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.

 

It is scientifically impossible that a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 
Well, not so flimsy. They wings are able to house two huge Pratt-Whitney or Rolls Royce engines weighing 37,4000 lbs. If the plane's fuselage was so flimsy, wouldn't the Titanium and steel engines be left behind. It has also been purported the plane liquified; as well as, the wings folded back on themselves on impact. Curiously, and not even break any of the windows where the tail section should have reached. All because of the concrete facade of the building? What about the amazing PentaLawn, no slide marks at all. And the perfect cut of the partial building collapse. But the coop de gras: the opened book on the stool left unscorched. I would love to know what book it was and what pages it was turned to. Cheers




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by gr82m8okdok
 



Well, not so flimsy. They wings are able to house two huge Pratt-Whitney or Rolls Royce engines weighing 37,4000 lbs.


The engines weigh how much??? (HINT: That's the THRUST output they are capable of...minus that last zero.....):


RB211-535C
Static Thrust (lbf) -- 37400
Basic Weight (lb) -- 7294


en.wikipedia.org...-535_series_2

Oh, and "housed"? No....you will need some education in how airplanes are actually constructed, it seems.



If the plane's fuselage was so flimsy, wouldn't the Titanium and steel engines be left behind.


Speaking of "education", it seems apparent that someone is getting all of their "info" from the many (and teribly, terribly wrong) "9/11 conspiracy" websites out there....rather than doing GOOD research, and looking into their claims more keenly...

Did you somehow get the false impression that jet turbine engines are solid blocks of metal??



It has also been purported the plane liquified; as well as, the wings folded back on themselves on impact.


"purported" ONLY by those ridiculous "9/11 conspiracy" sites....



Curiously, and not even break any of the windows where the tail section should have reached.


Yet MORE from those sites. MANY windows WERE broken. However, the ones that weren't were (as were they all) designed to be very blast-resistant. However, the ones that WERE impacted directly, but DID NOT shatter were dislodged from their mounts in the walls. You can't see it in most of the exterior photos, because of the distance away. Do a search online for "The Pentagon Building Performance Report". It's a BIG Adobe PDF document, at 2.41 Mb size.

Also, the vertical fin is actually rather fragile, in that sort of situation. It's made of components of both aluminum and composites...a sort of high-tech plastic.



What about the amazing PentaLawn, no slide marks at all.


"PentaLawn"??? Gave yourself away, for sure....but, you see.....the airplane flew ABOVE the "lawn"!!! Not difficult to understand. It didn't "slide" in along the ground!



And the perfect cut of the partial building collapse.


Seems besides airplane construction details, you should learn more about buildings...and THAT building in particular.



But the coop de gras: the opened book on the stool left unscorched. I would love to know what book it was and what pages it was turned to.


??? DO you mean to tell us, that your consternation and doubts include THAT kind of rot??? :shk:

How many major crash scenes of that sort have YOU personally been to. for comparison to call that as "odd"?

MANY odd things occur....do you think the book was LIKE THAT AT IMPACT? Or, more likely, tossed about, and just LANDED in that position, and the flames never reached it??


Logic, man......

Also, ever hear of the Northwest Airlines crash in Detroit, Michigan? 1987. Full airplane, and not a "survivable" crash....yet, out of all that mayhem, ONE person lived....a little four-year-old girl. Minor injuries, scrapes cuts bruises.


Internal arrangement of Boeing 757 airframe, cutaway illustration:



A LOT of empty space. Two wing spars provide most structural strength laterally....and forward spar only needs to extend out to each engine pylon mounting point. To provide connection to center, and to fuselage. Beyond the engines, wing structure is progressively lighter, but strong enough for its purpose. Can bend and flex a LOT, as you see when you fly. (IF you look). For balance, and maneuverability, MOST mass tends to center.

Wings, also, filled with the fuel. Weighs 6.7 Pounds/gallon (810 grams/Litre). Find a gallon jug of water, see how heavy that is (about 7 to 7.5 pounds, or so). Throw it at something...say a window (or, just imagine what damage it would do, instead). Drop it with some force on concrete. See what happens to the container. Now, multiply that by several thousand.

Cutaway illustration of the Rolls Royce RB-211-535 engine, as mounted. Tens of thousands of individual parts, not ALL "steel and titanium". Might want to research "titanium" properties, too...and why it's used when it is:



Lots of empty spaces, again. The nacelle (cowling) is aluminum and composites....lightweight, fragile.

Another, just the engine alone:





Finally....wing flex? Found this, of Boeing 747s. A bit more exaggerated, but shows what I mean:





Found a 757 too (Continental has SAME engines/pylons, the RB-211s, as American):







edit on 18 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 



Show me another case of a plane completely atomizing besides on 9/11.And not a test video from a defense contractor,who needs the 9/11 OS to be true.


If all the planes on 9/11 atomized then how do you explain all the plane wreckage? Photos of plane wreckage of all the planes involved on 9/11 are on record. So what atomized besides the fuel?


So now the plane didn't atomize?Even though thats what you debunkers are claiming?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Dude,are you really trying to paint the picture that planes & all their massive parts are too fragile to withstand a crash without being atomized?Even though we can easily observe that that isn't the case by looking at every other plane crash?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Here is what happens when an 40,000 lb aircraft hits a concrete wall at 400+ knots.



F4 Phantom crash test

A 100,000 lb 757 would give a similar result only quite a bit more energetic.

There is nothing left that remotely resembles an aircraft so the poster with the theory that part of the tail assembly always survives needs to scratch that one of the list of what he/she "thinks" should happen.

Weedwacker is correct in everything he has posted regarding the aircraft, some of the "facts" a few of you have bought into would be laughable if it wasn't such a waste of grey matter.

A quick reminder that its hard to fib about qualifications in aeronautics, the only people your going to impress are others who are equally as unknowledgeable. It shows in your first couple of sentences whether you have any formal education in the field beyond the wings at war discovery marathon.

I get the impression a few of the more creative posters are younger folks who need to be reminded that stick time on the PS3 doesn't count towards your rating in the real world and in no way puts you on an equal footing with a commercial pilot.

The irony is some of you trying to argue nonsense seem capable of learning enough to see the flaws with most of the bad science you've bought into. At the same time there are a handful of people that post here who have enough education and experience in various engineering disciplines more than willing to help anyone interested to learn for themselves.

Unfortunately a couple of you wont listen and will continue propagating paranoid lies and belligerently arguing nonsensical junk science while honestly believing your doing something remotely good for society.

I'll post a bit more later if anyone is interested in why any two aircraft at the same bank angle and g-load turn at an identical rate (even if ones a B757 and the other is a F-18) and other things that a few are trying to argue with Weedwacker as being correct.



It is observations, or lack thereof, such as displayed by the above-quoted post that are so disappointing, aggravating, and that should cause everyone's disinfo detectors to start buzzing. If you're going to use that video as proof of what happens when an aircraft impacts a very thick reinforced concrete wall, then pay attention to the whole video.

Watch the video several times and notice that the wings of the aircraft slice right through the concrete wall. The wings don't fold in or stop dead when they impact the wall. The wings slice right through it as though the concrete wall poses no more resistance than a slab of butter.

Why didn't the alleged Pentagon jetliner's wings do that?

Nice attempt at misdirection. You do the same thing as David Copperfield, i.e. convince your audience that they see what you tell them they are seeing rather than what their eyes are actually processiing.

If you're going to use this video as proof of what the OS says happened at the Pentagon, then you'll have to take it as a whole and not just the portion that supports your discreditted theory. The area where the alleged jetliner wings would have impacted the Pentagom walls showed no more damage than some broken windows. There was no slicing of the wings into and right through the concrete walls as this video shows the wings should have done if the OS was true.

Ergo, no jetliner wings impacted the Pentagon walls.

Ergo, no jetliner impacted the Pentagon.

It doesn't get much simpler than that. You can always trust physics and Newtonian Mechanics over any eye-witnesses' recounting of what they think they saw.
edit on 1/19/2011 by dubiousone because: Grammar corrections.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 




It doesn't get much simpler than that. You can always trust physics and Newtonian Mechanics over any eye-witnesses' recounting of what they think they saw.


Well - it's a pity you seem to have no concept of basic mechanical principles!

The wings of a small jet are a quite different proposition that those of an airliner - as are the targets they are striking.




edit on 19-1-2011 by JohhnyBGood because: quote box



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by dubiousone
 




It doesn't get much simpler than that. You can always trust physics and Newtonian Mechanics over any eye-witnesses' recounting of what they think they saw.


Well - it's a pity you seem to have no concept of basic mechanical principles!

The wings of a small jet are a quite different proposition that those of an airliner - as are the targets they are striking.


edit on 19-1-2011 by JohhnyBGood because: quote box


Good point!

I agree. They are different. The wings of a smaller aircraft are smaller in all dimensions, less massive, have less momentum, and less inertia at any velocity than those of much larger jetliner. Care to add to this list of differences?

I suppose, based on your bald unsupported assertion, we shall agree that the wings of a large jetliner and the massive jet engines, one mounted on each wing, will do less damage than the wings of a small jet airplane. The larger aircraft's wings will do no more damage than break some glass and then vaporize as though thye never existed, whereas the wings of a small jet airplane will slice through concrete as easily as through butter. Yes, I see your point.

I stand corrected and apologize for offending you with my ignorance.

edit on 1/19/2011 by dubiousone because: clarificatiopn



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Here is what happens when an 40,000 lb aircraft hits a concrete wall at 400+ knots.



F4 Phantom crash test





Watch the video several times and notice that the wings of the aircraft slice right through the concrete wall. The wings don't fold in or stop dead when they impact the wall. The wings slice right through it as though the concrete wall poses no more resistance than a slab of butter.




You might want to look into some of the after math and alternate angle videos of that test. The wings of the F4 didn't slice through the slab(although it does appear that way) but were instead instantly sheared off and kept moving forward. The concrete slab was not as wide as the wingspan, and the wingtips on both sides keep moving forward along the sides of the slab.The wings did not slice through the concrete slab, just a heads up, check it out for yourself.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Your "thinking" is quite incorrect. It WAS a Boeing 757, and it WAS the same one that was being operated as American Airlines flight 77"-Weedwacker

It WAS WAS it?How could YOU possibly know this?Because your trusty government told you?

I never met someone so full of it.Were you there?

Even after all the lies the government tells us you believe anything they say lol..good luck with that.

I ask him what agenda,he says "listen to me".

Sure,why not listen?Listen to everything and then judge for yourself..what's wrong with that?If the government didn't do it then you have nothing to worry about.So why waste your time arguing with a bunch of "crazy conspiracy theorists"?

Sounds to me like you are just here to make sure everyone believes what the government is saying.Like what you say is fact or something.I don't claim to know what happen.But i do know they are lying and trying to cover things up.That.s the conclusion I came to while researching.I listen to every one's argument then judge for myself.You on the other hand say things as tough they are fact when you have NO idea because you weren't there.

You are the one with the agenda!The agenda of trying to make people believe the bs the government puts forth.

That's why people think you're a shill because you act like you know everything.Then people star your posts as though you are right when in fact nobody but the people involved knows what happened.

Get a life!



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


I star his posts because they are well thought out and supported with evidence and knowledge.. You guys spout off that the size of the hole doesnt match yada yada yada.. So how do you know that it WASNT a 757 that hit the pentagon?? I hear about this missle theory which holds no water. Where was it launced from? It would have created a sonic boom. As I said in one of my first post, at the end of the day all those people that woke up and got on Flight 77 are now dead.. Where are they guys?? Kidnapped and shipped of to some mysterious land??

I TOTALLY believe that our government hasnt told us the full truth about 9-11. It wouldnt even surprise me if they were behind it.. But the facts remain, 4 airliners crashed on that day, and all those people aboard those planes were killed.. Im with you guys, the government is hiding things.. But its not about planes hitting the buildings.. Not everything is a conspiracy. Holograms?? Missles??? I mean really????



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
Your "thinking" is quite incorrect. It WAS a Boeing 757, and it WAS the same one that was being operated as American Airlines flight 77"-Weedwacker

It WAS WAS it?How could YOU possibly know this?Because your trusty government told you?


Bwtween the eyewitness accounts, the wreckage found at the site, the passenger remains, and the recovered black box, it is irrefutable that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was in fact flight 77. All the self declared truthers have to counter this is make believe, unsubstanciated accusations, and page after page of idiotic calculations trying to prove two plus two doesn't really equal four.


I never met someone so full of it.Were you there?


No, but these people were:

Pentagon eyewitness accounts

..and yet you prefer to listen to those con artists behind those damned fool web sites rather than the people who were actually there. Regardless of whatever issues you have with Weedwhacker, his point is still valid- there is such an overpowering amount of evidence showing it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon that to argue otherwise requires an agenda to insist something else occurred regardless of what the facts actually show. This isn't research, it's faith based logic.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 




How could YOU possibly know this?


The same way that 99.997% of the rest of the world knows. Evidence.



Because your trusty government told you?


No. THAT is the lie put out by your loopy "9/11 conspiracy" websites. There is no one "government story". There are, however, thousands and thousands of corroborating bits and pieces...that ALL ADD UP. Not every last little detail is known...can never be. This is true, and the same in EVERY event in Human history.



Were you there?


Close enough. Live not four miles away. Lived it, from the very start. Paid attention to ALL the details, as they were reported. Used my knowledge and experience as an airline pilot to judge every piece of information its proper merit. Not ALL pieces of info, especially in the initial early confusion stages, were accurate. As seen in a handful of "eyewitness" recollections. But, THAT is not unusual....one example?? The USAir flight 1549 in the Potomac incident. When you listen to plenty of 911 phone calls, from witnesses on the line...who are LOOKING at the Airbus A320, as its going down....and calling it a "small jet". Or, otherwise misidentifying it.



So why waste your time arguing with a bunch of "crazy conspiracy theorists"?


Because they are poisoning the well of knowledge, with their ignorance.



You on the other hand say things as tough they are fact when you have NO idea because you weren't there.


You are that blind to your own illogic?? Your rants about the "government" already indicate a rather twisted bias, fueled by ignorance that is spoon-fed to you. But, in that sentence just above....READ it again, and see if you can notice your flaw......here, I'll say it back to YOU:

"....you have NO idea because you weren't there."

Or, were you there???? Personally? EVER been to the Pentagon, at all...personally? To see the area, with your own eyes? If not, then your rants are pure nonsense.

I also know it was American 77...because of my acquaintance with one of the pilots....the First Officer, David Charlesbois. Went to his funeral. So did hundreds of others.



The agenda of trying to make people believe the bs the government puts forth.


There IS NO "GOVERNMENT" STORY! Try to get that through your head.



.... when in fact nobody but the people involved knows what happened.


Yes...the "people involved" DO know what happened. Unfortunately, many of them died, as victims. BUT, the rest...first responders, follow-on forensics, many many others who studied, examined, determined the FACTS....yes, THEY all know what happened.


I have found that, in the majority of instances, these so-called "9/11 truthers" consist primarily of kids who were prepubescent, or young teenagers on September, 2001. They were not experienced enough, with enough of life's perspective to draw upon, to fully comprehend the ramifications, then. Since? They have grown up under the influence of the shysters, the liars, the (sometimes) twisted and slightly insane ranters....(Dylan Avery is a prime example). AND, they are a very small sub-set of those who will fall for ANY "conspiracy", just as long as it's couched in the mantle of the "evil, big bad government".....that amorphous, ill-defined "something" that is used as a metaphor for the general inability of those sorts to grapple with their own failures...they HAVE to "blame" someone else, no matter.




edit on 19 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Remedylane"Because they are well thought out and supported with evidence". What are you, 12? It so obvious that you're a new member of 'the team'. Good luck with your endeavor, you'll need it. No matter how much lipstick you put on that pig...
 



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 



Yes.. Im 12.... Actually im 34.. So im 12 because I happen to see the logic in Weedwackers posts??? If anyone is acting 12 its you, for attacking me because I dont agree with you.. Oh, and look at Weeds last post.. Once again it drips with logic and fact.. What does me being new here have anything to do with anything?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 



Dude,are you really trying to paint the picture that planes & all their massive parts are too fragile to withstand a crash without being atomized?Even though we can easily observe that that isn't the case by looking at every other plane crash.


Do you even KNOW what "atomized" means??? Doesn't seem so......

Why not look it up. And, no......aluminum isn't "atomized" just from an impact...even the incredibly high velocity impacts of 9/11. It breaks. Shatters. Shreds. Fragments. Just like most solids will.

LIQUIDS can "atomize"...which is actually a bit of misnomer.

Oh, and "every other plane crash"??

I see....you are an expert then, are you? On EVERY other airplane crash, and their circumstances? Do you also know what happens when there is a fire, post-crash? AND, you understand fully the differences that velocity, angle of impact and type of surface impacted changes the size, distribution and ultimate fate of the various components, as they cycle through the impact scenario????

Since you're an expert, then you're well aware of at least two other high-speed airliner impacts, for comparison?

PSA 1771
SwissAir 111

PSA, into the ground. Swiss Air, into the ocean. I actually to have a few pics of the Swiss Air MD-11 (LARGER than the Boeing 757) as its itty-bitty parts were being "re-assembled" as part of the accident investigation to determine cause of crash:





The black framework is NOT part of the original airplane. It is there only as a means of holding all of the pieces in the proper locations, relative to each other.

I think a LOT of the so-called "9/11 truthers" here, and elsewhere, would do well to go out into the real world, and get some real world experience, before spouting off as if they "know" something...and showing utter ignorance at every turn.



edit on 19 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
No one in their right mind would choose to defend Wack's story. This is why I believe you are just another plant put here to lend credibility to an obviously sagging narrative. I have no axe to grind with you personally. What I do question is your credibility, because if you expect me to believe that based on what you've read here, you think that Wack and his cronies are viable exponents of truth, you're mistaken. You cannot possibly be who you say you are. Nobody is that stupid.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 



And I could say the same exact thing to you. Except I dont normally call people "stupid" for having a different opinion.. So now this entire thread is a conspiracy because im a "plant". Thats hilarious.. And while I do agree agree with Weedwhacker that a plane hit the Pentagon, I still walk in the middle of the debate, because I do feel there is some sort of cover-up by our government concerning what exactly happened on 9-11 and how much they did or didnt know.. But hey, you can think of me whatever you like.. My opinion is my opinion.. Maybe if you guys backed up what you are claiming with some decent evidence id come around to your way of thinking.. But instead its the same old "conspiracy" bullcrap with no fact whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 



And I could say the same exact thing to you. Except I dont normally call people "stupid" for having a different opinion.. So now this entire thread is a conspiracy because im a "plant". Thats hilarious.. And while I do agree agree with Weedwhacker that a plane hit the Pentagon, I still walk in the middle of the debate, because I do feel there is some sort of cover-up by our government concerning what exactly happened on 9-11 and how much they did or didnt know.. But hey, you can think of me whatever you like.. My opinion is my opinion.. Maybe if you guys backed up what you are claiming with some decent evidence id come around to your way of thinking.. But instead its the same old "conspiracy" bullcrap with no fact whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 



SImple where is the data for the plane from norad during these activities. Was it near pent?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 



Dude,are you really trying to paint the picture that planes & all their massive parts are too fragile to withstand a crash without being atomized?Even though we can easily observe that that isn't the case by looking at every other plane crash.


Do you even KNOW what "atomized" means??? Doesn't seem so.......


In the "F4 Phantom" video,what do they say happened to the plane? I believe they say it was ATOMIZED.And since that's what YOU DEBUNKERS are saying happened to this plane,thats what I'm gonna call it.Disintegrated,vaporized,atomized,whatever.Same general concept.Stop making strawmen.



new topics




 
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join