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: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 


This was and has been the biggest block between me and the 9.11 OS.

You see, I was an iron worker for years before retiring. I understand how iron and steel and other metals behave in different environments. You don't have to be a certified metallurgist to understand the basics of this stuff.

But rather than go into all the small details, there is one instance that is easy to grasp and it comes from history.

On 28 July 1945, a B-25 bomber crashed headlong into the Empire State Building. The impact was not against glass but stone and steel. Portions of this aircraft not only exploded in a fireball, but traveled through the structure, down an elevator shaft and started fire on several other levels. One of the engines was embedded in the building itself.

Here's a few links. Check the record for yourself:
www.evesmag.com...
history1900s.about.com...

Now, those B-25 engines had cast iron blocks that survived the crash.

The jet engines that are on a Boeing 757/767 airliner are designed to withstand enormous heat and pressures. They do not simply vanish nor would they bounce off the side of any building.

The side of the Pentagon was notably absent any scaring from the wings or those two huge jet engines that had, among other things, cast iron, cast steel, tungsten and titanium in their construction. They would have by force alone penetrated the side of that building even if the wings did not.

You just cannot have two huge turbo jet propulsion systems disintegrate. Even an atomic blast could not vaporize these things into nothing. They might be fused into unrecognizable parts, but the material they were made of would survive in one shape or another.

This is all very basic stuff.

Anyway... that's my comment. Maybe there is a reason that we are being told what we are... maybe there is a GOOD reason. But in my opinion, the Pentagon is the undeniable smoking gun in this.

Best




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


You mean engines like these - recovered from inside the Pentagon

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


No. Sorry. Those small pieces do not a jet engine make. They would have left entrance wounds in the side of the building in direct relation to their location on the plane. None were present.

None. The images of the immediate aftermath are public record.

In WW2, Japanese planes dove into US carriers. Those planes were approaching Mach 1 when they impacted. Engine blocks penetrated and left holes, like a bullet wound, before they lodged in the ship's superstructure.

When the shuttle Challenger exploded in a hydrogen and oxygen fireball, the pressure cabin and airlock, mostly titanium, survived to fall into the sea largely intact.

The shuttle Columbia, after burning up reentering the planet's atmosphere, left large sections of that pressure cabin and airlock in impact craters... that were visible to the naked eye... unlike another part of the 9.11 episode.

I understand that there must be a reason for the deception... maybe to save our nation. But the Pentagon was not struck by a large airliner on 9.11.


edit on 19-1-2011 by redoubt because: Typos



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 



You seem to be suffering from a serious overload of BS that has been fed to you, by (I presume) those ridiculously ignorant "truther" websites that infest the Webz....

.

Those small pieces do not a jet engine make. They would have left entrance wounds in the side of the building in direct relation to their location on the plane. None were present.


Really??

Maybe you missed this, I put it up just last page, so one more time: Image with a to-scale B-757 over-laid, and aligned:



See there, how the engines line up directly to the areas where the decimated the structure?? Keep in mind, the building photo is from some days afterwards, well after the upper floors collapsed of course....and, even some of the wooden supports are installed, to shore up sections, as part of the demolition and reconstruction process.



When the shuttle Challenger exploded in a hydrogen and oxygen fireball, the pressure cabin and airlock, mostly titanium, survived to fall into the sea largely intact.


How does THAT compare to American 77??? Oh, and you may wish to do more research into the Challenger tragedy details. This is what bugs me, as an aviation professional....sloppy claims that aren't even close to accurate.



But the Pentagon was not struck by a large airliner on 9.11.


Based on what?? Do you mean to say that ALL of the mountains of evidence to the contrary is, what? Unsuitable for you?? Do you understand what the Flight Recorder is? And, the significance of it being found, and readable, IN the Pentagon???

Truly, you have a LOT more research, and education, to undergo before you make such bold assertions...absent all of the facts.





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



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


This needs some addressing, as well:



I understand how iron and steel and other metals behave in different environments. You don't have to be a certified metallurgist to understand the basics of this stuff.


Huh? Different environments.....have much experience with those same parts travelling at about 500 MPH, and impacting a structure?

Your example of the B-25? You just don't understand the difference? Try to research the airspeed of that B-25, on impact. That is a good start, to understanding.


Portions of this aircraft not only exploded in a fireball, but traveled through the structure, down an elevator shaft and started fire on several other levels.


Yes, well.....you just described a bit of what happened at both the Pentagon and the WTC, also. Still, velocities were an important difference....AND, the ESB did/does have windows, ya know.....not ALL of the airplane structure had to penetrate through the concrete.


One of the engines was embedded in the building itself.


Yeah....and, do you understand the difference in the design and construction of the engines??



Now, those B-25 engines had cast iron blocks that survived the crash.


Aluminum, really.


The jet engines that are on a Boeing 757/767 airliner are designed to withstand enormous heat and pressures. They do not simply vanish nor would they bounce off the side of any building.


Heat and pressure INTERNALLY. And, they DID NOT "vanish". Did they? Broke apart, shattered, fragmented, utterly destroyed. There are many photos of the engine components that were mangled, messed up, and are part of the history of the debris found.


The side of the Pentagon was notably absent any scaring from the wings or those two huge jet engines ...


Incorrect. Photo above. There are many links, too, that show the CLOSE-UP pictures, of the wing impact marks. Why not search online for them, I have seen them, not hard to find. Basing your opinion on photos taken from far away (or worse, just from "truther" websites) isn't your best option.



...that had, among other things, cast iron, cast steel, tungsten and titanium in their construction.


You want to really assert there is "cast iron" in a modern jet turbine engine?? Not sure about tungsten, either....not in any large components, in any case. Do you know HOW the fan blades and hubs are designed, and put together? Not all of them are solid, one-piece units....many of the blades are manufactured separately, and then attached to the hubs. Oh, and do you have a sense of the actual diameters of many of the fans? Smaller than your realize, I'd imagine.....

....you may be familiar with "cut-away" illustrations? As before, these ore in this thread, pages back....but, personally for you, in case you missed them first time---here, the exact type of engine on American 77:



And, as insttalled and mounted on the pylon, with the nacelle (cowling) as well:




Might help, as well, if you can see "inside" the structure of the airplane. Would be even better if you could see one in person, under construction, but this will have to do for now:





They would have by force alone penetrated the side of that building even if the wings did not.


Yes, again...image above. BTW, the majority of the mass is centered, on the airplane....from engine-to-engine.


You just cannot have two huge turbo jet propulsion systems disintegrate.


Yes, you can. When you realize that, separately, they consist of thousands if individual parts.


Even an atomic blast could not vaporize these things into nothing.


Well, so what? NOTHING at the Pentagon was "vaporized"....unless subjected to the fires, and was burned up BY the fire....that's sorta vaporization, I suppose.....


They might be fused into unrecognizable parts, but the material they were made of would survive in one shape or another.


AND, plenty of photos documenting that...


This is all very basic stuff.


Yes, yes it is....


edit on 20 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Why do people always put up the pic/video of the pentagon after the collapse?

Where's the real pic that shows the real hole?You know..the one where the building is still intact and there is only a little hole?Remember that?

They did that live too.The put up the video of the collapse instead of the video which shows before the collapse.Didn't want people seeing the real size hole I bet!

In the original video of the hole the pentagon didn't collapse right away..didn't even look like it was going to either.Anyway in the original video there is only a small hole about 16 ft..confirmed by Bob Pugh like it shows here.
www.youtube.com...

So how the hell would the engines get on the inside without leaving holes?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by thedman
 



I understand that there must be a reason for the deception... maybe to save our nation. But the Pentagon was not struck by a large airliner on 9.11.


edit on 19-1-2011 by redoubt because: Typos


You bring up a very good point.Was this false flag done for America's benefit?The answer is "No."This was done primarily to increase military spending & make alot of private defense contractors rich.And also to get control of Middle East oil.However,it may have been sold,rationalized & justified to participants as a necessary evil.I read on some official document I found on the web (That I can't find again) that in 1990,Bush Sr passed laws that decreased the wait time for selling military weapons.The waiting period went from 6-9 months to 1 week.The rationale behind this move was that people were buying their weapons in countries with less wait time.This posed a threat to national security.Enemy countries' militaries could become more powerful than ours.We had to save our military industry.Of course,in reality,this rationale is false,as we could always produce our weapons with our own socialized manufacturing instead of paying retail.But none the less,this might be a good answer to "Why would they do this?..Just for money?".



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
www.ratedesi.com...


VIDEO OF ACTUAL FOOTAGE ON THAT DAY WASHINGTON DC 9/11/2001



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by FeeBanks
 




AROUND 1:48 TO 2:14 you can see some type of aircraft in the vicinity of the crash , who knows this could be the culprit!!



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
This website has some great photos before the collapse. Take the time to read it, scroll down and look at the photos.. The more I read and research the more clear it becomes.. Again, im not saying that our government isnt hiding something, but its not the fact that a 757 hit the Pentagon imo..

www.oilempire.us...



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Remedylane
 
OK, just for kicks I clicked your link. Now I'm certain beyond any doubt that you are here to disinform. No one in their right mind can look at your photos and conclude an airplane crashed into the pentagon that day. Case closed. Get away from this group, or perish with them.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 



Please tell me how I am trying to disinform anyone??? Those that feel it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon provide links upon links of evidence and information. Those that claim it wasnt a plane provide the same old conspiracy videos that have been on youtube for years, with nothing new to add to them.. You discount any evidence, whether its missing passengers, airplane parts at the pentagon, black box recordings.. All you have have is your "hole size" argument.. And even when it is disproved and exposed all you do is accuse people of trying to disinform.. I have a very open mind.. If I see any NEW evidence that can convince me that flight 77 didnt hit the Pentagon I will gladly admit to it.. With that said, show me something..



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Remedylane
 
The easiest way for you to find out how you are disinforming that I can think of right off, would be to re-read everything you have said so far regarding the pentagon. Shouldn't be any tougher than that. I like to keep things simple.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
My arent you condescending. We have a matter of differences in opinion.. And thats ok.. Ive provided one link to photos in this entire thread.. Photos that show impact holes, airplane wreckage at the Pentagon, and evidence as to why I think a plane hit the Pentagon.. How is that trying to disinform anyone? People are free to make their own opinions and conclusions based on the evidence.

Ever heard the old adage that there are 3 sides to every story? Yours, mine, and the truth. I personally think the truth lies somewhere in the middle of each sides..



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


I am sorry that you are so easily fooled by some of those videos...many are made to intentionally deceive.


In the original video of the hole the pentagon didn't collapse right away..didn't even look like it was going to either.


???? Says who? Look again, as I will point out, at some specific points in the video that linked.



Anyway in the original video there is only a small hole about 16 ft..confirmed by Bob Pugh like it shows here.
www.youtube.com...



Again....THAT video? Well, let me start out first, that the (Ret) Gen. Stubblebine is, sorry to say, off his rocker. The man's service is admirable....but I can only say, mental incapacity comes in many shapes, sizes and degrees of impairment. Just consider former President Ronald Reagan...(And, George W. Bush! LOL!).


RE: the video....@0:21.....I have posted a similar image, with the airplane super-imposed and scaled to size....it obviously fits just right, considering the angle...AND when you realize the greatest mass of the airplane is concentrated from engine-to-engine. Outboard of the engines, the wing structure is relatively less strong, it is JUST ENOUGH to to the job. It does (did) contain the fuel, and the fuel has mass....but, being liquid, it contributed to the destruction and shattering of the wing structure. (Take a gallon of water....and throw it from a height onto concrete. Remember when David Letterman used to drop things off the six-story building???).

Once the liquid fuel erupted, as the wing structure failed, it "misted" and quickly contributed to the fireball....and some DID also continue forward (due to momentum, and Newton's Laws) and caused building damage. Liquids can do a LOT of damage, you know...look at floods.

At 0:29, an obvious misdirection and deceit...that white circle they drew, on the builidng facade....it is FALSE!
That is followed by a montage, all close-ups, to further fake the viewer.

Then, @0:57, it actually contradicts its claims, with PROOF! The blue-shadowed outline...shows the basic entry destruction shape, pre-collapse. You can see the horizontal extent, on the first floor level.

Again, at 1:02 as well.



To show you what I mean about how the fuel erupts, on impact.....(because people tend to not believe any footage of the 9/11 airplane impacts for some reason) here is another, undeniable one. Slower speed, of course, but the effect is similar.

From 1994, and many re-copies, so the picture is poor quality....and, keep in mind, the pilots' families were in the Air Show audience:



That pilot had been under investigation, for "hot dogging" it at previous Shows.....and he was being evaluated there! Tragic....








edit on 20 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Remedylane
 


"All you have have is your "hole size" argument"-Remedy Lane

What about all this?

13 witnesses place the plane on a different path than the light poles!
Let me know if you find any witnesses that place the plane at the light poles...that are on video..and not just a piece of paper!

www.youtube.com...

Lloyd England the cab driver who's cab supposedly got hit by a light pole says it was planned and that he was "in it" and that "we" meaning him and the planners "came up on the bridge together!You can't get more blunt than that!

www.youtube.com...

Lack of plane,bodies,luggage,hole size,Llyod's wife an FBI agent,Lloyd's neighbor just happen to be there taking pictures..just coincidence?

As for the plane hitting the pentagon.
There's no way the soft aluminum fuselage that a bird could take out went through all that concrete...like it shows here!

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

So had they murdered the pilot with a box knife as there would be blood all over the seat, the controls, the center pedestal, the instrument panel and floor of the cockpit. The hijacker would have had to remove the dead pilot from his seat which means he would have had electrically or manually place the seat in its rearmost position and then lifted the murdered pilot from his seat, further distributing blood, making the controls including the throttles wet, sticky and difficult to hold onto..

It takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the "EFIS" (Electronic Flight Instrument Display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent. The Boeing 757 does not fly itself nor does it automatically correct any misuse of the controls.

As soon as the speed of the aircraft went above 360 knots (=414 mph) indicated airspeed a "clacker" would have sounded in the cockpit.

The 'clacker' is a loud clacking sound, designed to be irritating, to instantly get the attention of the pilot that he is exceeding the FAA-authorized speed of the aircraft. The clacker had no circuit breaker on September 11, 2001 although it does now simply because one or more accidents were caused, in part, by the inability to silence the clacker which made decision, tempered with reasoning, impossible because of the noise and distraction.

With the clacker clacking plus the tremendous air noise against the windshield and the bucking bronco-like airplane, exceeding the Boeing 757 maximum stability limits and encountering early morning turbulence caused by rising irregular currents of air

There's no way Hani Hanjour was able to make the turning decent at high speeds to come down within inches off the ground(like it shows in the footage) without crashing beforehand and with no help from air traffic control!It's not like he could just look down and see the ground.

Roosevelt Roberts says he heard the explosion,ran out and saw the plane flying away!
www.youtube.com...

So how long from the time of the explosion to the time you saw the plane"?

"From the time explosion hit..till I ran out side and saw..it's a loading dock and you can run right out to the edge to look out and look off,and um..you see the flickering lights and uh saw the area and then real quick I realized it was some sort of ATTACK and there was gonna be a counter-measure with it."  Key word ATTACK!.Straight from Roosevelt's mouth!

What about Lloyd England?What did Lloyd mean when he said "it was planned".."i'm in it"...WE CAME ACROSS THE HIGHWAY TOGETHER"-Lloyd England "You and their event"?Craig renke "That's right"-Lloyd England Why was their no mention of terrorists or Arabs when they were talking about the people who "planned" it?
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


"I am sorry that you are so easily fooled by some of those videos...many are made to intentionally deceive".-Weedwacker

I was going to say that!

This is why I like debating with Weedwacker,he's not insulting and does have good points..but so do I.

For one there's no way Hani Hanjour pulled those maneuvers off under those conditions without never having flown a 757 before!Ask any real 757 pilot.That alone should raise suspicions.

Here's a couple pilots for you,and they flew the actual planes used on 9/11.
www.youtube.com...

Come on Weedwacker,you have to agree that people have a right to be skeptical.Look at all the BS that occurred that day.There's just as much evidence that suggests flight 77 did NOT hit the pentagon..why is that?

Why do you think so many people believe the government is lying about flight 77?Do you think they believe it with no proof?Really?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by gr82m8okdok
 


Oh, boy......

Hamlet:
"What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
"

(That is said in dripping sarsam, BTW...as the great bard wrote it....)....

....for, verily, it is YOU who writeth:


.... you show these detailed pictures of itty bitty pieces of aircraft, being re-assembled for the Swiss air MD-11. Good right? Answer all us Truthers this: Why weren't all the itty bitty bits of jet liners from all 4 9/11 jet evaporation sites, collected and kept for the same kind of re-assembly? Teacher, teach me. Help me, help you. You jump, I jump...



Stop, think, research and LEARN!!!

WHY does the NTSB (in the USA) or any other investigating agency "investigate" an a transportation accident???

Do I have to spoon feed that answer to you? Or, will you try to improve your knowledge, and your lot in life, and learn by looking it up for yourself??



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


,,,"Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive". Don't you just Love Sir Walter Scott? This is why I'm here; like all of us, trying to find out the whole truth. Follow the money trail and who will most benefit? War is big bucks. The day before the Staged attacks on America, Donald, "We shot down Flight 93", Rumsfield talked about 2.3 trillion in funds that couldn't be accounted for. And the mysterious collapse of WTC7, that leaves Sander of NIST scratching his head: and FEMA, to lamely conclude, UNKNOWN, home of the Secret Service, the SEC, the CEM, the DoD, the CIA, and the ever present memory files of, (Vanna, does the reveal), the ENRON scandal . Another tasty tidbit for spoon feeding. Curt Weldon, a member of, "The Able Danger Team" ( you know some of info gathered, was used make the spreadsheet with all the hijackers on it), spoke of the direct orders to destroy all of the 2.5 Terabytes of data collected from that team 2 years before 9/11. MIHOP. By the way, I do adore sparing with you, Weedy

edit on 1/20/2011 by gr82m8okdok because: repeat of word.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


For every question asked another question is raised. If that makes sense. You ask where are the bodies, where is the luggage etc.... So lets say a plane didnt hit the Pentagon.. So I ask what did??? You say that a 757 couldnt do that much damage, yet in an earlier thread when I asked what hit the Pentagon you said perhaps a smaller plane.. Well.. So a smaller plane could do that much damage? But a 270,000 lb plane with 11,000 gallons of jet fuel couldnt?? So which is it???

You ask where are the bodies?? Well then what happened to the people?? WeedWhacker himself went to the funeral for the co pilot.. So if they didnt die in that crash then where did they go??



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thank you for chopping up what I said as to make it indistinguishable from a tossed salad. I am familiar with type of reply... mostly used by those who like to dice up political rhetoric to attack it at the molecular level. It saves you from have to address the message as a whole... which is always wise if you don't want to or just can't do that sort of thing.

*No, the engine block of a Boeing B-25 Mitchell bomber was cast iron. Not aluminum. Cast iron. Iron.

*Those jet engines would have gone through the Pentagon like those iron engine blocks did the Empire State Building.

There, I fixed you a plate. Go ahead and take your non-analytical chopper to those statements.




top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join