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.

 

Pentagon - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

page: 36
136
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
It crashed into the Pentagon. At nearly 500mph. What happens when a plane crashes at that speed? It gets obliterated into much smaller pieces.

Now lets put it all together. Take the photo of the burned AirbusA340. Now imagine smashing it to bits, collecting it all together, and throwing it into the Pentagon, and set it ALL on fire. What is going to happen to those smashed bits of airliner? OH and lets not forget what else! A section of the Pentagon collapsed on it. Gee what would THAT do to the aircraft's burning remains inside?

Aren't you the same person who says Flight 77 passengers were found in the Pentagon still strapped into their seats?




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GenRadek
 



The "precollapse" hole was plenty big enough for it all to fit. The fuselage body itself is about 12' 4" wide (if you count the fairings for the landing gear and connections to the wings, a little bit more at the base in the middle) . Including the width of the engines and such, the total size of the hole was about 96ft. Yep, seems big enough to take the plane in.


Man, you are good...
Even NIST doesn't agree with a 96' hole...
Maybe you need to talk to them..

BTW, Weedwhacker doesn't agree that the engines went inside..
He stated they disintigrated on impact and bounced off the walls, or something like that


Ohh and other reports stated the wings didn't penetrate as you'd expect because the "sort of liquefied and passed through the wall with little damage...

You believers are more scattered than us crazy truthers with your explanations..


Boy oh boy, you know whats great? I have the NIST Pentagon report open and right in front of me. So allow me to quote direct from it:


Most of the serious structural damage was within a swath that was approximately 75 to 80 ft wide and extended approximately 230 ft into the first floor of the building. This swath was oriented at approximately 35 to 40 degrees to the perpendicular to the exterior wall of the Pentagon. Within the swath of serious damage was a narrower, tapering area that contained most of the very severe structural damage. This tapering area approximated a triangle in plan and had a width of approximately 90 ft at the aircraft’s entry point and a length of approximately 230 ft along the trajectory of the aircraft through the building.

fire.nist.gov...

checkmate comrade. You lose again!
(oops I was off by maybe 6 ft!
)

Oh and what weedwhacker was talking about was how debris would have impacted and some (the heaviest parts of the engines) would have gone in, and some "bounced" off, or thrown off on impact, like the spinning blades of the engine, and lighter materials. They are very fragile things.

As for the wings, the thickest sections of the wings did in fact enter the Pentagon. They contained the fuel tanks, and on impact with the wall, they were obliterated. Of course the force of the impact will break through the wall. The outermost tips of the wings would have smashed to bits on the sides, while the thicker heavier sections would have the included momentum of the liquid fuel inside going forward. A few tons of liquid traveling at nearly 500mph is a force to be reckoned with. So yes, some would go in, some will be obliterated outside. This is not rocket science folks. I cannot fathom how you can not figure out something so simple.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by GenRadek
It crashed into the Pentagon. At nearly 500mph. What happens when a plane crashes at that speed? It gets obliterated into much smaller pieces.

Now lets put it all together. Take the photo of the burned AirbusA340. Now imagine smashing it to bits, collecting it all together, and throwing it into the Pentagon, and set it ALL on fire. What is going to happen to those smashed bits of airliner? OH and lets not forget what else! A section of the Pentagon collapsed on it. Gee what would THAT do to the aircraft's burning remains inside?

Aren't you the same person who says Flight 77 passengers were found in the Pentagon still strapped into their seats?


Well gee, as we can see, SOME of the debris did survive the fires or were thrown clear of the flames. So LOGICALLY THINKING here, it is safe to assume, that SOME people may have been thrown clear of the worst parts of fires. Is it really that hard to think for a little bit longer?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Go ask the folks that did the search and recovery. Dont ask me.
geeze. You guys are really starting to crack me up with this nit-picking.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



checkmate comrade. You lose again!
(oops I was off by maybe 6 ft! )


NIST says 75-80 and you say 96..
6' off..?? Did you flunk math.?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by backinblack
 


Go ask the folks that did the search and recovery. Dont ask me.
geeze. You guys are really starting to crack me up with this nit-picking.


I don't considering asking for evidence of your stance to be nit-picking..

Funny it's not nit-picking when you OS fan boys ask for proof...



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by the cynic jester
I don't think anyone, anywhere, truly believes the Pentagon was hit by a plane. It was always the largest flaw. If for no other reason then, well the plane was in Washington D.C and it chose the Pentagon over the White House? Dumbest terrorists ever.

If the O.S does start being seriously questioned by the worker bees, that will be it's undoing. Start from the most implausible and move backward.


Well, knowing about the extant thought reading equipment in use, I'd suggest they're trying as hard as possible to believe what they say as being true. They are like rats. A rat will do anything to survive. There are countless examples of such specimens, crawling all over these forums.

As to the 'terrorists', the pentagon was selected for the records which involved 2.3 missing trillions. Wasn't it proven that the target was the exact place where these records were kept? Oh, and building 7 was the backup location for these same records. Just a coincidence I guess.

I'd like to say they were exercising a sense of decorum by sparing the white house, for it's vintage appeal, and would add that it's been a long time since anyone's been home, so to speak. Why vandalize such a nice, empty piece of history?

As for the 'worker bees', I'm not sure who you mean. Looks as if work is down the drain for many people. Let's all chase our own tails, because democrat or republican, unless you are a gov worker, you aren't above water, and you aren't getting a raise. Oh, the water's dirty as well.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GenRadek
 



checkmate comrade. You lose again!
(oops I was off by maybe 6 ft! )


NIST says 75-80 and you say 96..
6' off..?? Did you flunk math.?


Oops, reading comprehension FAIL:


This tapering area approximated a triangle in plan and had a width of approximately 90 ft at the aircraft’s entry point and a length of approximately 230 ft along the trajectory of the aircraft through the building.


Most serious of the damage was 75-80ft wide.
Wingspan of 757-200? 124 ft 10 in

Nope, but i can see you flunked reading!




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Debris in alley outside C Ring (know as A-E drive) - preparing to be removed. It had been pushed against the
opposite wall to clear path for vehicles




Notice landing gear truck - one of the heaviest pieces on an airliner

It that big enough for you?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Well gee, as we can see, SOME of the debris did survive the fires or were thrown clear of the flames. So LOGICALLY THINKING here, it is safe to assume, that SOME people may have been thrown clear of the worst parts of fires. Is it really that hard to think for a little bit longer?

Oh how convenient! A couple of passengers just "happened" to be found still strapped in their seats and not be shredding into pieces and burned to ashes along with the rest of the plane.


I have to admit GR, it's going to be difficult for us truthers to debunk the official Pentagon story. Of cource, any official story is hard to debunk when the goal post is constantly moving.



.
edit on 7-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



Nope, but i can see you flunked reading!

Oh I read just fine..
Also admit my mistakes, but this aint one of them..

I see NO 75-80 or 96' hole as you suggest..
Even the diagram of damage on page 23 of the NIST report doesn't really look like anywhere near 80'...



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

I don't considering asking for evidence of your stance to be nit-picking..

Funny it's not nit-picking when you OS fan boys ask for proof...


No asking how many kilograms of debris that was recovered outside is considered nit-picking.

Hey while we are at it, how many toilet seats were in the "up" position in that wing of the Pentagon that got impacted?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by backinblack
 


Debris in alley outside C Ring (know as A-E drive) - preparing to be removed. It had been pushed against the
opposite wall to clear path for vehicles




Notice landing gear truck - one of the heaviest pieces on an airliner

It that big enough for you?



It doesn't mean that debris is what punched the hole..
I don't see details of where that debris was collected from..
I'd expect some decent debris in the initial pic..



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by backinblack

I don't considering asking for evidence of your stance to be nit-picking..

Funny it's not nit-picking when you OS fan boys ask for proof...


No asking how many kilograms of debris that was recovered outside is considered nit-picking.

Hey while we are at it, how many toilet seats were in the "up" position in that wing of the Pentagon that got impacted?


If you don't consider the amount of debris is important when deciding if a 100.000+ kg plane hit the Pentagon then I have to wonder what you think IS important..
Or do you simply follow the NIST/Bible..?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GenRadek
 



Nope, but i can see you flunked reading!

Oh I read just fine..
Also admit my mistakes, but this aint one of them..

I see NO 75-80 or 96' hole as you suggest..
Even the diagram of damage on page 23 of the NIST report doesn't really look like anywhere near 80'...


Oh so the fact that I copied and posted the exact quote is irrelevant? Let me do it again for you:

This tapering area approximated a triangle in plan and had a width of approximately 90 ft at the aircraft’s entry point and a length of approximately 230 ft along the trajectory of the aircraft through the building.



Would you like the page number to the PDF so you can read it for yourself?

fire.nist.gov...
Page 20 in the PDF
Page 28 in the report itself.


I dont see how 75-80ft approximately equals 90ft. Math my weakness you say?

edit on 1/7/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

If you don't consider the amount of debris is important when deciding if a 100.000+ kg plane hit the Pentagon then I have to wonder what you think IS important..
Or do you simply follow the NIST/Bible..?




Ok, so what does it matter how much material ended up outside? Explain to me the supreme importance of how much debris was outside or in. I am dying to know how this is relevant at all?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


That was reported by several of the search and recovery crews including Army engineer from nearby Ft Belvior
and a Fire Captain from Viginia USAR team


On Tuesday, Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams witnessed a combat zone for the first time in his 11 years of service. He never imagined it would be inside the Pentagon. One of the first recovery personnel to enter the crippled headquarters building after a hijacked Boeing 757 smashed into it, the urban search-and-rescue specialist found a gruesome sight. "If anyone has ever burned a pot roast, they'll know what the victims looked like," Williams, 30, said Thursday after another 12-hour shift of searching for 190 bodies — those of 126 missing Pentagon personnel and the 64 aboard the doomed jetliner.



When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.



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


or course will some reason to ignore this .......



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Please source this:


....if a 100.000+ kg plane ....


Just to be absolutely clear, and remove any doubt so that my point can't be twisted back around, back in black....you are inferring here, in a discussion about the "debris" from American 77 at the Pentagon, that there should be, in your words written:

.... a 100.000+ kg plane....


That is 100,000+. Meaning, more than 100,000 kg (for U.S. readers, that is 220,000 pounds...MORE than 220,000 pounds....of actual, physical airframe and equipment and furnishings).

Source for this amount of mass, please? (Careful....to be fair, I will warn you, it's a trick question).

BUT, this little exercise is intended as a learning experience......and a lesson in hyperbole and exagerration, and their all-too-frequent use in these "debates". Usually, 99.9% of the time? From the "9/11 conspiracy" trusters.......and truth deniers.
edit on 7 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 





Even the diagram of damage on page 23 of the NIST report doesn't really look like anywhere near 80'...


Sorry, don't have the report just to hand. Is this the diagram you mean? Which part doesn't look like 80 feet (or 90 feet).




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Ignore it, I'm the one who brought it up!


But I do admit I don't believe it. If you can show me a photo the shows passengers still strapped in there seats, then I'll believe Flight 77 crashed there. There were other photos of cadavers taken inside the Pentagon. I can't imagine they didn't photograph the passengers still strapped in their seats inside.



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join