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 Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11 (Version 2)

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
ATTENTION EVERYONE.

Please don't stray from the subject of this thread.Please don't make strawman arguments,ask questions or make comments that don't relate to the thread.This thread is about the tail section of Flight 77.This thread is not about the other pieces of debris we've seen photos of.Its not about witnesses,passengers,etc.And I don't care if you don't believe it wasn't an inside job.Save the "There was no conspiracy..You're crazy" comments.You can believe whatever you want,but make your point by debating MY CLAIMS and nothing else.

Questions & comments like this are totally unwanted:

"What about the passengers?"

"What about the witnesses?"

"How do you know?Were you there?"

"There was no conspiracy,nutcase."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----

Ok.So I've seen the little pieces of missile debris and/or plane pieces that were planted at the Pentagon.Not impressed.Every photo I've seen of debris,the debris was small and/or light enough to be pulled out of a gym bag or hidden inside the building.And mind you,these pictures could've been taken any time.They could easily be faked.But when you look at the actual footage from that day,you don't see anything.Not a #in piece of anything there.Even the reporters said they didnt see anything.Its just a hole.Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

You could easily plant the small,portable pieces of debris we've all been shown photos of,could you not?Of course you could.You could easily hide those small pieces in the building beforehand to be found later,could you not?Of course you could.That is all possible,right?Of course.

But what you could not do,is plant a tail section at the Pentagon.That would be impossible.There's no way you could plant a tail section in or in front of the building without it being noticed.And that is where they messed up at.

The tail section on a plane is 44 ft tall.Its practically a big 3-4 story house made of metal.And it always survives a crash.The hole in the Pentagon was described as 16-20 ft big at best.It obviously didn't go into that hole.So where did the it go?Are you gonna tell me it totally blew up?All 44ft of it?I know they say this plane was goin 500mph & it was a nasty crash,but complete vaporization?Not even 10% left (That would be a 4.4 ft piece.Bout a small child.)?Really think about that.Most planes crash goin 300mph.If the tail always survives a crash of 300mph in full,then even if 500mph was to do much more damage,it shouldnt do anymore than 50% more damage.That would still leave a 22 ft tall piece in the front of the building.Lets be generous & slash that in half.Thats still an 11 ft tall piece.Thats 4 ft taller than Shaq.We should see some remenance of it in front of the building.

Bottom line:It is impossible that a plane hit the Pentagon.The tail section on a plane is 44 ft tall.Thats about 2/3rds as tall as the Pentagon.About 5 stories.If a plane had hit the Pentagon,the tail section would have had to 1)Cut through every floor in its path. or 2)Snap off upon impact with the building.As we can clearly see from the photos & footage of the Pentagon,the tail section did not cut throught the floors above ground level that would've been in it the tail section's path.In fact,prior to the fire induced collapse,all floors above impact zone,are completely in tact.And clearly the tail section did not snap off upon impact,as we don't see ANY piece of this 44 ft tall piece of metal in front of the building.

So it didn't penetrate the building & it didn't snap off to be seen in the front lawn.So how do you explain its absence?What..did it snap off,but was vaporized by the preceding explosion & fire?Are we to believe that the explosion was powerful enough to instantly vaporize a 44ft tall piece of metal,but not powerful enough to instantly vaporize or demolish the entire?

In case you can't grasp the magnitude of how massive a 44ft tall tail section is,here are some pictures (Note:Note all of these tail sections are from Boeing 747s or 757s.Some of them are from other plane models.Some are from much smaller planes.But they all go to serve the same point.THAT TAIL SECTIONS ARE HUGE) :














This one's my favorite.We can see that plane has pretty much exploded and/or burned to almost nothing (As is proposed to be the case with Flight77),yet the tail section is still fully intact.












edit on 15-1-2011 by youngdrodeau because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2011 by youngdrodeau because: Needed to add a few things

edit on 15-1-2011 by youngdrodeau because: Needed to add a few things




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 





As it crashed, the plane was rolled slightly to the left, with the right wing elevated.[37] When the plane impacted, the front part of the fuselage disintegrated, while the mid and tail sections moved for another fraction of a second, with tail section debris pieces ending furthest into the building.[36] In all, the plane took eight-tenths of a second to fully penetrate 310 feet (94 m) into the three outermost rings[38] and unleashed a fireball that rose 200 feet (61 m) above the building.[36]

link

Does this answer your query ?

Wee Mad



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 





As it crashed, the plane was rolled slightly to the left, with the right wing elevated.[37] When the plane impacted, the front part of the fuselage disintegrated, while the mid and tail sections moved for another fraction of a second, with tail section debris pieces ending furthest into the building.[36] In all, the plane took eight-tenths of a second to fully penetrate 310 feet (94 m) into the three outermost rings[38] and unleashed a fireball that rose 200 feet (61 m) above the building.[36]

link

Does this answer your query ?

Wee Mad
yeah right! so ur saying the whole plane isintegrated? where are the egines??



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by weemadmental
 


tail section debris pieces ending furthest into the building"

You're tellin me that this tail section did in fact go in the building?So the fact that we can clearly see in the pictures of the Pentagon before the collapse,that the floors that tail section would have had to plow through are completely unscathed means nothing?What was this..a ghost plane?






Where is the damage from the tail section where it plowed through the middle of the building?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
S/F to OP but don't hold your breath waiting for a scientifically sound response. The tail section is a great question as is the question regarding what happened to the engines? The engines vanished just like everything else seemed to do such as the videos of the crash.

That was one hell of a small debris field considering the size of the aircraft we are led to believe made the hole.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Tail sections survive when they A. Break off in flight. B. Break off on impact with the ground C. The plane crashes close enough to an airport where the fire department can be on scene in a timely manner.

Tail sections do not cleanly slice through brick walls.

Tail sections do not survive impacts with solid objects at high speed. They become pieces of alumium and carbon fiber (yes, im leaving a few materials out) confetti. And yes, depending on hydraulic lines, electrical cables and interior stringers, parts of whats left of the tail may be dragged along by the fuselage.


Aircraft Accident investigation 101 is concluded. Don't forget to read Chapters 1-10 in "Aircraft Accidents for the Layman" for next Saturday's class.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


Yeh.Its ridiculous.And then look at Shanksville.Nothing.I mean c'mon people.This an AIRPLANE we're talkin about.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by youngdrodeau

Questions & comments like this are totally unwanted:

"What about the passengers?"

"What about the witnesses?"

"How do you know?Were you there?"

"There was no conspiracy,nutcase."



So, in essence you are saying you don't want anyone disagreeing with you? Sorry, but you don't get to control what other posters ask. I know that must be a hard concept to grasp, but this is not a one-way street.

Not sure why you need to spam another thread about this instead of sticking to the one you created previously.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
There is no need to start another thread on this topic when one has already been started.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Continue this discussion there.

Thread closed.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join