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.

 

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

page: 218
100
<< 215  216  217    219  220  221 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK I think the plane acted like liquid is BS, but that aside what happened when it ran out of inertia? Where did the plane go? And no, fire would not have completely destroyed the plane. There's lots of plane parts that would not melt into nothing by a jet fuel fire. Specifically engine parts, like the casings, the rotor shafts and rotor hubs. These parts are made from alloys designed to withstand the engine temps. Catherders thread has already been de-bunked. abovetopsecret.narod.ru... [edit on 25/7/2007 by ANOK]
Hi ANOK, The reason of my questions are, because I also do absolutely not believe the official story. Thanks for the link, it save me a lot of work.




posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK I think the plane acted like liquid is BS, but that aside what happened when it ran out of inertia?
The little pieces that were left of it were scattered all around inside the building with debris from the building itself.

Originally posted by ANOK Where did the plane go?
Uhm… Inside the building. I realize that you think it should be parked on the lawn outside the building in big chunks, but we can see what is left of a plane after hitting reinforced pilings in the DTW NW crash into the pilings of an underpass.

Originally posted by ANOK Specifically engine parts, like the casings, the rotor shafts and rotor hubs. These parts are made from alloys designed to withstand the engine temps.
And we see parts of the engines, and the rotor hubs in the debris. Don’t ask me to repost the pictures, of them they are linked in this thread hundreds of times already. Also these parts were not just subject to heat, but to heat, tearing, smashing, and twisting.

Originally posted by ANOK Catherders thread has already been de-bunked.
Yeah, Catherders post has some errors, but its far closer to reality then anything coming from any of the truthers out there. Of course I already know the futility of discussing this with you, as you have already made up your mind (based on your working on small military jets 30 years ago) and there is no amount of logic which will change it.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5 The little pieces that were left of it were scattered all around inside the building with debris from the building itself.
That doesn't answer my question. The point is if you look at the physics is the plane managed to go through a reinforced concrete wall in one solid piece, and then it had only office furniture and inside walls to deal with. So what cause it too disintegrate into nothing but little pieces, that in no way add up to a huge 757.

Uhm… Inside the building. I realize that you think it should be parked on the lawn outside the building in big chunks...
No, it would either go through what it hit and stay more or less in one piece, or not go though and end up in pieces on the lawn. Simple physics.

And we see parts of the engines, and the rotor hubs in the debris... Also these parts were not just subject to heat, but to heat, tearing, smashing, and twisting.
We have a pic of ONE rotor hub, there should 20+ more. Where are the rotor shafts? The engine casings? The counterweight? Even if they were 'torn, smashed and twisted' they should still be there. Engine parts are very strong for obvious reasons.

Yeah, Catherders post has some errors, but its far closer to reality then as you have already made up your mind (based on your working on small military jets 30 years ago) and there is no amount of logic which will change it.
What has working on small military aircraft got to do with it? And it wasn't 30 yrs ago it was 12 thanx. A jet engine is a jet engine with obviously different design characteristics, but they are made from the same materials. But anyway I worked 'I' level on C-130's, P-3's and H53 helos not small jets. You know what 'I' level is? Some errors? Logic? ROTF! Yes I've made my mind up, so you're trying to tell me you haven't? Well at least I made up my own mind...



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK That doesn't answer my question. The point is if you look at the physics is the plane managed to go through a reinforced concrete wall in one solid piece, and then it had only office furniture and inside walls to deal with.
Who said that it went through in one piece, I am sure it was quite smashed up as it entered the building already, and was starting to disintegrate.

Originally posted by ANOK So what cause it too disintegrate into nothing but little pieces, that in no way add up to a huge 757.
The other pilings inside the building.

Originally posted by ANOK No, it would either go through what it hit and stay more or less in one piece, or not go though and end up in pieces on the lawn. Simple physics.
maybe you should take a physics class sometime… It started to break up into pieces but those smaller pieces would continue to move forward until they either hit something that changed their trajectory, stopped them, or broke them into even smaller pieces, or until they lost their inertia. It never says in physics that the object must remain in one solid piece, and that is obviously not the way physics works, or something like a cheese grater would not function.

Originally posted by ANOK We have a pic of ONE rotor hub, there should 20+ more. Where are the rotor shafts? The engine casings? The counterweight? Even if they were 'torn, smashed and twisted' they should still be there. Engine parts are very strong for obvious reasons.
Maybe because the person taking the pictures did not feel the need to photograph 20 rotors. Maybe because most of them were under the debris of a building that collapsed on them. I can think of lots of reason you don’t have pictures of them all.

Originally posted by ANOK But anyway I worked 'I' level on C-130's, P-3's and H53 helos not small jets. You know what 'I' level is?
P-3 hawk
yeah just about as I suspected…
Sorry had to do it… Anyway, yeah two older props, and one slightly more modern helecoptor. Ever work on a 757 or 767? Nope? Didn’t think so or you would be on the same side of this argument as guys like me and Zaphod. Many composites in those aircraft? Did they even have composites in the 60’s-70's when those were built?

Originally posted by ANOK Yes I've made my mind up, so you're trying to tell me you haven't? Well at least I made up my own mind...
Yeah I made up my own mind from years of working on those types of aircraft. I see nothing about the Pentagon to tell me it was anything other then a 757, which broke up on impact and the debris ended up inside the wreckage of the building. As to whether there were those in this country who were either directly or indirectly involved, the court is still out IMHO. The thing I would like to hear a lot more about is the laced letters folks received after the event rather then all this other non-sense.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
yeah, i heard people say that they already explained away the lack of the two massive engines with titanium alloy casing but i dont think i buy that yet, i dont see enough reasonable evidence to support titanium parts being blown up so intensively by essentially KEROSENE, that they disentegrate so perfectly....among other things.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5 Anyway, yeah two older props, and one slightly more modern helecoptor. Ever work on a 757 or 767? Nope? Didn’t think so or you would be on the same side of this argument as guys like me and Zaphod. Many composites in those aircraft? Did they even have composites in the 60’s-70's when those were built?
Again it makes no difference, a jet engine is a jet engine. If I was a car mech and worked on BMW's would say I would be unable to work on a Ford? I wouldn't be on the same side no matter what plane it was supposed to be. My belief that it wasn't a 757 is not based solely on my work experience, some of it has to do with physics I learned in high school, but seeing as Americans are known to be ignorant when it comes to science I'm not surprised you don't get it...
Zaphod was a ramp rat, he didn't work on jet engines 757 or not... Did you? What's composites got to do with it. Composites are used in the control surfaces on a 757, but so what? That doesn't explain where the engines went.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
right on anok, where did those engines and all there bulky parts just disintegrate to guys? hmm? dont tell me you explained it away and its case closed, i dont think there would be that little left of two 6 ton titanium cased engines, and i heard the whole concept that one is probably inside the pent after the impact and one probably fell off before but where are they? if it did seperate before impact you should be able to find it easier than the one that would have been in the wreckage inside...



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK gain it makes no difference, a jet engine is a jet engine. If I was a car mech and worked on BMW's would say I would be unable to work on a Ford?
And herein lies your misunderstanding about the entire situation. So are you going to tell me that a steel Semi-truck is going to handle a 150mph crash the same as a newer Geo made with lightweight composite components would? So here you go: A 1960’s built 727 is a much more robust aircraft then a 757 is, why because it is made of denser metals. The engines on a 727, or even one of your fighter planes, is going to be stronger because they have a smaller diameter. The smaller the diameter of a circle is, the stronger that circle is, because there is less empty space contained within the arch of the circle, so it has more structure. The large, mostly empty engines of a 757 are not going to survive a crash looking the same as those of a small diameter 727 or fighter plane. While the same engine mechanic can work on both the Semi or the Geo, as the engines function on the same principals, that does not mean they are even remotely similar in their survivability. Hence the fact that the truth movement seems to be full of folks who are retired military or people exposed to older aviation, like you and john.

Originally posted by ANOK Zaphod was a ramp rat, he didn't work on jet engines 757 or not... Did you?
Zaphod was not a Ramp Rat, and he did work with mechanics. I was a Ramp supervisor, fueler, lead agent, and ramp rat. I worked with Maintenance quite often and was around those engines during repair all the time.

Originally posted by ANOK What's composites got to do with it. Composites are used in the control surfaces on a 757, but so what? That doesn't explain where the engines went.
yeah about the response I expected from someone that has only been around older planes. First off composites are not only used on control surfaces, they are used throughout the aircraft to make it lighter, including in the engine cowlings. Also composites will disintegrate much more readily in a crash, while they are strong and very flexible while in one piece, they do not stay together like metal does in a crash.

Originally posted by ANOK That doesn't explain where the engines went.
Very simple really, the larger, thus weaker, cowling and fan would have shredded itself into nonexistence. The core pieces went into the building and the wreckage fell on them, which is why we do see pieces of those core components in the pictures of the rubble. The core parts are very small compared to the size of the cowling and the fan at the front of the engine.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5 And herein lies your misunderstanding about the entire situation.
And herein lies your missing of the point entirely. In that context we were talking about the engines and what should have survived, not the aircrafts airframe.

Very simple really, the larger, thus weaker, cowling and fan would have shredded itself into nonexistence. The core pieces went into the building and the wreckage fell on them, which is why we do see pieces of those core components in the pictures of the rubble. The core parts are very small compared to the size of the cowling and the fan at the front of the engine.
Again you missing 20+ rotor heads, engine casings, rotor shafts, counter weight. We see none of these not even a little piece that I can see. What wreckage fell on them? We see hardly any wreckage that looks like a 757 other than the few easily plantable parts. No, the engine casings are not that small, neither are rotor shafts. What diff does it make how big the fan is? Sry but you're really stretching here. [edit on 26/7/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK And herein lies your missing of the point entirely. In that context we were talking about the engines and what should have survived, not the aircrafts airframe.
Listen, the engine casing can barely stay together in a Blade off test, you honestly think it was going to stay in one solid piece during a high speed blade off, plus hitting a building at 400-500 mph? Watch this:
First off you may want to note that the casing is not going through any stress beyond having one blade knocked off in this video. Still they had the test engineers in a bunker over 200 yards away from the test bed for safety reasons. It says in the video that just loosing this blade destroyed the entire engine, even though the casing held the shrapnel from the off’ed blades. Now imagine that same exact event happening while the casing is being subjected to outside stresses of hitting light poles, a generator truck, and then a building. If you really think that there would be jack left of that engine that would not fit in a wheel barrel, then you must have been riding the short bus to the base every morning. Oh, and as a side note, notice how the building, and the camera shakes when that engine fails. There are a couple of your secondary explosions heard at the world trade center, besides the steel cables inside the reinforced concrete pilings snapping.

Originally posted by ANOK Again you missing 20+ rotor heads, engine casings, rotor shafts, counter weight. We see none of these not even a little piece that I can see.
There are many pictures of the wreckage attached to this thread, hundreds if not thousands of them. Many of those parts are easily identifiable to me as pieces of a commercial aircraft. If you have worked around aircraft then you should know how heavy even those little parts are, and that there is no way that anyone threw them out there in the time they had before the cameras started taking pictures. Just the tire/rim assemblies themselves, minus the break assemblies take four or more men to move, and are frequently used to ballast aircraft as they weigh in excess of 500lbs each; with the breaks in them they weight another 500lbs or more. I still fail to understand how it possibly can escape your brain that you are not going to have large parts at the speed which this aircraft hit. This is not like the typical crash which occurs at lower speed where a pilot is trying to save his aircraft, these aircraft where intentionally driven into objects at the highest speeds that the pilots could push the aircraft too.

Originally posted by ANOK No, the engine casings are not that small, neither are rotor shafts. What diff does it make how big the fan is? Sry but you're really stretching here.
Because the core is much smaller then the fan. Its probably not even 1/4th the size of the fan, so it is much smaller, especially when those parts are broken up and scattered around. [edit on 7/26/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I never believed the missile theory, I've always leaned more to the 'remote controlled military aircraft disguised as a passenger plane 'theory. The plane that hit the second tower is clearly not a passenger airline (at least), as it can clearly be seen to have extra fuel storage space along the fuselage. but eh, thats just me
[edit on 28-9-2007 by Unplugged]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Unplugged
 
Extra fuel storage on a 767 aircraft is not visible on the outside of the plane. On a 767 extra fuel would be held in an AUX tank, which is located between the wings near the landing gear, but is not outwardly visible. The things underneath which you are referring to are nothing more then non-pressurized airfoils, made of composite, which blend the wing, the fuselage, and the landing gear doors together and give the aircraft a more aerodynamic shape. The reason that some folks see them as pods is due to the reflection of light off that shape appearing to look something like a pod. The truth is that you cannot attach pods in that location as they would interfere with the landing gear doors.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   
A drone that looked like a 757 was in the area, but it did not hit the Pentagon. It flew over the Pentagon. Explosives caused the damage. Rapid Wall Breaching Kits were used to create the inner ring holes. Let me show you how this theory fits perfectly with the available evidence. There are serious flaws with your analysis. First off, the hole. The wings should have hit the building, because if they ripped off, they would be visible on the undamaged lawn. There is no sign of the wings. So, given that they hit the building, they would have caused the rash on the first floor, correct? The first floor damage is not consistent with an impact, because many of the support columns are still hanging. Some are still in-tact. The cable spools are unmoved. Also note the obvious problem that the wings are longer than the area that has taken damage. Note that one support column is completely undamaged. It was within the path of the wings. The support column beside it has not been knocked down. Other support columns are hanging, but not destroyed. The cable spools were in the path of the massive engines attatched to the underside of the wings. Also note part of the concrete facing, above the undamaged support columns, has taken noticable damage. This was not directly in the path of the wings, but the undamaged support columns were. How did two support columns that were in the path of the stand while the concrete facing that was NOT in the direct path of the plane? The unsymmetrical damage is an indication of explosives, and not a plane crash. Note that the circled 'hanging' support column was right in the path of one of the plane's engines, but still hangs. This brings me to my next point, the engines impacting and igniting would cause an explosion so massive that the first floor damage would be much more severe. Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that a massive tail section would leave a completely undamaged wall? Also, if it sheared off, there certainly is no sign of it on the lawn. Even if you do believe it wouldn't cause a hole, isn't it a bit too much to believe it wouldn't break a window that was right in it's path? The OP cites the debunked Pentagon frames. Those were proven fake. The time stamp is wrong, it contradicts the 2006 video in many ways, parts of it are cropped, and the explosion reaches to the lawn, but does not scorch it. Four eyewitnesses, Paik, Turcios, Brooks, and Legasse all place the plane on the north side of the CITGO gas station. If only one of them said it, then a debunker could say that they were just confused. But no, four eyewitnesses saw this. This makes it impossible for the plane to have hit some of the light poles, or caused the damage it did. So, what did it do then? Robert Turcios, an eyewitness with a very good vantage point, supporting testimony previously known from someone called 'Skarlet', said the plane pulled up before hitting. "For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off" Terry Morin "A bomb had gone off. I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had been set off somewhere" Don Perkal "Most people knew it was a bomb"-Mike Slater This, and other testimony (Mostly on Eric Bart's page) supports the conclusion that bombs went off. This, along with the North Side and Pull Up eyewitnesses, all support the conclusion that the plane flew over, and was masked by explosions caused by other means. As for the inner ring holes, they were caused by Rapid Wall Breaching Kits. Examine the evidence Here



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
A 767 engine is indistructable because it is made of titanium and high grade steel. Link below proves the engine was from a different plane than commercial. home.att.net...



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Do to "member demand"??? Hmmmm......



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   
At the onset,i would like to apologize if this video/pics in it, have been posted before because i havent gone through all of the 218 pages of posts,this is a tiny contribution from my side to this wonderful thread,people watch it and let me know what you think of it,i have posted the same video in another thread but it hasnt gotten any new replies after mine so i am posting it again over here.it might not be anything new you might have seen but its still pretty interesting though Heres the vid



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
wheres the video or pictures of it? wheres the rest of the plane? did it all just disintergrate? why is the windows where the wings should have hit un-broken? why do people want to hate muslims for? you should hate the slave masters. you should hate the profiteers of war. they are the ones who create the wars. how did any arabic muslims profit of of this war? i know cheney is making a killing. you know KBR (halliburton) built and operates the huge PERMANATE military bases in iraq?



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   
i re examined the picture of the initial hole and it certainly isnt big enough to fit the fuselage in the hole, yet the 'debate' rages on, 218 pages worth. Supporters of the story best get some physics or case study behind them as you have no case whatsoever as it stands.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Anyone know what happened to AA77?



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
This post sounds like a conspiracy theory.
I apologize, but I have to disagree. You can cherry pick any information as far as witnesses go. There were other witnesses that you never get air time on national tv. On top of that, why does the pentagon withhold videos of the 757 hitting the building? If you've noticed, they have a camera mounted on the roof top every 20 feet and I would hope they would have more video than from a 10 FPS web cam coming from the security check point that shows nothing. Plus most pilots say its impossible to fly down at that speed and hit the side of the building with that much accuracy without stalling the engines in the plane if you look at the flight path and released reports. Plus the pilot was a novice and could barely fly a small plane according the the flight instructors who remembers this less than mediocre pilot coming in to their facilities. Plus, where are the skid marks on the lawn? I'm not buying it was a 757 at all. That's my two cents.




top topics



 
100
<< 215  216  217    219  220  221 >>

log in

join