet long; F4 is also tremendously lighter. There's A LOT more airplane to collapse against a wall with a 757, so the tail of AA 77 would have slowed down significantly by the time the rest had "accordianed" into the wall and squeezed through the spaces between the enforced columns. The tail, latter part of the fuselage, and the wings would likely have stayed outside I would guess.

Thermo, you're getting warmer. But consider the formula for kinetic energy, KE=1/2(m*v2). If the speeds are the same between the F-4 and 757 example, the increase in mass increases the energy proportionally, therefore the 757 impact imparts a greater force than the F-4(obviously over a greater surface area).

Look at the F-4 again in slow motion. Is it slowing down appreciably? No. If there's deceleration there, it isn't discernible. What happens to the tail in your estimation?

Just when I thought there may be a glimmer of hope...you launch the strawmen.

[strawmans about dissolved, liquified 757's snipped]

You are over-analyzing this. The force of the impact did two things: damage the aircraft and damage to the building. I'm not a materials scientist but I do know not all collisions are created equal. Once the immense force of impact created the hole, what was left entering the hole faced further destruction by the Pentagons structural columns, many of which failed, hence the collapse. You can call this liquified, or melted or whatever you want to call it, but I think what happened is more like shredding. Areas of the airframe not strong enough to punch a hole in the facade did exactly what happened in the F-4 video, they disintegrated at the wall and were ejected backwards. These areas of the airframe would be the outer halves of the wings and the horizontal/vertical stabilizers.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by 767doctor]

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 07:33 AM

I still don't understand the no plane theory.

You saw all these, right?

Moving bridges 'n such? Yeah...

Never doubt the shadow/government's ability to kill people in creative and profitable ways..

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
2) According to your theory, it seems once a hole was made some of the plane had already evaporated/dissolved but the rest of the plane went through the holes in pieces. Apparently these small pieces carried enough kinetic energy to puncture holes through an additional FIVE walls.

I can't even imagine how you could rationalize this... what would the consistency be? Are you imagining a ball of molten liquid aluminum? Pieces of airplane in like a tornado-style swirl?

The funny thing is, you've already answered your own questions on this matter. You point out that the holes that go through 5 walls are about the same diameter as the fuselage, which is where the most mass and therefore the largest momentum is concentrated in the smallest impact area, so of course the fuselage will punch through further due to its momentum being concentrated in a smaller area.

While the wings might have as much momentum as the fuselage, it's spread out over a larger area so it doesn't punch through.

Here's an analogy for you to consider. How do bulletproof vests work? The bullet has just as much kinetic energy when it hits you with or without the vest, but the reason the vest stops the bullet is because it spreads out the energy over a wider area. This is the same reason the wings don't penetrate the pentagon as far as the fuselage, because the impact is spread out over a wider area:

How Bulletproof Vests Work

The bullets do so much damage because of the focused blunt trauma: they focus all the impact in a reduced area increasing the penetration rate. Bullet proof vests are designed to spread the energy laterally over the whole vest while deforming the bullet at the same time.

So if you can figure out how a bulletproof vest works,then you might understand why the fuselage penetrated further than the wings. The wings were spread out, the fuselage wasn't. It's not a perfect analogy but some of the same principles are at work regarding the surface area of the impact affecting the depth of penetration.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:01 AM
How can we have any idea what happened to the wings? All we know is they've never been found. You're operating under the condition that a plane was actually there - I'm not convinced of that.

The interesting thing about these threads is that we get a feel for how the other person pictures things. I now have a better understanding of how some "OSers" think about the possible impact scenarios. I still totally disagree because it's an impossible situation in my opinion.

Even the bullet proof vest example refutes how the mass from the plane went through 5 more walls. The outer reinforced Pentagon wall that the plane hit (in this scenario) took most of the kinetic energy and speed. If the velocity is slowed and the airplane looks like a bunch of pieces.... then it couldn't have gone through the subsequent walls.

I think one of the major issues between OSers and truthers is the F4 Phantom video and how different planes might react in that situation... ironically a light fighter jet crashing into a substance meant to spread energy is FAR different than a Boeing 757 crashing into a solid reinforced wall.

We're comparing a stock car to a Volvo here... they behave too differently for that video to be a valid source of comparison.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:07 AM

Aircraft debris at the Pentagon?

[edit on 6/7/2010 by ThaLoccster]

[edit on 6/7/2010 by ThaLoccster]

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:14 AM

Originally posted by 767doctor
Thermo, you're getting warmer.

Just when I thought there may be a glimmer of hope...you launch the strawmen.

Here's the difference between you and me...

You have a belief and you think I might be getting closer to what you think is the truth. Your belief is static and defined.

I have a working hypothesis that no plane hit the Pentagon, but am always willing to change it.

Makes it harder for you because defending yourself brings ego into it; my belief is dynamic so the discussion doesn't involve defending things - only searching for more perfect data and analysis to get a more realistic probable answer.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:23 AM

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
Is this aircraft debris, or debris from the building?

If its aircraft debris, is it identifiable as to what type?

At first glance, it does seem to me like debris from a wing.

I've never seen that picture. You should start a thread with just that one pic - get more people in on what it might be. It does look like a wing but could be plenty of different things. I'd be interested in what 767doc has to say about it, and see some pictures of Boeings being assembled to compare pics.

Nice find

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by Thermo Klein

A 'working' hypothesis?

I have a working hypothesis that no plane hit the Pentagon, but am always willing to change it.

Puzzling as to why. I don't have the exact definition of 'hypothesis' right on the tip of my tongue, here...but, nutshell understanding is: An hypothesis can be formulated based on a 'hunch', or on an opinion....usually after observing evidences and facts that seem to contradict some other held belief or opinion. (At end, I will find actual definiton, to compare).

However...in the case of the Pentagon, overwhelming evidence points directly to the Boeing 757, operated on that morning as American Airlines flight 77, a regularly scheduled passenger flight from KIAD to KLAX, being hijacked with forethought, by politically/religiously motivated extremists, for the express purpose of involvement in a co-ordinated and pre-planned multiple attack on certain key USA landmarks.

The presence of the B-757 is further proven by the debris at the crash site, the DNA evidence,the CVR (unfortunately unreadable) and the DFDR (which was intact and able to be read out), eyewitness testimony, from many sources, and radar tracking information from ATC and FAA sources, etc. The list is long, and this is by no means all there is, just a sample.

An 'hypothesis' of "No airplane at the Pentagon" has no basis in formation, from the outset!

Definition:

2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

www.merriam-webster.com...

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:33 PM
I could tell the damage at the Pentagon "smelled funny" on 9/11 as I "watched it happen". I noticed a major lack of debris and just a cloud of smoke and a little hole.

When I learned they only released a couple frames that don't identify a plane that sealed it for me.

That and stuff like the open book next to the hole that was completely uncharred, more akin to a missile than a raging jet fuel fire.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:01 PM

to put it simple... I'd rather have a hypothesis that turned out right than a static belief that is wrong. This is how I am in life though... gave up Christianity... became Tibetan Buddhist for 8 years... now I'm spiritual and accepting.

We each have our point of view - most people I know who live in other countries casually make the point that no one believes it was terrorists. It's only in America that we keep believing the original story. Most people don't give up Christianity even though they have doubts.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:59 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
An 'hypothesis' of "No airplane at the Pentagon" has no basis in formation, from the outset!

Definition:

2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

What I find entertaining about this thread, is that no matter what the evidence is, the CT folks claim it's evidence that the OS is false.

Before this thread I kept hearing from CT folks that more of the plane should have survived intact after the impact.

So here we have a thread about the possibility of a section of the nose cone not getting pulverized and now I hear claims which are exactly the opposite. Now it's "There's no way any part of the nosecone could have survived!!"

So do you expect to see more debris or less debris, can you at least make up your mind?

Oh the irony.

But it's also interesting how we can all look at the same evidence and to some of us it looks exactly like what a plane impact would do, and others can't quite figure that part out. It's a pretty dramatic example that we don't all perceive the same pictures the same way.

But even if you can't get your mind wrapped around the evidence to understand how a plane could do that, the most compelling argument to me outside the evidence left at the Pentagon like plane parts, DNA, etc, is the insanity of trying to use something other than a plane to look like a plane impact. If someone wanted to convince us a plane hit, what better way to do it than to use a plane? It convinced most people on the WTC. Why would they use planes on the WTC and NOT on the other targets? That's where the "it wasn't a plane" theory really seems to extend beyond any realm of what a real conspiracy person would do.

You want to make it look like a plane crash, use a plane. And that way you save yourself the complications of running around planting DNA evidence, plane parts, and doing that all before the first responders get there and discover what you're doing.

Originally posted by jinxx1
While I am thoroughly convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, masterminded by our wonderful government under the reign of #43, I still don't understand the no plane theory. To support this theory, one must conclude that the people aboard Flight 77 were assassinated and then made to look like they were in a plane crash and then their bodies were planted at the Pentagon along with destroyed parts of the airplane. It seems crazy to think that an operation like that would go unnoticed without one hint of suspicion. I am interested to know: What do people that support this theory believe happened to the 64 passengers and crew and how do they explain the charred corpses found at the site?

Yes well, inside job or not, at least one person is thinking logically about the complications of not using a plane. It's SO much simpler to just use a plane.

If you stare at the crosshairs, do you see a green dot? Our eyes and our brains can play tricks on us. There is no green dot. When some people see not much left of a plane, it's a little like seeing the green dot. You think if there's not much evidence of a plane then maybe there wasn't a plane. It's understandable, maybe even natural, just like seeing the green dot. But as with the green dot, we have to understand why we saw the green dot that wasn't there, and understand why there's not much evidence of a plane after a plane crash and how our mind can and does play tricks on us. (I'm still trying to convince one of my friends there's no green dot
)

I would think the F-4 crash video would be pretty convincing but it's amazing how some of you can just set that aside and say "but this was a bigger plane". OK well what do you think would happen if a bigger plane hit a similar barrier? Maybe the wings would get pulverized like the F-4 and part of the fuselage might punch through the barrier? I'm not sure that it would depending on how thick the barrier is, and how much reinforcement it has, but if something did punch through on a larger plane, it would be the fuselage. So it really does add up since that's what happened, the fuselage is what punched through the furthest, and that's exactly what the physics of the impact would dictate.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
How can we have any idea what happened to the wings? All we know is they've never been found. You're operating under the condition that a plane was actually there - I'm not convinced of that.

Look at it like this...

Hypothetically speaking, if an airliner hit a concrete/limestone wall at 530 mph, history of similar high speed crashes tells us there ain't gonna be much recognizable debris...though there will be some. You have to admit that large sections of fuselage, tail, and wings just aren't going to be found, because they've never been found in similar crashes. You are reduced to putting together a jigsaw puzzle whose pieces vary from the size of scraps to several feet by several feet. Most pieces will be pretty mangled, except large, dense assemblies made of steel, titanium and other space age alloys.

So what do you do now? How about look at what was actually found that is recognizable. We have fuselage pieces that are unpainted, polished aluminum(consistent with AA's livery) and two of those pieces have markings that may or may not show the letters "a" and "c" from the "American" on the forward fuselage. We have a landing gear strut which matches a 757's exactly. We have 757 specific wheel and brake assemblies, and we also have turbine wheels and compressor rotors, which are excellent matches to the Rolls Royce RB211-535. I've seen a piece of the engine fancase with stators still attached, which is obviously from a large turbofan. We have an APU door thats sure looks like its from a 757 to me. There many pieces of debris consistent with airliner structure, some finished in the telltale Boeing green zinc-chromate primer and have fasteners common to large airliners. We have a recovered Flight Data Recorder which faithfully replicated the last 30 hours of N644AAs existence. There is even is piece of debris which resembles an emergency lights battery charger, with an AA logo, part number, and serial number.

I combine this evidence with the recorded radar data, DNA, and eyewitness accounts, and it's pretty clear cut that AA77 impacted the Pentagon. Despite the overwhelming evidence that this is the case, as well as the *complete absence* of evidence which may prove otherwise - you don't want to believe it, because it's not terribly interesting in regard to the overall conspiracy. It's more fun to believe something else, as long as it doesn't resemble the "official story" because we can't have that, can we? You'd rather believe in missiles(that there's no physical or anecdotal evidence of), parts planters and scene stagers(which theres no physical or anecdotal evidence of), and who knows what else that had to happen to pull off this level of deception...in broad daylight during rush hour traffic.

The interesting thing about these threads is that we get a feel for how the other person pictures things. I now have a better understanding of how some "OSers" think about the possible impact scenarios. I still totally disagree because it's an impossible situation in my opinion.

Rationals will always go with the convergence of evidence, over slight anomalies.

I think one of the major issues between OSers and truthers is the F4 Phantom video and how different planes might react in that situation... ironically a light fighter jet crashing into a substance meant to spread energy is FAR different than a Boeing 757 crashing into a solid reinforced wall.

I explained this earlier. The 757 is more massive, so the 757 impact imparts a greater destructive force on both the wall and the airplane. This isn't a concept which is overly counter-intuitive, yet this is the second time you've made this simple mistake. More force = smaller pieces; more damage to the wall. You also have to factor in surface area of the impacted areas, so basically it boils down to which puts more mass in a smaller area, at a given speed. I haven't done the calculations, but I'd be willing to bet that the 757 put more mass into a given area.

We're comparing a stock car to a Volvo here... they behave too differently for that video to be a valid source of comparison.

I agree that the F-4 vs wall and the 757 vs Pentagon isn't a perfect example, but it gives you an idea what to expect from the crash scene.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by 767doctor]

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
Is this aircraft debris, or debris from the building?

If its aircraft debris, is it identifiable as to what type?

At first glance, it does seem to me like debris from a wing.

I've never seen that picture. You should start a thread with just that one pic - get more people in on what it might be. It does look like a wing but could be plenty of different things. I'd be interested in what 767doc has to say about it, and see some pictures of Boeings being assembled to compare pics.

Nice find

I agree the others in that thread that its not from a 757.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by 767doctor]

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Here's the difference between you and me...

You have a belief and you think I might be getting closer to what you think is the truth. Your belief is static and defined.

I have a working hypothesis that no plane hit the Pentagon, but am always willing to change it.

Makes it harder for you because defending yourself brings ego into it; my belief is dynamic so the discussion doesn't involve defending things - only searching for more perfect data and analysis to get a more realistic probable answer.

The difference is my belief is based on evidence and your belief isn't. Sorry if that sounds rude, but it is what it is. I've given up my religious beliefs, as well as some paranormal ideas I used to entertain, based solely on examination of the evidence, which I spent years hiding from.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 07:30 PM

Hi 767,

if an airliner hit a concrete/limestone wall at 530 mph, history of similar high speed crashes tells us there ain't gonna be much recognizable debris...though there will be some.

Do you have some examples of aluminum planes entering brick/steel buildings, complete with titanium alloy engines evaporating?

Thanks to the lack of video footage clearly showing ANY part of a plane, we don't even know if it was a plane at all... so this is all just speculation. In fact, this entire thread is possibly based on a lie, lol.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 07:31 PM
"However...in the case of the Pentagon, overwhelming evidence points directly to the Boeing 757, operated on that morning as American Airlines flight 77, a regularly scheduled passenger flight from KIAD to KLAX, being hijacked with forethought, by politically/religiously motivated extremists, for the express purpose of involvement in a co-ordinated and pre-planned multiple attack on certain key USA landmarks."

Yeah, sure...here is your "overwhelming evidence":

1. No photos/video of the alleged passengers boarding the plane at the airport

2. No official signed statements from the security personnel at the airport

3. No photos/video of the plane impacting into the Pentagon (from the 80+ cameras)

4. Video tape from nearby locations being confiscated by authorities within minutes after the impact

5. No significant physical evidence of a large commercial airliner at the scene

6. The obvious screw up of the Pentagon wall collapsing 20 minutes too late, instead of right after the alleged impact (oops! hole is too small)

7. An amateur cave dwelling non-pilot navigating and performing an impossible flight move with a modern large commercial airliner at high speed

8. Light poles being tipped over and not completely shredded and flung hundreds of feet by a plane traveling over 400 MPH.

9. "Witnesses" being able to positively identify a commercial airliner whizzing by them at over 400 MPH.

10. A Pentagon lawn which looked like the manicured Yankee Stadium outfield grass after such an alleged violent collision

Yeah, you're correct, the evidence is "overwhelming", that no large commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:02 AM

More repetitive nonsense for the "conspiracy" sites, I see...so, so sad. The levels of denial, and wilingness to engage in fantasy -- simply stunning.

1. No photos/video of the alleged passengers boarding the plane at the airport

( See, the "CT" sites just make stuff up, when they get desperate
)Go ahead, here's your chance to 'prove' the "CT" sites correct, on this count. SHOW evidence that the gates...the boarding areas...at Dulles International Airport are monitored by, and recorded constantly by, video cameras. EVERY gate.

In fact, show ANY airport in the United States where this is the case. We will anxiously await your 'evidence' supporting these 'claims'.....

~~~

2. No official signed statements from the security personnel at the airport

Huh?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

~~~

3. No photos/video of the plane impacting into the Pentagon (from the 80+ cameras)

>sigh

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:58 PM

Hey weedwhacker,

its like a giant game of "Whack-a-mole" with these TM CT nonsense. You debunk it once, another pops up. Debunk that, the first one returns. Debunk that one, the second one returns. Debunk that, a third one pops up and the first one also returns! Its a never-ending game. Thats all the TM has, games.

Case in point, the post you just addressed. Every single one of those has been addressed, debunked or thrown out as junk, many times in the past, and yet here they come popping out again as if they are new.

We are gonna need a bigger hammer to squash this "whack-a-mole" game.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
According to trusted sources within the U.S. Government the nose cone of American Airlines flight 77 survived crashing into the Pentagon on 9-11-01!

I'm a little shocked by this since the nose cone hit first and survived, yet most of the rest of the plane disappeared! Here's the proof from America.gov (An official government website)

Plane Debris Found at Pentagon Crash Site

People who went to the Pentagon crash site reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane, as reported in an e-mail to a conspiracy theory Web site that debunks the conspiracy theory claims

"People who went to the Pentagon crash site reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the nose cone"

Is not saying the nose cone survived the impact.

"People who went to the Pentagon crash site reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the fuselage"

Is not saying the fuselage survived the impact.

en.wikipedia.org...

Even though what the goverment is saying might be a lie they are NOT saying the nose cone and fuselage survived the impact. Even the government is not stupid enough to say that!!!

The fuselage is like 90% of the airplane!

I'm writing a story about an "easter egg" that was thrown 300 miles per hour at a sold brick wall. I write:

"People who went to the crash site reported seeing parts of an egg, including the shell, egg whites, and yolk."

After reading what I wrote someone starts a post:

"Iamcpc admits the shell of the egg SURVIVED the brick wall crash!"

Wait a second! That's not even remotely close to what I had originally written!

I don't know anything about the pentagon theories. I have barely investigated them. I trust that you have and respect you for supporting the theories that no airplanes hit them. I have seen a lot of evidence that supports that theory as well.

But don't turn the goverment admitting:

"People who went to the crash site reported seeing parts of an ________,
(insert list of "parts" if they even existed at all)

"the (part) survived the crash"

The goverment was able to theoretically mastermind the 9/11 attacks. They are not going to admit anything.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by iamcpc]

top topics

51