Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

page: 301
101
<< 298  299  300    302  303  304 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
This thread has been going on since 2004. That's eight years plus! And in all that time no aircraft engineers from our enemy countries have come forward to refute the strength needed to punch the hole. I guess Ahmadinejad is good buddies with Bush and Dick? Maybe Rumsfeld has been sending porno tapes to Kim Jong whoever for his silence? All we have is a few no bodies on conspiracy websites tring to re write history.




posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 
Does your claim that they fell off, also include a claim that they also stopped mid air? How did the fuselage manage what the wings and engines could not?



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman reply to post by Cade
 

So apart from your retoric you also cannot answer the question, how did the fuselage accomplish what the wings/engines could not?
If you knew anyhting about aircraft construction (which from your posts you don't) - would know about the "KEEL BEAM" which runs entire length of the fuselage It is the largest and strongest piece on an aircraft and provides the strenght to support the cabin and cargo bays as well as supporting the weight of the engines and landing gear structures Longerons And Keel Beams Longerons and keel beams perform the same function in an aircraft fuselage. They both carry the bulk of the load traveling fore and aft. The keel beam and longerons, the strongest sections of the airframe, tie its weight to other aircraft parts, such as powerplants, fuel cells, and the landing gears. Article Source: EzineArticles.com... Think of it as a 150 ft long battering ram, one that is going 500 mph There's that "physics" thing you like to quote - try this 1/2 Mass * Veolcity (squared) Now tell us why the aircraft fuselage did not penetrate the E Ring wall
Does your Keel beams explain why the engines could not manage what the keel beams could?



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent This thread has been going on since 2004. That's eight years plus! And in all that time no aircraft engineers from our enemy countries have come forward to refute the strength needed to punch the hole. I guess Ahmadinejad is good buddies with Bush and Dick? Maybe Rumsfeld has been sending porno tapes to Kim Jong whoever for his silence? All we have is a few no bodies on conspiracy websites tring to re write history.
8 years plus, and still you can't answer the questions. Proof in itself.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cade reply to post by waynos
 
Does your claim that they fell off, also include a claim that they also stopped mid air?
No, and I am saying they were knocked off by the pylon bolts shearing in the impact, not fell off.

How did the fuselage manage what the wings and engines could not?
How simple do you need this making? the keel beam does indeed explain it too. I am sorry you cant grasp it, but that does not change the logic of it.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by Cade reply to post by waynos
 
Does your claim that they fell off, also include a claim that they also stopped mid air?
No, and I am saying they were knocked off by the pylon bolts shearing in the impact, not fell off.

How did the fuselage manage what the wings and engines could not?
How simple do you need this making? the keel beam does indeed explain it too. I am sorry you cant grasp it, but that does not change the logic of it.
Knocked off, not fell off, but did they stop in mid air? Or what is the reason the fuselage could accomplish what the engines could not? How does the keel beam explain that the engines could not penetrate the Pentagon?
edit on 25-11-2012 by Cade because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Because the engines, and especially the wings, lack the mass that the fuselage carries. While the wing hit the wall 'side on' lessening the force it brought to bear by spreading it out, the engines, themselves much smaller and lighter than the fuselage, are also short items with no mass behind them, might easily bounce off the structure. The fuselage, at 150ft long and with its extremely stiff keel beam, effectively 'kept coming' after the initial impact, forcing the debris through. Why do you ask if the engines had stopped? what relevance does this have in your view?



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Cade
 

Knocked off, not fell off, but did they stop in mid air? Or what is the reason the fuselage could accomplish what the engines could not? How does the keel beam explain that the engines could not penetrate the Pentagon?
Pay attention genius - lesson #2 on aircraft construction, the wings

Wings develop the major portion of the lift of a heavier-than-air aircraft. Wing structures carry some of the heavier loads found in the aircraft structure. The particular design of a wing depends on many factors, such as the size, weight, speed, rate of climb, and use of the aircraft. The wing must be constructed so that it holds its aerodynamics shape under the extreme stresses of combat maneuvers or wing loading. Wing construction is similar in most modern aircraft. In its simplest form, the wing is a framework made up of spars and ribs and covered with metal. The construction of an aircraft wing is shown in figure 4-8. Spars are the main structural members of the wing. They extend from the fuselage to the tip of the wing. All the load carried by the wing is taken up by the spars. The spars are designed to have great bending strength. Ribs give the wing section its shape, and they transmit the air load from the wing covering to the spars. Ribs extend from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the wing. In addition to the main spars, some wings have a false spar to support the ailerons and flaps. Most aircraft wings have a removable tip, which streamlines the outer end of the
Figure 4-8 The area between the engine mounts to the fuselage, often called the "WING BOX" , contains various large and heavy structures to give strenght to the wings and fuel tanks It contains ribs and spars of heavy gaugue forged metal that provide the main strenght Also the landing gear is housed in compartments in the wings, the landing gear trucks are some of the heaviest construction on an aircraft Lets not forget the fuel tanks which are housed in the wings - the fuel load on Flight 77 was some 5500 gallons weighing in at about 35,000 lbs, Thats a lot weight Combine that with the speed of over 500 mph and it acts like a solid mass - similar to a stream from a fire hose only more so...... The lower impact hole blasted into the Pentagon measured about 96 ft long 911review.com... That is the lenght of the most massive section of the wing between the engines and fuselage, As one goes out along the wing the structures become less massive Fact is that the Flight 77 was able to penetrate the exterior E Ring wall



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos Because the engines, and especially the wings, lack the mass that the fuselage carries. While the wing hit the wall 'side on' lessening the force it brought to bear by spreading it out, the engines, themselves much smaller and lighter than the fuselage, are also short items with no mass behind them, might easily bounce off the structure. The fuselage, at 150ft long and with its extremely stiff keel beam, effectively 'kept coming' after the initial impact, forcing the debris through. Why do you ask if the engines had stopped? what relevance does this have in your view?
So in your opinion the fuselage, containing lots of empty space for the passengers, could make a round hole through the wall, where the much more dense 6 tons engines could not? Are you saying the wing came flying at a different angle than the airplane itself? This is getting more and more desperate. I thought the right wing sat on an angle to the plane actually aligning it more with the wall than the fuselage? Seems like the opposite kind of argument you would be looking for defending the governments conspiracy theory here. And how did the keel beam create the hole, almost the size of the fuselage, through the Pentagon area it penetrated? Wouldn't you find the engines a lot more dense than the fuselage? What happens if you take a very light but very dense bullet and shoot it along side a beach ball sized ball that weighs 3 times it's weight? Which do you think is gonna penetrate the most? Do you understand this principle in physics ? I was asking if you imagined the engine stopped, since you see no problems in the engines not being able to accomplish what the fuselage did, but I see now I should have explained the above "dense" principles to you first. How did the fuselage accomplish what the tons heavy engines could not?



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Cade
 
If you operate under the falsehoods listed in this post, you will never find the truth. Screaming PHYSICS, without acknowledging the evidence, just undermines you.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman reply to post by Cade
 

Knocked off, not fell off, but did they stop in mid air? Or what is the reason the fuselage could accomplish what the engines could not? How does the keel beam explain that the engines could not penetrate the Pentagon?
Pay attention genius - lesson #2 on aircraft construction, the wings

Wings develop the major portion of the lift of a heavier-than-air aircraft. Wing structures carry some of the heavier loads found in the aircraft structure. The particular design of a wing depends on many factors, such as the size, weight, speed, rate of climb, and use of the aircraft. The wing must be constructed so that it holds its aerodynamics shape under the extreme stresses of combat maneuvers or wing loading. Wing construction is similar in most modern aircraft. In its simplest form, the wing is a framework made up of spars and ribs and covered with metal. The construction of an aircraft wing is shown in figure 4-8. Spars are the main structural members of the wing. They extend from the fuselage to the tip of the wing. All the load carried by the wing is taken up by the spars. The spars are designed to have great bending strength. Ribs give the wing section its shape, and they transmit the air load from the wing covering to the spars. Ribs extend from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the wing. In addition to the main spars, some wings have a false spar to support the ailerons and flaps. Most aircraft wings have a removable tip, which streamlines the outer end of the
Figure 4-8 The area between the engine mounts to the fuselage, often called the "WING BOX" , contains various large and heavy structures to give strenght to the wings and fuel tanks It contains ribs and spars of heavy gaugue forged metal that provide the main strenght Also the landing gear is housed in compartments in the wings, the landing gear trucks are some of the heaviest construction on an aircraft Lets not forget the fuel tanks which are housed in the wings - the fuel load on Flight 77 was some 5500 gallons weighing in at about 35,000 lbs, Thats a lot weight Combine that with the speed of over 500 mph and it acts like a solid mass - similar to a stream from a fire hose only more so...... The lower impact hole blasted into the Pentagon measured about 96 ft long 911review.com... That is the lenght of the most massive section of the wing between the engines and fuselage, As one goes out along the wing the structures become less massive Fact is that the Flight 77 was able to penetrate the exterior E Ring wall
Are you sure you want to explain to someone you consider a "genius" how the wings are heavily structured, contains heavy elements etc. etc. etc. ...but they were not able to penetrate the wall which the fuselage was able to plunk through? I have just been presented with two opposite explanations as to why the fuselage could accomplish what the wings and engines could not. One thinks it must obviously be because the fuselage is much heavier than the wings and engine, where the other thinks the exact opposite is the reason. It's very clear that while creative imagination is of no shortage, no one can come up with a real explanation as to why we are looking at two parallel universes when we see what the fuselage did to the Pentagon, and what the wings and engines did not do to the Pentagon. You have to make up your minds. Was the wall able to stop all that force or was it not. You can't have it both ways and just flip the physics on it's head when you explain the fuselage and the engines. Welcome to 911 truth guys. Took you long enough ...or do you have other ideas you would like to present?



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596 reply to post by Cade
 
If you operate under the falsehoods listed in this post, you will never find the truth. Screaming PHYSICS, without acknowledging the evidence, just undermines you.
I believe this is called a claim without evidence to back it up. So I think we can assume that you are also not able to explain why the fuselage could make a round hole in the Pentagon (not quite big enough for the fuselage that created the hole, according to the governments conspiracy theory), and the engines could not even penetrate the outer wall. Why is that Vipertech? Welcome to 911 truth!



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
You know, if I were a terrorist who had hijacked aplane that I barley knew how to fly, and I was going to run it into a small wall at 500mph... I wouldn't. To ensure a hit, I'd start a nice gentle curve down into part of the building to increase my chances of a hit. But straight at the wall? At 500mph? No way. I think it was something like this: www.flickr.com...



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by davjan4
 
So why were aircraft seats found in the debris .....? Why were the remains of the passengers and hijackers recovered from the impact site....? Whu was debris from a Boeing 757 found in the debris...?



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by davjan4 You know, if I were a terrorist who had hijacked aplane that I barley knew how to fly, and I was going to run it into a small wall at 500mph... I wouldn't. To ensure a hit, I'd start a nice gentle curve down into part of the building to increase my chances of a hit. But straight at the wall? At 500mph? No way. I think it was something like this: www.flickr.com...
Yes, the most risky way to carry out a terror attack, is the impossible way. Who ever the terrorists were, and how ever they might have wanted to do it, one way they cannot do it, is any way that is physically impossible.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Somewhere in the 300+ pages in this thread every question has been more that adequately answered some even have picture to back it up. If you are truly searching for the truth do a little reading because it has all been explained more than once and dumbed down so that even a moron could understand.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman reply to post by davjan4
 
So why were aircraft seats found in the debris .....? Why were the remains of the passengers and hijackers recovered from the impact site....? Whu was debris from a Boeing 757 found in the debris...?
I cannot explain to you why there seems to be evidence for a crime, carried out in a way that is physically impossible. I am simply pointing out that it is physically impossible to carry out the official conspiracy theory. A lot of people have heard about planted evidence, cover ups. Others refuse to take it into consideration.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi Somewhere in the 300+ pages in this thread every question has been more that adequately answered some even have picture to back it up. If you are truly searching for the truth do a little reading because it has all been explained more than once and dumbed down so that even a moron could understand.
Yes I took part in that as far back as 2005. And I would agree. It has been plenty pointed out that no one can answer the logical questions I put forward, otherwise one could find an answer within the 300 pages filled with attempts to do just that.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Just because you are not happy with the answer you received does not make it not true. Your questions were answered to everyones satisfaction but yours. You can keep asking them though thats fine. It’s not worth the debate or argument to me but maybe you can get someone else to play.
edit on 26-11-2012 by Grimpachi because: add



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi Just because you are not happy with the answer you received does not make it not true. Your questions were answered to everyones satisfaction but yours. You can keep asking them though thats fine. It’s not worth the debate or argument to me but maybe you can get someone else to play.
edit on 26-11-2012 by Grimpachi because: add
You can add that to your list of fantasies, that the entire 911 truth movement consists only of me, be my guest. It is a whole lot easier to claim that questions has been answered, rather than provide them. I have not seen you explain why the fuselage can accomplish what the wings and motor could not?





new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 298  299  300    302  303  304 >>

log in

join