9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 88
Pages: <<  85    86    87    88    89    90    91  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 70 times


reply posted on 20-8-2005 @ 10:00 PM by Zaphod58
Even thought I SERIOUSLY doubt this will do any good, I'll post it anyway. WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Engineers, computer scientists and graphics technology experts at Purdue University have created the first publicly available simulation that uses scientific principles to study in detail what theoretically happened when the Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon last Sept. 11. news.uns.purdue.edu... Take a look at the simulation graphics, this is probably the most accurate simulation they could possibly make using scientific principles, and looking at all the evidence, and the reaction of previous crashes, and how the planes came through them. The third graphic shows the plane already inside the building, and the wings already shattered, with small pieces of debris coming off what was left of them.


reply posted on 20-8-2005 @ 10:22 PM by CatHerder
Originally posted by bsbray11 I'm also sorry to see that my request offended you, CatHerder, and even sorrier to see that you've taken me off your ignore list only to continue to badger me with personal attacks. I swear, man, your ego is going to be the death of you. That and those squibs.
Do not flatter yourself, your misguided opinion on the Pentagon and the 757 that hit it have little or no bearing on reality. Badger you with personal attacks? Don't be so full of yourself. All I posted in this thread was that you were 100% wrong. Nothing more, nothing less. You ASKED where the wing impact damage was, and I simply pointed out that as always you're too lazy to go read the information posted in the thread before posting your uninformed opinions prior to reading and educating yourself. You waste everyones time.
To which my response was this photo: Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with how much of the wings were left, because they would've been inside the building anyway and we can't see them. So, by process of elimination, I would think you would be able to figure out what part of your statement I was addressing.
So lets get this straight... the wings can be inside the WTC and never visible or recovered, but the wings at the Pentagon have to be outside laying on the ground in giant parts? Get real.
Until then, I haven't made up my mind on this issue anyway, and for you guys to not jump down my throat to choke me with ego would be much appreciated. Honestly, CatHerder (and I doubt you care since you apparently hate me with a passion), this thread seemed much more civil up until your return to it.
Again, don't flatter youself. You're imagining an attack on your person because you know deep down that you're completely wrong in your assertions in this thread. Your assertion that I "apparently hate me with a passion" is quite amusing; I merely think of you as a very misguided individual who lacks education and is too rude to bother reading other people's material before commenting on it. *shrug* Maybe it's simply because some of the material is just too hard for you to comprehend, I truely do not know. I don't base my posts on a personal belief system, I base my posts on what is fact and what is not fact. You should try it sometime.



reply posted on 20-8-2005 @ 10:35 PM by CatHerder
Originally posted by LoneGunMan If the aircraft struck the generator first, then whay do all of the graphics show the craft hitting starboard wing first? If the starboard wing hit the generator, it would have made the craft yaw in a clockwise manner, and the port side would have struck the Pentagon first.
The plane was flying at 514MPH when it hit the generator, it wouldn't spin sideways before hitting the building. The engine and wing would sustain damage and possibly partially detach or break up to some degree (the impact damage on the upper floors of the Pentagon on the right side of the impact hole shows impact damage from objects of various sizes that correlates this). But the inertia of the original angle of attack would not vary much if at all. The time between the engine hitting the generator and the plane hitting the wall was less than a 1/4 of a second; hardly enough time to twist or turn the plane much at all. I think the issue most people have when trying to visualize what happened in this crash is because every other crash they've seen (videos of) is of aircraft trying their damnedest to not crash or to execute a controlled crash landing (at speeds under 200mph). On page 3 of this thread (3rd post) there are some videos of an F4 impacting a concrete wall at 320MPH (almost 200 MPH slower than the 757 was flying at impact). That's what a high speed impact of a plane flying into a wall looks like... I think this time next year we will finally have the other 2 videos of the Pentagon impact released (after Moussauoi's trial), perhaps then this will be laid to rest even for the most vehement conspiracy theorists.


reply posted on 20-8-2005 @ 10:48 PM by LoneGunMan
Originally posted by CatHerder
Originally posted by LoneGunMan If the aircraft struck the generator first, then whay do all of the graphics show the craft hitting starboard wing first? If the starboard wing hit the generator, it would have made the craft yaw in a clockwise manner, and the port side would have struck the Pentagon first.
The plane was flying at 514MPH when it hit the generator, it wouldn't spin sideways before hitting the building. The engine and wing would sustain damage and possibly partially detach or break up to some degree (the impact damage on the upper floors of the Pentagon on the right side of the impact hole shows impact damage from objects of various sizes that correlates this). But the inertia of the original angle of attack would not vary much if at all. The time between the engine hitting the generator and the plane hitting the wall was less than a 1/4 of a second; hardly enough time to twist or turn the plane much at all. I think the issue most people have when trying to visualize what happened in this crash is because every other crash they've seen (videos of) is of aircraft trying their damnedest to not crash or to execute a controlled crash landing (at speeds under 200mph). On page 3 of this thread (3rd post) there are some videos of an F4 impacting a concrete wall at 320MPH (almost 200 MPH slower than the 757 was flying at impact). That's what a high speed impact of a plane flying into a wall looks like... I think this time next year we will finally have the other 2 videos of the Pentagon impact released (after Moussauoi's trial), perhaps then this will be laid to rest even for the most vehement conspiracy theorists.
I am sorry but this is not how that would have worked. The aircraft would not have broken its wing so that it hinged upward from hitting the generator. They have a spar that look like an I-beam, it has most of its strength for up and down forces, not fore and aft. If it hit the generator it would most definatly started the craft to at least start to rotate in its yaw axis, and sheared the starboard wing before hitting the wall. That is to state like you did that the generator broke the wing, it would not break in the manner you suggested because of the way it is designed. [edit on 20-8-2005 by LoneGunMan]


reply posted on 20-8-2005 @ 11:21 PM by bsbray11
Originally posted by CatHerder Do not flatter yourself, your misguided opinion on the Pentagon and the 757 that hit it have little or no bearing on reality.
I wasn't aware that I had stated any opinions. I'm just asking questions. I've already stated that I haven't formed an opinion on this aspect of 9/11 yet.
Badger you with personal attacks? Don't be so full of yourself. All I posted in this thread was that you were 100% wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.
Along with calling me a troll, insulting my comprehension, etc. And again, I'm asking questions.
You ASKED where the wing impact damage was, and I simply pointed out that as always you're too lazy to go read the information posted in the thread before posting your uninformed opinions prior to reading and educating yourself. You waste everyones time.
Who is wasting more time: me, asking for pics, and promptly having them reposted, or you, beating a dead horse by continuing to harrass me for doing so? I suspect you'll take even more time out of your day to respond to this, unless you throw me back on your ignore list for defying your ultimate knowledge and wisdom.
So lets get this straight... the wings can be inside the WTC and never visible or recovered, but the wings at the Pentagon have to be outside laying on the ground in giant parts? Get real.
Well, let's see. The wings of the 767s that hit the Twin Towers actually went into the buildings they hit. Maybe Zaphod should start explaing to you the difference between the makeup of the Pentagon facade, and the makeup of the two towers. Also, I never said that they'd "never [be] visible or recovered." In context, it's pretty plain that I was referring to not being able to see the wings in that photo, as they were inside of the building. Would you like to prove that statement wrong? Or just take more of what I say out of context?
Again, don't flatter youself. You're imagining an attack on your person because you know deep down that you're completely wrong in your assertions in this thread.
I must have quite a powerful imagination:
Originally posted by CatHerder Quit being a troll... ...before posting oneline garbage... ...I guess it's too hard for you to see and comprehend?... I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. I guess you just can't live with the reality of the fact that a 757 was flown into the Pentagon, just like airliners were flown into the WTC towers?
Those are the kinds of comments I'm referring to, of which you could certainly spare me.
I don't base my posts on a personal belief system, I base my posts on what is fact and what is not fact. You should try it sometime.
Sort of like compressed air forming a small stream of sorts, moving down several floors of a building, moving through/around elevator shafts and offices, all while moving through less dense air, to blow solid debris over a hundred feet out of a WTC building? This is the kind of "fact" that I know you for: the kind that fit your pre-selected belief system. In fact, compressed air will equalize as it mixes with less-dense air, as soon as they come in contact. Off-topic, yes, but nonetheless typical of your arguments. Going out of your way to extensively prove moot points (ie, mapping out a fire on the 78th floor) and then claim full debunking (ie, therefore conspiracy theorists are stupid and wrong) while leaving larger issues unaddressed tends to be another characteristic of yours, but I'm digressing now... Anyways, I notice you've already ignored another question I've raised. That line of inquiry was.. How disfigured was the plane, exactly, if the hole allegedly created by the fuselage is below the damage you claim was caused by the wings? As you can see, the fuselage is located in quite the opposite position from the wings, meaning either, as far as I can see, (a) the plane was flying upside down, (b) was amazingly disfigured in ways a collision with a generator cannot account for, (c) you were wrong about the alleged wing damage to the facade, or (d) a 757 didn't do that at all. But maybe you can offer a better explanation with you theorized assertions (the ones you arrogantly call "facts"). Again, the problem: The fuselage and wings would be horribly off from each other if that damage to the facade was actually cased by the wings.


reply posted on 20-8-2005 @ 11:22 PM by CatHerder
Originally posted by LoneGunMan
So lets get this straight... the wings can be inside the WTC and never visible or recovered, but the wings at the Pentagon have to be outside laying on the ground in giant parts? Get real.
Look at the footage of flight 175. It penetrated the outside columns in tact, no wing folding, no having the fuselage "sucking the wings in with it". It penetrated clean, and looked like a complete aircraft until it disappeared. You stuck your foot in ti on this one. This is the point being made. The aircraft at the Pentagon alledgedly sheared its wings off and it all got sucked into a round hole. What part o this concept do you not understand? The Pentagon is steel re-inforced concrete and is very dense, compared to the outside structure of WTC, where the steel sheared and let the entire aircraft in without shearing the wings. If the wings sheared they would be on the ground in larger sived pieces. There are not any cross section looking pieces, no airfoil shaped bulkheads, no wing spars. Nothing but confeti.
No, what part do you not understand? 60% of the plane's impact width fits inside the hole in the Pentagon (96 foot wide hole, 160 foot wide impact zone, the 757 has a wingspan of 124ft 10 inches) -- that 60% being the primary bulk/mass/structure of the aircraft. The remainder of the plane's wings were smashed into a steel beam, reinforced concrete, stone faced, blast resistent, kevlar lined, 2 inch thick steel framed blast proof windowed building. It's not at all suprising that they were smashed/ripped/shattered into small peices. Comparing the WTC impact to the Pentagon impact is just daft. But hey, if you guys want to keep comparing the two, I'm more than willing to point out the obvious. Nowhere have I claimed that the wings got sucked into a small round hole at the Pentagon. Quite the contrary, the photo evidence of the crash clearly shows there is a wide gaping hole that fits the entire plane body, the engines, and most of the wings (excluding the tips or ~20 feet of the starboard and ~20 feet of the port wings (~124 minus 96 equals ~28). I don't see what small hole you guys are referring to...



reply posted on 21-8-2005 @ 12:12 AM by CatHerder
Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Originally posted by Zaphod58 The wings DID shear in the WTC, or you wouldn't have had the huge fireball. They just didn't shear in the three miliseconds of the impact that you could actually see, when it hit the building.
Thy did not shear at the hardpoints. The spar was intact going in except some of it in the far extremes toward the wingtips. The wings soft aluminum skin shredded, rupturing the fuel tanks, atomized the fuel and caused the explosion. The spars and most of the airfoil bulkheads stayed intact.
True, but at that speed the wing would have certainly broke at some point. This video of a crash of a commuter airplane shows the wings detatch and break in half when the body of the aircraft bounces off the runway (yep the wings broke off - and he was going a LOT slower than 514MPH! If you compare this to the WTC impact then it's no suprise that that starboard wing most likely broke off at some point along the wing when it hit the generator). This video of a B52 bomber crash at an airshow displays the right wing impact before the fuselage, the wing ignites and breaks up before the body of the aircraft impacts. And these next two, entirely for entertainment value, I thought I'd toss in this amazing display of piloting skills, or should I say an insane man in an airplane... And another for those of you about to travel on an airliner. Can those big passenger jet planes pull fancy maneuvers at low altitude and slow airspeed? Why yes, yes they can... This was apparently a "normal" approach for a 747 at Hong Kong's (now closed) Kai Tak International Airport!


reply posted on 21-8-2005 @ 02:10 AM by bsbray11
So, wait, some off-topic entertainment, but no condescending, arrogant response to this?:
Originally posted by bsbray11 How disfigured was the plane, exactly, if the hole allegedly created by the fuselage is below the damage you claim was caused by the wings? As you can see, the fuselage is located in quite the opposite position from the wings, meaning either, as far as I can see, (a) the plane was flying upside down, (b) was amazingly disfigured in ways a collision with a generator cannot account for, (c) you were wrong about the alleged wing damage to the facade, or (d) a 757 didn't do that at all. But maybe you can offer a better explanation with you theorized assertions (the ones you arrogantly call "facts"). Again, the problem: The fuselage and wings would be horribly off from each other if that damage to the facade was actually cased by the wings.

Pages: <<  85    86    87    88    89    90    91  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 16 days ago with 14 member flags
Newest 9/11 Documentary - Proof 9/11 was an inside Job
  Posted 0 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 9 days ago with 13 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 16 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags