9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 286

privacy

Pages: << 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 70 times

reply posted on 2-6-2009 @ 08:42 PM by rhunter

Originally posted by weedwhacker reply to post by tezzajw Did you see Catherder's thread from back in 2004 (do not know how to link, but search should find it). It is compelling, should read the entire OP. Meantime, enjoy this: www.debunk911myths.org... It includes UA93, so don't want to be accused of 'off-topic'!! There is another, more esoteric one....www.debunk911myths.org... You should find, when rummaging around there, a link to a site that I believe is run by James Randi....a very scholarly discussion of how the Flight Recorder works....the modern Digital ones, not the ancient foil-tape units.

Did you realize that you were posting on page 285 of that very Catherder's thread, weedwhacker? Sheesh.

reply posted on 2-6-2009 @ 08:51 PM by pccat

reply to post by rhunter

do you realize that his post was a month and a half ago??? sheesh is right.. the guy had a brain fart.. let it go..

reply posted on 2-6-2009 @ 08:56 PM by SamDanner

To the ATS Member who did a good job on this 757-200. I know where all of the pictures are from and I will give you an MIT Rebuttal. No worries Mate. SamDanner

reply posted on 2-6-2009 @ 08:59 PM by pccat

reply to post by SamDanner

thanks Sam, thats awesome!!!

reply posted on 3-6-2009 @ 06:09 PM by SamDanner

reply to post by piboy

You are exactly right pilboy. The stuff was just dumped there like Flight 93. Sam Danner

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 03:42 AM by Faiol

good job with this thread but ok, if a real plane hitted the pentagon ... whats the problem with tha?t nanotermite kills everything that you can say about 911 ... why the hell an high tec explosive would have been found in 911 dust ... well ... thats a NO brainer ... [edit on 2-8-2009 by Faiol]

reply posted on 8-8-2009 @ 10:45 AM by Markshark4

This Is What Really Happened At The Pentagon On 9/11 forum.prisonplanet.com... home.att.net... [edit on 8-8-2009 by Markshark4]

reply posted on 8-8-2009 @ 10:59 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by Markshark4

Sorry, I just read that link you provided, and whomever posted that is flat-out certifiable!! Pure fantasy, starting with his imaginary "A-3" (just look at his picture example!! He shows the normal navy jet, then below the widely-circulated photo-shopped imaginary "cruise missile"!) The debris at the Pentagon matches a B757 --- the DFDR data is conclusive (at least to every intellectually honest pilot and aerospace engineer out there) and there are dozens of eyewitnesses...of course, there will always be conflicting impressions from eyewitnesses, as there always is in traumatic events, so all testimonies are sifted and sorted according to other corroborating evidence. I'm afraid that this phony-baloney story just won't go away, and this is a tragic slap in the face to all the victims and their families, AND to all the people who responded to help with rescue and recovery efforts that day. Notice, NONE of them are coming "forward" with any news or information that supports these crackpot 'missile theories'!!!

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 04:08 PM by jprophet420

This thread was used in another thread, but i wanted to bump it as it completely debunks itself. The thread points out that the hole is 16-20 feet wide. The space between the engines on the aircraft was 24 feet. The engines did not break the face of the wall. The engine debris was found on the inside. Physically impossible unless they were special ninja engines that can walk through walls.

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 04:16 PM by Hazelnut

I don't know why it took 286 pages to discover that the hole in the pentagon on 9/11 wasn't from an airplane. I read the first 2 pages and the last 2. It was enough. [edit on 18-8-2009 by Hazelnut]

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 04:17 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420 This thread was used in another thread, but i wanted to bump it as it completely debunks itself. The thread points out that the hole is 16-20 feet wide. The space between the engines on the aircraft was 24 feet. The engines did not break the face of the wall. The engine debris was found on the inside. Physically impossible unless they were special ninja engines that can walk through walls.

Yet when asked to provide the source for your claims you claim "I'm not making any claims." So, step up to the plate and stop weaseling, jprophet. Provide the sources for those claims above or retract them.

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 04:22 PM by jprophet420

www.airliners.net...

Look at the hole in the building Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole.

The source was of course this thread, which i had already stated and you have already either ignored or were not able to comprehend. Either one is fine to me because you fail again publicly attacking me instead of the content that I post.

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 05:46 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by jprophet420

The size of the hole after the upper floors collapsed at the Pentagon is not necessarily indicative of the extent of the damage before. Hazelnut, if you'd read the first two and last two pages, then you'd have seen the OP has clearly presented his case. Airplane debris. DFDR. Eyewitnesses. Photos. THIS thread started in 2004!!! Five years on, and the more baloney? The ONLY thing/group attempting to keep the "NO-PLANE" at the Pentagon story going are the CIT people, and I think other "truth seekers" are unhappy with them, because they really have nothing.

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 06:14 PM by jprophet420

reply to post by weedwhacker

I notice you don't refute what i posted whatsoever, however.

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 06:35 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by jprophet420

Yessir! In the first sentence, I refute the "size" argument. The photos seen are of the aftermath, when upper floors collapsed, hence the ORIGINAL impact opening shape and size would have been altered. Further, because of the design of the Pentagon, one would not expect a "cookie-cutter" type aperture on the facade of the building. The airplane would not stay "intact", certain heavier, denser, and therefore more energetic components would find their own way in, in various ways. The fuselage keel beam. The main spar, part of the wingbox, would be a very substantial structure. Of course, the engines are heavy and compact, one or both could have entered between exterior building columns. Of course the landing gear are quite strong. SO, merely measuring the distance between engine centers, and expecting a perfect hole that size, is not logical. NOT when considering the building's structure. However, nitpicking over such minutae seems pointless --- a reasonable, intellectual approach is to consider the preponderance of evidence that indicates the remains of an airplane, the extent of damage to the building, and the fact of dozens of witnesses who SAW the impact!

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 06:53 PM by jprophet420

Originally posted by weedwhacker reply to post by jprophet420
Yessir! In the first sentence, I refute the "size" argument. The photos seen are of the aftermath, when upper floors collapsed, hence the ORIGINAL impact opening shape and size would have been altered. Further, because of the design of the Pentagon, one would not expect a "cookie-cutter" type aperture on the facade of the building. The airplane would not stay "intact", certain heavier, denser, and therefore more energetic components would find their own way in, in various ways. The fuselage keel beam. The main spar, part of the wingbox, would be a very substantial structure. Of course, the engines are heavy and compact, one or both could have entered between exterior building columns. Of course the landing gear are quite strong. SO, merely measuring the distance between engine centers, and expecting a perfect hole that size, is not logical. NOT when considering the building's structure. However, nitpicking over such minutae seems pointless --- a reasonable, intellectual approach is to consider the preponderance of evidence that indicates the remains of an airplane, the extent of damage to the building, and the fact of dozens of witnesses who SAW the impact!

The original hole was not big enough for the engine to enter. It cant not get smaller.

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 07:04 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by jprophet420

"Original hole"? WHAT original hole? (If this thing didn't make a new paragraph, I apologize. Sometimes ATS pages do this, why?? It's not me, honest!) ANYWAY, the engines. How large in diameter do you think the engines actually are? I'm talking about the main parts, the "meat" of the engines, the working bits. What you see of the nacelles, the cowlings, that's a lot of empty space, because of the diameter of the N1 fan. In high-bypass turbine engines, around 90% + of the thrust comes from the fan. "High-bypass" simply means that a large amount of air is 'bypassing' the combustion cycle. This stuff can be researched, I've done my part here.

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 08:44 PM by jprophet420

reply to post by weedwhacker

its not physically possible no matter how small the diameter of the engine is. What I'm saying is that the hole was 16-20 feet across and the space in between the engines was 24 feet. That means no matter how you slice it, engines hit the wall. There were no holes in the wall where the engines allegedly impacted. That means either the engines passed through solid material or weren't in the place where engines are mounted on 757's.

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 09:41 PM by gw326

Very interesting thread.However,i have one question to ask.If an airplane did indeed hit the Pentagon then why not release the video tapes that were taken instead of some poor quality security camera tape? I apologize if this has been discussed already. Thanks

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 10:11 PM by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420 What I'm saying is that the hole was 16-20 feet across and the space in between the engines was 24 feet.

You're only half right. If it's your cntention that the hole should be wider, then prove it. Several troof sites admit that the damage was consistent with a 757. 911research.wtc7.net... Due to the presence of smoke and firefighting operations after the explosion at the Pentagon, no single photograph shows the full extent of the damage to the facade before the collapse of the overhanging section. However, the maximum extent of punctures to the facade have been determined by compositing a number of photographs. This process allows us to determine the dimensions of the region with punctured walls: about 96 feet wide across the first floor about 18 feet wide across the second floor about than 26 feet high in the center 911review.com... Note: many hi quality photos on this page. The entire width of impacted facade measured at least 140 feet..... The entire width of the impact hole from column lines 8 to 18 is approximately 96 feet. The entire width of the damaged facade from column lines 5 to 20 is about 140 feet. Excellent composite photo of the impact area. 911review.com... [edit on 18-8-2009 by Joey Canoli] [edit on 18-8-2009 by Joey Canoli]