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.

 

Reno Air Show Crash Proves Shanksville and Pentagon

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Post after post on here comment on the lack of air craft debris at both Shanksville and the Pentagon.

Here

But when you look at the photos of the aftermath in Reno you see the same pattern of obliteration of the airplane. One might even make the claim that the remains would fit the back of an oversized pickup truck.

And Here
Where’s the tail section? Truthers make the claim that the tail always survive a crash. But do you see and hint of a tail? No it shreds too.

Here too

This shows that when an airplane hits a hard object at high speed the plane shreds into very small pieces.

edit on 23-9-2011 by samkent because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
WOW...I see nothing



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
You also have to take into account the type of plane that crashed was a P-51 Mustang fighter plane from the 30's-40's. But either way you can see that it was shredded.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I do see where your coming from, but you also have to appreciate the differences between the planes in question. The plane crash at the air show was a ww2 fighter, and in terms of pure mass and construction materials, it is nothing compared to an modern airliner.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
But it does show that aluminum planes shred upon a high speed impact.

Including the tail.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


This is lame dude, go to an aircraft crash catalogue and compile dozens of airplane crashes that have left tiny pieces of debris. One example won't do it for some people.

Here ya go, I've seen quite a few crash sites on that database where the debris is barely even visible.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Reno Air Show crash is in no way is a comparison to 9/11 debris, or lack there of.

The Reno Air show crash was a restored P-51 and the 9/11 crash was a Boeing 757.

Shanksville or the Pentagon would have required a minimum of ten P-51’s to crash in the very same spot, and this does not even mention the alloys used in the engine construction.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
P51 is 9200 lbs.

As truthers would say:
"Do you see 2.5 tons of debris?"
"It must have been a missile because of so little debris."



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Personally, I find it disappointing that someone genuinely needs to point out to plane crashes like this to "convince" these conspiracy people that, yes, a plane really did hit the Pentagon. The thing hit during rush hour and there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, so the claim that secret conspirators would shoot a cruise missile and plant hundreds of phony eyewitnesses to falsely testify it was a plane, and then plant so many bits of aircraft wreckage on the Pentagon lawn in broad daylight in front of all the rubber neckers gawking at what was going on without anyone noticing is beyond asinine.

What I don't understand is why the conspiracy people aren't simply claiming the plane that hit the Pentagon was remote controlled by expert CIA drone pilots. It would conform with all the empirical evidence (I.E. aircraft wreckage), fill in the blanks they think they're seeing (I.E. how the plane was expertly flown into the Pentagon) AND still satisfy their need to wallow in abject paranoia (IE. it's all a false flag operation in a sinister secret plot to take over the world).

If they wanted to insist they were really "expert Jewish World Order drone pilots" instead, fine, the point is still the same.
edit on 23-9-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Lol, this is better than the OSr threads trying to discredit the truthers. So you really want to compare a single seater crash to an airliner?

Retardness at its finest, gotta love it.
Aw not that tard again.
edit on 23-9-2011 by Saltarello because: To add.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Boeing 757 specs



757-200 757-200F 757-300
Flight deck crew Two
Seating, typical 200 (two-class)
234 (one-class) N/A 243 (two-class)
289 (one-class)
Length 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m) 178 ft 8 in (54.47 m)
Wingspan 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m)
Tail height 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
Wing area 1,951.0 sq ft (181.25 m2)
Wing sweepback 25°
Wing aspect ratio 7.8
Wheelbase 60.0 ft (18.29 m) 73.3 ft (22.35 m)
Cabin width 11.6 ft (3.54 m)
Cabin length 118.4 ft (36.09 m) 141.8 ft (43.21 m)
Empty Weight 127,520 lb
(57,840 kg) 142,400 lb
(64,590 kg)
Maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) 255,000 lb
(115,680 kg) 272,500 lb
(123,600 kg)
Take-off run at MTOW 9,550 ft (2,910 m) 9,600 ft (2,900 m)
Cruise speed Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 458 knots, 850 km/h at cruise altitude of 35,000 ft or 10.66 km)1
Range, loaded 3,900 nmi (7,222 km)
−200WL: 4,100 mni (7,600 km) 3,150 nmi (5,834 km) 3,395 nmi (6,287 km)
Maximum fuel 11,489 US gal (43,490 L) 11,276 US gal (42,680 L) 11,466 US gal (43,400 L)
Service ceiling 42,000 ft (12,800 m)
Engines (2×) Rolls-Royce RB211, Pratt & Whitney PW2037, PW2040, or PW2043 turbofan engines
rated at 36,600 lbf (163 kN) to 43,500 lbf (193 kN) thrust each



P-51 specs

P-51 Mustang Specifications
Model XP-51 P-51A P-51B/C-1 P-51B/C P-51D/K P-51H
Production Count 2 310 650 3738 9602 555
Combat Record 4950 Air Kills, 4131 Ground Kills, 230 V-1 Kills
P-51 Survivors Less than 300 P-51's exist today, about half are flying.
UNITS feet, pounds, miles per hour, minutes, US gallons
DIMENSIONS / WEIGHTS
Model XP-51 P-51A P-51B/C-1 P-51B/C P-51D/K P-51H
Length 32.25 32.25 32.25 32.25 32.25 33.33
Height 12.2 12.2 13.67 13.67 13.67 13.67
Wing Span 37.04 37.04 37.04 37.04 37.04 37.04
Wing Area 233.19 233.19 233.19 233.19 233.19 233.19
Empty Weight 6280 6433 6840 6985 7635 7040
Normal Takeoff 8400 8600 9200 9800 10100 9500
Max. Gross Weight 10600 11200 11800 12100 11500
POWERPLANT
Model XP-51 P-51A P-51B/C-1 P-51B/C P-51D/K P-51H
Manufacturer Allison Allison Rolls-Royce
Packard Rolls-Royce
Packard Rolls-Royce
Packard Rolls-Royce
Packard
Model # V-1710-39 V-1710-81 V-1650-3 V-1650-7 V-1650-7 V-1650-9
CID 1710 1710 1649 1649 1649 1649
Horsepower 1150 1200 1380 1490 1490 1380
War Emergency HP na na 1620 1720 1720 2270
PERFORMANCE
Model XP-51 P-51A P-51B/C-1 P-51B/C P-51D/K P-51H
Maximum Speed 382 @ 13k 390 @ 20k 430 @ 25k 439 @ 25k 437 @ 25k 487 @ 25k
Cruise Speed 300 305 325 @ 10k 325 @ 10k 325 @ 10k
Climb to 20,000 Feet 9.1 7 6.9 7.3 6.8
Service Ceiling 30,800 31,350 41,500 41,900 41,900 41,600
Fuel Capacity 170 180 180 269 269 255
... with drop tanks na 330 330 419 489 475
Combat Range (no d.t.) 750 750 755 1180 1155 755
... speed/altitude 300 @ 10k 290 @ 20k 294 @ 20k 294 @20k 359 @ 10k
Range w/ drop tanks 1375 1450 1900 2055 1530
... speed/altitude 280 @ 290 @ 20k 294 @ 20k 280 @20k 243 @10k
ARMAMENT
Model XP-51 P-51A P-51B/C-1 P-51B/C P-51D/K P-51H
Machine Guns 4x .50 cal 4x .50 cal 4x .50 cal 6x .50 cal 6x .50 cal
... rounds available 1,260 1,260 1,260 1,880 1,880
Bombs - lbs. 2 x 500 2 x 1,000 2 x 1,000 2 x 1,000 2 x 1,000
... 5" Rockets 10 10



Compare for yourself



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Thank you for pointing out evidence that an object roughly the same size and weight of a missile will leave next to 0 debris upon impact.

We also need to realize that the P-51s used for racing are Not the same stock-standard planes built decades ago. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the body has been "lightened" for speed and efficiency.
edit on 23-9-2011 by TXRabbit because: 2nd line



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TXRabbit
Thank you for pointing out evidence that an object roughly the same size and weight of a missile will leave next to 0 debris upon impact.


Epic.
And the truthers are the tin-heads...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
The P51 was a racing aircraft. It is stripped of everything not needed to give it the highest power:weight ratio. It also flew nearly straight down ito the ground under power. You're trying to compare that to aircraft that had roughly 30 rows od seats, was 10x heavier, had a wingspan 2.5 times that of a P51... your logic is beyond flawed.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
are you seriously comparing this



to this






posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Personally, I find it disappointing that someone genuinely needs to point out to plane crashes like this to "convince" these conspiracy people that, yes, a plane really did hit the Pentagon. The thing hit during rush hour and there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, so the claim that secret conspirators would shoot a cruise missile and plant hundreds of phony eyewitnesses to falsely testify it was a plane, and then plant so many bits of aircraft wreckage on the Pentagon lawn in broad daylight in front of all the rubber neckers gawking at what was going on without anyone noticing is beyond asinine.

What I don't understand is why the conspiracy people aren't simply claiming the plane that hit the Pentagon was remote controlled by expert CIA drone pilots. It would conform with all the empirical evidence (I.E. aircraft wreckage), fill in the blanks they think they're seeing (I.E. how the plane was expertly flown into the Pentagon) AND still satisfy their need to wallow in abject paranoia (IE. it's all a false flag operation in a sinister secret plot to take over the world).

If they wanted to insist they were really "expert Jewish World Order drone pilots" instead, fine, the point is still the same.
edit on 23-9-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)




There is still no evidence ( in real time ) of a plane hitting the Pentagon . Do you seriously expect us to believe that "hundreds" of people witnessed the event and yet not one single frame of film as appeared over the last 10 years .

I pray for the souls of you misguided , flag waving morons .



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
So how could a plane do much damage to the core after hitting the STEEL of the exterior of the towers?

One step forward two steps back.


psik



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So how could a plane do much damage to the core after hitting the STEEL of the exterior of the towers?

One step forward two steps back.


psik


It must have been the molten aluminium reacting with the water in the steel of the towers.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saltarello

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So how could a plane do much damage to the core after hitting the STEEL of the exterior of the towers?

One step forward two steps back.


psik


It must have been the molten aluminium reacting with the water in the steel of the towers.


look i'm a 'truther'

but you don't have to crack down on a theory you didn't even read.

the theory behind it was pretty solid.

don't be ignorant or cool just to fetch some stars.


edit on 23-9-2011 by kn0wh0w because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 





Truthers make the claim that the tail always survive a crash.


Who made that claim? Is this just another false statement being attributed to truthers, or do you have a source to back up your claim "truthers" say this? i consider myself a "truther" and have never said anything of the sort.

The interesting part about shanksville is that the plane left debris a mile away from the crater, and witnesses said it exploded in the air before it crashed.

As for the pentagon, yup, plenty of deluded "truthers" are convinced via disinformation that no jet hit that building. Those of us being called "truthers" who actually have half a brain and have done the ground work know that claim is patently false, and the inability of the FBI to release any footage that clearly shows this incident has fueled the fire, in my opinion, by design.

Anyways, this is not a valid comparison in the least. And I'd prefer that instead of generalizing, you state from now on that "some truthers" yada yada, because it is in no way the whole, the entire movement hasn't even agreed on anything other than the official story is wrong. The REAL truthers aren't pointing fingers, they are examining the evidence and saying it doesn't fit, the investigation we wish to start will handle the blaming



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join