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: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
All TRULY scientific, and otherwise HONEST (what a concept) conclusions require DUPLICATION, repeatability, or at least an approximate simulation, or some kind of precedent. No such conclusion or precedent exists concerning the Pentagon (for example) on 9/11. The official 9/11 fairy tale is only for emotionally infantile (by definition) sheeple, the majority, who need to BELIEVE, no differently than the most twisted religious cult, that a huge, very heavy - especially in the f-ing ENGINES - Boeing 757 can just go POOF and vaporize upon impact, leaving no evidence, as though sprinkled with magical pixie dust. Might as well believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Awww, it's gonna be OK, little babies (to whom it applies). Big Brother government will be there to hold your poor wittle hands when you need to go potty... but hopefully not for much longer.




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by willzilla
 



I may be mistaken but aluminum melts around 2000 degrees F


You are wrong - pure aluminium melts at 660 C (1220 F)

The alloys used in aircraft manufacture melt at a lower temperature, around 475 C (920F) to 630 C (1170 F)
depending on composition of alloy



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
It's not scientifically impossible.

It's just that there is no solid proof that it was a plane.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by peacenpizza
reply to post by TedHodgson
 

In the pictures you can see people that were in chairs (they appear to be screaming). If the crash was powerful enough to completely destroy the the plane as it did, then how are the bodies left sitting there. Yet, no tail end of the plane? Regardless, the crash made a HOLE. A round hole. That's the key to the entire thing. It doesn't make sense. Did the plane just decide to fold in its wings and transform into a missile?


Most of the mass and structural strength is in the fuselage. A hole is just what you'd expect. The wing would be sheared off in a second in impact.

And if it wasn't a plane---why are there "bodies" left sitting there in aircraft seats?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
All TRULY scientific, and otherwise HONEST (what a concept) conclusions require DUPLICATION, repeatability, or at least an approximate simulation, or some kind of precedent. No such conclusion or precedent exists concerning the Pentagon (for example) on 9/11. The official 9/11 fairy tale is only for emotionally infantile (by definition) sheeple, the majority, who need to BELIEVE, no differently than the most twisted religious cult, that a huge, very heavy - especially in the f-ing ENGINES - Boeing 757 can just go POOF and vaporize upon impact, leaving no evidence, as though sprinkled with magical pixie dust.


What are you talking about? There's plenty of evidence. The plane didn't all vaporize, it shattered into many small pieces, some of which were found.

When the plane went into the field in Pennsylvania, were there any big pieces left? No. That's what happens when an aircraft hits ground at high speed.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


The did a study with pilots on the History channel and used a flight simulator and the experienced and non experienced pilot could not crash the plane at 500mph into the building. They always shot over and they say that the terrorist that was flying the plane had no experience at flying that specific aircraft. Must have been blind luck I guess!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 




500mph jet crashes into solid wall. Whats left?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


The did a study with pilots on the History channel and used a flight simulator and the experienced and non experienced pilot could not crash the plane at 500mph into the building. They always shot over and they say that the terrorist that was flying the plane had no experience at flying that specific aircraft. Must have been blind luck I guess!


Um - maybe you just keep the nose pointed at where you want to go, or just execute a 'landing' as you approach - sounds easy enough to me!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   


Most of the mass and structural strength is in the fuselage. A hole is just what you'd expect. The wing would be sheared off in a second in impact.
And if it wasn't a plane---why are there "bodies" left sitting there in aircraft seats?


The most dense concentration of mass is in the two jet engines which, magically, failed to punch holes through the walls.

If the wings just sheared off then the mangled wings should have been found on the lawn but they weren't there.
edit on 1/16/2011 by dubiousone because: clarify



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 




500mph jet crashes into solid wall. Whats left?


I have seen that video before.

The jet in that video is very different from a jetliner with two massive jet engines, one mounted on each wing some distance from the center of the fuselage. In that video, the massive jet engine or rocket engine, whatever it was, appears to be on center or almost on center with in the fuselage.

Notice in that video that the wings cut right through the concrete, whereas at the Pentagon the wings did not penetrate.

Funny that they don't show what it looks like after the dust settled. Is there a video or photos of what it looks like after the dust settles? That would be most telling for purposes of comparison.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by civilchallenger
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 




500mph jet crashes into solid wall. Whats left?


I have seen that video before.

The jet in that video is very different from a jetliner with two massive jet engines, one mounted on each wing some distance from the center of the fuselage. In that video, the massive jet engine or rocket engine, whatever it was, appears to be on center or almost on center with in the fuselage.

Notice in that video that the wings cut right through the concrete, whereas at the Pentagon the wings did not penetrate.

Funny that they don't show what it looks like after the dust settled. Is there a video or photos of what it looks like after the dust settles? That would be most telling for purposes of comparison.


What are you talking about..? The wings don't cut through the concrete, they were destroyed on impact just like the Pentagon.The wings may be heavier, but they are bigger so it had a bigger area to absorb the impact, and they always could have hit the ground first..



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Hand down, this is the most stupid thread title i've seen yet. You have absolutely no idea as to what your talking about. Most planes do not crash at 300 MPH. Where do you get this data from, the cartoon network?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


False.


The most dense concentration of mass is in the two jet engines which, magically, failed to punch holes through the walls.


(The "dense concentration of mass" in the engines? Well....OK that is accurate. The rest?? Not so much....).


The engines DID enter the building (the Pentagon) ..... at least, some aspects of the basic engines did....they were destroyed in the process, of course. AND shattered, and many pieces flung about every which way.....



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 


The "HIstory Channel"?? So, they screwed it up (or you misremember?):


The did a study with pilots on the History channel and used a flight simulator and the experienced and non experienced pilot could not crash the plane at 500mph into the building...



Funny.....THESE people did it correctly (and effortlessly).....(After the part that destroys that appalling video "Loose Change"....starts at about 4:40):




edit on 16 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Remedylane

Originally posted by youngdrodeau
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


First of all,I mean no disrespect to you just because I disagree with you.Don't think I'm bein nasty.

With that said,WTF are you talking about?This isn't a matter of an opinion or belief.This is fact & science.Its a fact that the floors that would've been in the path of the tail section were unscathed.The tail section didnt cut through them.The only way this could happen is if the tail had snapped off.It clearly didn't,as there was no tail section there.Therefore,no plane hit it.

Its simple logic.If you throw a wooden baseball bat at a wall,the bat is gonna A)Punch through the wall B) Bounce back off of it C)Get stuck in it.D)All of the above. But it's not gonna explode into dust & disappear.Thats a fact.


Im not saying you are wrong.. I have a hard time believing a plane hit the pentagon as well.. But a baseball bat into a wall is a bad analogy.. A baseball bat isnt filled with thousands of gallons of jetfuel.
edit on 14-1-2011 by Remedylane because: (no reason given)



But the fuel is NOT in the tail fin.and there was very little evidence of fire after the initial hit, so where is the tail?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
From the impact, from the heat, who knows what would be left. It has been nearly 10 years since this happened and all you 9/11 conspiracy theorists still go round in circles with all your circumstantial evidence.

The simple fact is a bunch of extremists hijacked a few planes, flew them into several buildings and killed a lot of people.

There is no conspiracy, you are just kidding yourselves, it was a well thought out and well executed plan.

Granted it was sick, a lot of innocent people lost their lives, and the people responsible need removed, but the simple fact is people, 9/11 wasn't your government, it was a bunch of pissed off extremists who are being // will be dealt with.

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your whole ideas on 9/11, I've being following this idiotic sentement since it happened, and it was as it said on the tin, there is no conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Sailor Sam
 


What is so difficult to understand?


....so where is the tail?


It was attached to the rest fo the airframe.....and, connected as it was, ENTERED the building along with the rest of the airframe.....getting destroyed in the process.....



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   
I find it hard to believe that nobody had video footage of the planes hitting the building - im always looking up at the sky and I think everyone would notice a plane heading towards a building, with today's mobile phones etc, someone would've recorded that right? ...we see loads of near miss footage, I've seen things caught on camera that makes you think - why were they recording that anyway? My point is someone must've been recording at that time, tourists etc?

So yeah, this 9/11 is really odd.

It just amazes me how blind people can be..
I'm convinced the top dogs of this world know the truth..I'm talking back to 'human creation' as we know it aswel.

This 9/11 however was the perfect excuse to start war...
And the majority of the public just accept and go along with it



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by DiamondEyes
 


errrrmmmmm....did you just type this, without thinking it through???


....with today's mobile phones etc, someone would've recorded that right....



With TODAY'S mobile phones???



Sorry, but the obvious needs to be pointed out, sometimes.....



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Do we have any idea of the weapons used by the hijackers? Nevertheless, 50 or so people wouldn't have just sat there as their plane descended and eventually crashed. And from what I know, the plane went perfectly into the building; without any signs of a struggle in the cockpit. And of course, that leaves the question we all want answered, why were 'terrorists' able to fly a plane into arguably the most important building in the country without the most advanced military in the world responding? You'd think the pentagon would have some kind of defense against such an attack.




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join