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: 221
100
<< 218  219  220    222  223  224 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by OrionStars You from another thread:

If those vertical supports were missing, the lateral load bearers would have immediately badly sag or completely collapsed long before they did. So sayeth the laws and principles of physics and quantum mechanics, when vertical load bearing support is compeletely lost under the lateral load bearing support.

I read: If the supports were not there the building would fall immediately ergo they must be there.
That is easy to explain and understand. Kinetic energy and gravity (quantum mechanics) move/cause weight and mass (physical matter) to have a direct response to energy momentum applied to physical matter.




posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Folks, Many try to refute the fact that an airliner hit the Pentagon, and try to do it by asking 'Where are the engines', or 'How could an amateur do it', or, what I found the most heinous and callous...'Where are the bodies'. Ugh, that is the worst ever! No respect for the dead, IMO.... Some armchair scientists seem to think that an airplane would 'bounce' off of the buliding, like in a cartoon. No. Doesn't work that way in real life, for many reasons, but just one of them is a little thing I haven't seen anyone talk about yet, and that is kinetic energy. Don't remember what that is? Go back to your books and learn, then. The engines...yes, most massive and compact items on the airplane. The 'core' of the engines is mostly titanium, and about 1 to 1 and 1/2 feet in diameter. The part YOU see, from the terminal window, is the N1 fan...Over six feet in diameter, yes...but really, just blades made from ordinary metals, not titanium. These would SHRED in an impact. You see, the reason the 'hot section' of the engine is made of titanium is because, well, it's hot! It has to withstand the heat of the gases that propel the turbine blades after ignition... The N1 fan is providing most of the thrust...it is driven by the turbine, the 'hot section'...via a concentric shaft. Really, you can look this up, it isn't rocket science. Point is, the engine core is compact, dense, and would have a lot of kinetic energy, and so would travel deep into the building, not 'bounce off'. I think we've covered the ability of someone to aim an airplane at a target on other threads... I will not mention, out of deference to those lost, the other part in the first paragraph.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Having the plane parts would be convenient. However, when the vertical supports of the building are still supporting the building, the odds of having had a 757 impacting and penetrating that area are normally zero to none.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars Having the plane parts would be convenient. However, when the vertical supports of the building are still supporting the building, the odds of having had a 757 impacting and penetrating that area are normally zero to none.
OrionStars, I am not sure where you live. I will tell you that, on that day, I lived in a house in Arlington, Virginia...in a section known as 'Lyon Park'...on a map, that is less than five miles from the Pentagon. It was approximately 1010 that morning, and I felt the house shake. I had been watching CNN because of the WTC Towers...there were conflicting reports in DC about bombs and such...the news of the Pentagon hit came a little late...but I felt my HOUSE SHAKE! It was like a minor tremor...and I know tremors, I grew up in California, was there when the earthquake of 1972 hit. I later found out that the shake I felt was from the upper floors of the Pentagon collapsing...it wasn't the impact of AA77, it was the aftermath. This was the RESULT of the impact...and the tons and tons of structure falling was felt by me, a few miles away.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker How does your accounting relate to another building still maintaining vertical supports, as evidenced by photos of the Pentagon wall alleged to have been impacted and then "swallowed" an entire full size 757, without removing those perimeter primary load bearing vertical supports in the process? I do not see any relevant relationship between your house and the Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Caustic Logic The question was for you but here's a clue: I'd look at the section with eight columns and 12 wall panels missing. Hint: it's on the ground floor. Hint: it has room for engines. Hint: it means there I S tailfin damage, in the form of the smaller hole above. Are you really contending that's standard frame construction, no walls or supports and only in the spot right beneath the 'alleged impact?'
If that is what you wish to contend, that means at least 124 ft 10 in had to plow to inside those primary perimeter vertical load bearers.
Why at least that much? Sounds more like an 'at most' to me.

Taking out at least 9-10 primary perimeter load bearing vertical supports on impact and beginning penetration, along with taking out at least that much all the way to the other side, while knocking out another hole on the inside to the outside, including primary perimeter vertical supports. That means as that alleged plane is being "swallowed" and digested", that part of the building is collapsing behind it. Those are primary, not secondary, load bearers at perimeter wall and internally, throughout the ground level of that side of the Pentagon.
I have no idea what you're talking about now. Sorry.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 
If that explanation appeared confusing to you, I will now bring it closer to home for you. Say an automobile, at 80mph or more, came crashing into your living room after everyone was in bed, hopefully all on the first floor. Do you think you would lose vertical support for your roof and any upstairs rooms over the living room? Do you think at least part of your roof and any upstairs rooms might just end up in your living room too at that point?



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by weedwhacker How does your accounting relate to another building still maintaining vertical supports, as evidenced by photos of the Pentagon wall alleged to have been impacted and then "swallowed" an entire full size 757, without removing those perimeter primary load bearing vertical supports in the process? I do not see any relevant relationship between your house and the Pentagon.
OrionStars, I am afraid I must pull down the full post for all to see (sorry, Mods) because it seemed that you tried to pull off one of your posts as mine... I guess I wasn't very clear, earlier, about the Pentagon and how it affected where my house was. I felt the Earth shake, not when the airplane impacted, but about a half-hour later, as I came to learn, because the structure, the wall at the Pentagon, had weakened to a point where the floors 'pancaked'...it was THIS, the immensity of the weight of four floors of concrete falling...THAT is what shook the ground, that is what I felt, on that day, in my house. I had people working on my deck extension that morning...I told them to go home, at about 9:30, because I had been watching the news. There were, unconfirmed, reports of bombs going off in downtown DC...speculation and hysteria...my next door neighbor thought we should flee the area...!!! Dude, it was over by then, and I told him so. Stay put, don't panic.... Edit to add...sorry for how this post turned out, I didn't do it! Don't know why it's all gray and everything.... [edit on 7-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars reply to post by Caustic Logic
 
If that explanation appeared confusing to you, I will now bring it closer to home for you. Say an automobile, at 80mph or more, came crashing into your living room after everyone was in bed, hopefully all on the first floor. Do you think you would lose vertical support for your roof and any upstairs rooms over the living room? Do you think at least part of your roof and any upstairs rooms might just end up in your living room too at that point?
Well, OrionStars, Your own example, about a car crashing into a home sorta makes my point, if you care to read what I wrote....



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker Well, OrionStars, Your own example, about a car crashing into a home sorta makes my point, if you care to read what I wrote....
I did read what you wrote. The following is still my response to what you wrote: The Pentagon had no perimeter supports missing to fit the entire wing span of a 757, which means a 757 could not possibly have penetrated or been "swallowed" whole by the Pentagon. Particularly, when there was nothing to indicate any vertical part of the tail entered in either. Contrary, to an automobile, at high speed, actually penetrating and entering through wood perimeter primary supports.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Weedwhacker: thanks for the input on the collapse. It sounds a bit much, bit I'll take your word that you felt the collapse. Anyway there was a collapse, at 10:18 by multiple sources. It was caused by a loss of column support. It did happen of course but not immediately. Orion, if you're eally curious about, or really think you've mastered and transcended, the science of it all, here are some links: ASCE Performance Report - PDF FEMA USR Shoring Report - PDF Explanation of beam and column construction Quicktime video, lower right corner of page. Therein some details of loads borne, columns damaged, how damaged, those removed highlighted, weight response, bldg performance, etc... The experts seem to feel it all lines up right. Why not check their reasoning and see if you still think - whatever it is you think happened.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
The following website has a photo of the Pentagon after roof collapse. It also has a graphic of a 757 showing the difference between the width, of the area of collapse, and the wingspan of a 757. Exactly how did an alleged 757 enter the Pentagon to become entirely swallowed, when there was no hole large enough to accommodate a 757? That can clearly be seen in the photo. Please do note all those vertical supports still standing on both sides of the hole. silentbutdeadly.ifrance.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 
Caustic, yes I did feel it...it was by my estimation about 10 minutes after 10, you have just confirmed it. I was standing on my stairs, at a window at the back of my house. It was a single shake, and an almost subsonic feel... The window I was at looked East towards the District of Columbia. It was a beautiful morning, fairly warm for September. I had windows open. As I mentioned, there were early (shown to be false, later) reports of explosions in DC. Hysteria, I suppose....



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 
OS, The concrete columns of the Pentagon are nothing like the facade of the WTC Towers. The center of mass of that 757 is the fuselage...BTW, there is a center fuel tank in the belly of a 757, did you know that? Here's how it works...For a transcon flight of about 6 hours duration, both wings will be 'topped off', and the center tank will be fueled to the level necessary as determined by Dispatch. The majority of the fuel is concentrated in the center tank...it is located in the lower part of the fuselage, where the wings join forward and aft of this location are the two cargo areas for baggage and such. There are a total of six fuel pumps...two in each tank. When there is center tank fuel, as in the case of a transcon, all pumps are turned on, at the gate, in pre-flight prep. The fuel system is quite simple...the Center Tank pumps produce slightly more pressure that the Main Tank pumps...because of check valves in the system, this means that the fuel from the Center tank will burn first, until exhausted. When the 'low pressure' lights come on, on the EICAS, we turn off the pumps. (Right now, there is a requirement to turn off the pumps when the quantity reaches 1000 pounds...this is a measure designed to prevent overheating of the pumps). BTW, on the 757, the APU is fed from which tank??? Not sure you'll find that tidbit online.....



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 
OS, The concrete columns of the Pentagon are nothing like the facade of the WTC Towers. The center of mass of that 757 is the fuselage...BTW, there is a center fuel tank in the belly of a 757, did you know that? Here's how it works...For a transcon flight of about 6 hours duration, both wings will be 'topped off', and the center tank will be fueled to the level necessary as determined by Dispatch. The majority of the fuel is concentrated in the center tank...it is located in the lower part of the fuselage, where the wings join forward and aft of this location are the two cargo areas for baggage and such. There are a total of six fuel pumps...two in each tank. When there is center tank fuel, as in the case of a transcon, all pumps are turned on, at the gate, in pre-flight prep. The fuel system is quite simple...the Center Tank pumps produce slightly more pressure that the Main Tank pumps...because of check valves in the system, this means that the fuel from the Center tank will burn first, until exhausted. When the 'low pressure' lights come on, on the EICAS, we turn off the pumps. (Right now, there is a requirement to turn off the pumps when the quantity reaches 1000 pounds...this is a measure designed to prevent overheating of the pumps). BTW, on the 757, the APU is fed from which tank??? Not sure you'll find that tidbit online.....



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker reply to post by OrionStars
 
OS, The concrete columns of the Pentagon are nothing like the facade of the WTC Towers. The center of mass of that 757 is the fuselage...BTW, there is a center fuel tank in the belly of a 757, did you know that?

No one said they were. The Pentagon still needed primary load bearing vertical supports. Every building does no matter how that is materially accomplished. You still avoid the question of how a hole not big enough to accommodate an entire 757, had a 757 fully entering without breaking enough vertical primary load bearers to accommodate entry. That is a major issue I have with the "official" reports on the Pentagon. Because it is physically impossible, by all the laws of physics, to have happened. Can you logically make sense of the "official" report on the Pentagon or not?



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 
OS, I guess I didn't make it clear enough. The immensity of the structure at the Pentagon, the supporting columns on the exterior, were very different than the exterior facade of the WTC Towers. Hence, the visible, from outside, impact damage patterns are different. I was trying to point out that most of the mass of the 757, the majority of the kinetic energy, came from the fuselage. The wings shredded...the two engines were shredded down to their cores...the core of an RB-211 is a couple of feet in diameter and maybe seven or eight feet long...this assumes that the concentric shaft didn't break, in which case you would have two twisted masses of metal per engine..... edit to add...when I say 'seven to eight' feet long, I actually exagerrate, just to bolster YOUR case. I am estimating based on my walk-arounds of the airplane, and looking at the nacelle. Now that I think about it, I have seen the cowling opened many times, when maintenance was working on the engine. When you look at the nacelle of a jet, you aren't looking at the whole engine. The very center of it is actually quite compact...there are a bunch of auxiliary components attached...and of course, the intake has to be as large as the N1 fan diameter...most of the thrust developed by a modern 'fan-jet' engine comes from the fan...about 80%. This compares to the earlier 'turbo-jet' engines of, say, a B727...the PW JT-9D, for instance. Ever wondered why the nacelles on a B727 are smaller than on a B757? Different engines, similar tech, but more advanced tech on the 757. There is a very simplistic description of how a jet engine works..."SSBB"... 'Suck, Squeeze, Burn, Blow' A jet engine does not have to be large to produce an incredible amount of energy. First, we have the 'compressor section', a series of vanes rotating on a concentric shaft, these pull in air and compress it, to be delivered to the 'hot section' (that's where titanium comes in). After the compressed air is delivered to the 'front' of the 'hot section', fuel is sprayed in (it is atomized by the fuel infectors) and the fuel/air mixture ignites...this energy is directed aft through the turbine blades (remember the titanium?) and, since the N1 fan I mentioned earlier, is driven by these turbines, There is your thrust! Sounds like a perpetual energy machine, but it isn't...see, the whole thing stops working when there is no fuel to keep it going.... BTW, know waht an APU is yet? OK, carry on [edit on 7-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker reply to post by OrionStars
 
OS, I guess I didn't make it clear enough. The immensity of the structure at the Pentagon, the supporting columns on the exterior, were very different than the exterior facade of the WTC Towers.
I edited for brevity. Again, the issue is not the materials holding up the Pentagon. The issue is a hole not big enough to accommodate an entire 757 inside the Pentagon. I cannot make the issue any clearer. Can you or cannot you not make logical sense out of the "official" report tout that a hole too small for a 757 still allowed full entry of a 757? Any further red herring, rather than a logical explanation, will be taken as a "No", you cannot logically explain it. I am trying to give the final benefit of the doubt. It is the last one I intend to give concerning the specific issue.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 
Again, I pointed out, OS, that the majority of the kinetic energy would have been concentrated in the fuselage...the wings, by comparison, were fragile and likely were shredded on impact. This, as opposed to the WTC Towers, where the exterior facade was not as 'durable' when compared to the Pentagon. The Pentagon is a what? A five story structure? Built, originally in the 1940's, using conventional, at the time, techniques. A skyscraper, on the otherhand, uses entirely different engineering design. I think it has been pointed out, often, that a tall building will be engineered with a central core structure to provide most of the strength, and the floors and exterior facade are cantilevered from that core structure. One simply can not compare an impact damage on a building such as the Pentagon to the impact damage on the WTC Towers. They are obviously different buildings, and they are obviously constructed in different ways. Hope no one would care to refute that?



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
I am sorry, but that is simply another red herring on your part. Either an alleged 757 made a hole (knocked out enough vertical load bearing supports) to accommodate its full self or did not. The photos, of the Pentagon wall, say it definitely did not.




top topics



 
100
<< 218  219  220    222  223  224 >>

log in

join