What the Pentagon Guard Told Me About 9/11

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


A person could touch a moving plane without getting hurt, but it's more likely that the woman only felt the air from the plane. There's a video online showing an air force technician getting sucked head first into a jet engine and he didn't get injured. I saw a documentary about the pentagon crash and it left me believing without doubt that the plane actually crashed there. But I do believe Bush was behind it all.




posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


The memorial wasn't in a large room. We had about twenty or so folks. It wasn't crowded but it still had an intimate feel to it. Also, it was more about the workers who died, no mention of terrorism.

It was raining so we only got to see the outer part through the _ There were benches outside but they were all slanted. The guard told us the benches were built at the same angle the plane hit. I also think he said there was one bench for every person who died. I'm not sure if it was only the people in the building or on the plane but it was interesting.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Ah, i get it. He was telling Norma he was lying on purpose with that "touching the plane from the sunroof" story, so that she would know no plane actually hit either, just that he cannot say it verbally or get fired. He was still saying it though, in a very clever manner.

He was basically saying: "Yes, but please don´t believe me, you would be a fool if you did."




posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by intrptr
 


That vid proves nothing. A plane going 500mph would damage it's landing gear if it was down.


Maximum Gear Operating/Extended 270 kts / .82 mach

biggles-software.com...

it would not have been moving faster than 310mph, I would guess it was doing around 250mph.


First of all, you are citing 757 specs while the video is an Airbus, but okay.

AA 77's landing gear was up, not down. Last known speed is 483 knots. As for the allegation that this speed was impossible:

P4t Vg-diagram is a proven fake.

Author of the fake trying to cover up another related blunder.

The hijackers sought extra training in simulators.

Controlling a plane and flying outside the envelope for a short while is no big deal:


Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 21 May 2006


Source: Aerospaceweb

From pprune.org:


First, it should be easy enough, if there is a legitimate need, to source a Boeing V-G diagram. The fact that the "need" is based on a whacko 9-11 conspiracy theory probably takes going to Boeing out of the picture.

Second, while you can graph a few V speeds onto a generic V-G diagram and make it work for students, but hardly good enough for engineering data. There are lots more to a V-G diagram than those 3 speeds.

Last, an airplane does not suddenly come apart at the right side of the diagram, as any number of LOC events have shown in numerous types. There are a number of other factors to the right side-bird strike protection, flight control characteristics (aileron reversal, hydraulic control limits, wing bending) and flight test design. None of which was a concern to hijackers. I have no doubt a B757-767 could exceed the right side and maintain integrity for the short while they needed it.


Source

The admin of pprune.org closed the thread, agreeing with "galaxy flyer" above:


Conspiracy things belong in other forums. I think that this thread has passed its use-by date, perhaps.


Source

We have no less than THREE simulator tests, all confirming the "design limit" wouldn't instantly break the plane apart, and it would have been possible for the hijackers to hit their targets.

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Harassment of the author of the first test in no way diminishes his results.
edit on 15-2-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-2-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Thanks for the clarification. The description of the memorial is correct, and it includes people who died inside the Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
757 flying low and fast



Pilot explains:


I was the captain of that particular shot, filmed during a Squadron open-day a couple of years ago. It's part of a routine that has been performed over thirty times at various airshows and practices around the world including RIAT Fairford 2003, Kemble 2006, RAF Waddington 2006, Warbirds Over Wanaka 2004, Avalon 2005.

The low pass is flown into wind at 350 knots (indicated) and 100 feet above the runway. It's a 2g pull up to between 45 and 55 degrees nose up pitch (although there has been higher) and the zoom climb ends at an altitude between 8000 and 10000 feet depending on the type of pull up used. The sequence does not end with a loop as some of the readers speculate, but in fact with a 60 degree wingover at around 220 knots. It is easily possible to enhance this maneouver with a steeper climb and bank but there is no need - it is spectacular already, and safe.


Source
edit on 15-2-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Yeah, that story sounds like yet another "something that someone heard that someone else heard" that changed a simple story into something outlandish after so many iterations. It's almost certainly based upon a real eyewitness account (the mention of the sunroof makes it sound vaguely like Penny Elgas' eyewitness testimony) but by the time it got to yoru chaperone it became a whole different story.


You got it right GoodOlDave, it's probably a bastardized version of Penny Elgas. She did actually touch piece of the plane: a piece that fell off. She later donated it to a museum.

If the guard really said Penny touched the plane in the air, he's an idiot. But how can we be sure the guard's story wasn't distorted?


Peggy: Can I have this?
Investigator: No. It is important evidence!
Peggy: But I touched it!
Investigator: oh, well take it away so!
Peggy: Nice! I will treasure this forever.
Hey! Wait a minute! This piece looks like a prop!
Investigator: That's all we got Lady! Take it or leave it!
Peggy: I'll take it. I can always sell donate it to some museum or other.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 


Should have said..." pics or it didn't happen"



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
Peggy: Can I have this?
Investigator: No. It is important evidence!
Peggy: But I touched it!
Investigator: oh, well take it away so!
Peggy: Nice! I will treasure this forever.
Hey! Wait a minute! This piece looks like a prop!
Investigator: That's all we got Lady! Take it or leave it!
Peggy: I'll take it. I can always sell donate it to some museum or other.


First of all, her name is Penny,
and she's an older lady.

Second of all, she was traumatized by the events of that day, and while she was making room for another crying, traumatized lady to sit in her car, she was throwing things from her front seat into her trunk, including a piece of the wing that landed near her car, which she picked up thinking it was one of her possessions.

There was no "investigator" involved at that moment. It was pure chaos.

But I'm sure your delusions will hold you hostage forever, thinking Penny Elgas is an evil "NWO agent" who is out to destroy your life.

Penny saw the plane approach and hit the building. Tough luck and perpetual fail for no planers, who can't even muster the respect to spell the names of the 9/11 victims they're defaming correctly.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by smyleegrl
 

Rather than speculate wether or not touching the bottom of a plane in flight is possible, I thought I would bring something that gives a better feel for the dynamics involved.

Forward to :25 seconds in here:


edit on 15-2-2012 by intrptr because: link problem


I thought all the Pentagon 'planes were Boeings? not that it matters so much.
edit on 15-2-2012 by smurfy because: Add text.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by smyleegrl
 

Rather than speculate wether or not touching the bottom of a plane in flight is possible, I thought I would bring something that gives a better feel for the dynamics involved.


I thought all the Pentagon 'planes were Boeings?


You're welcome.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hadriana
 


The bummer is: That's as good as it gets. Only a fool would believe something so foolish...



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by pshea38
Peggy: Can I have this?
Investigator: No. It is important evidence!
Peggy: But I touched it!
Investigator: oh, well take it away so!
Peggy: Nice! I will treasure this forever.
Hey! Wait a minute! This piece looks like a prop!
Investigator: That's all we got Lady! Take it or leave it!
Peggy: I'll take it. I can always sell donate it to some museum or other.


First of all, her name is Penny,
and she's an older lady.

Second of all, she was traumatized by the events of that day, and while she was making room for another crying, traumatized lady to sit in her car, she was throwing things from her front seat into her trunk, including a piece of the wing that landed near her car, which she picked up thinking it was one of her possessions.

There was no "investigator" involved at that moment. It was pure chaos.

But I'm sure your delusions will hold you hostage forever, thinking Penny Elgas is an evil "NWO agent" who is out to destroy your life.

Penny saw the plane approach and hit the building. Tough luck and perpetual fail for no planers, who can't even muster the respect to spell the names of the 9/11 victims they're defaming correctly.


Man that is just laughable! Was the said piece not on fire, nor burning hot from such
a massive explosion? And why didn't it disintegrate like the rest of the plane?
To make way for a traumatised lady, she threw possessions out of the car and
onto the ground, and then took them from the ground and put them into the trunk.
Why not just put the possessions into the back seat, or are we talking lawnmower or
chainsaw sized objects here?
How was Peggy a 9/11 victim? She was mistaking flaming plane parts for personal
possessions a moment ago, before getting out of dodge?
I thought she lived at least as long to donate the part to a museum?

Maybe she mistook the plane part in her trunk for a twinkie and attempted to eat it?

What a load of BS!
##snipped##

edit on Thu Feb 16 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by smyleegrl
 

Rather than speculate wether or not touching the bottom of a plane in flight is possible, I thought I would bring something that gives a better feel for the dynamics involved.


I thought all the Pentagon 'planes were Boeings?


You're welcome.

So are you...
Off Topic Skull Candy...



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
This is the plane piece Penny Elgas donated to the museum:







Peggy: It kinda looks like a twinkie.
Investigator: No It doesn't lady.
Peggy: Should i try to eat it.
Investigator: It's yours to do what you wish with. You earned it. Donate it to a museum
for all I care. We don't need it.
Now where are those titanium landing gear components that can survive temperatures
of 3000 degrees? Ah Peggy, can I take a look in your trunk? Peggy! Peggy!



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


Congratulations, that could be the most asinine post I've read on ATS ever. If not, very close.

The plane part Penny found was dislodged by the plane impacting a pole (either a light pole or the VDOT pole) on the way to the Pentagon.

That said, plane parts impacting the Pentagon which were flung sideways and backwards weren't all scorched, that part of accident physics exists only in your mind.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
Now where are those titanium landing gear components that can survive temperatures
of 3000 degrees?


Fires never reach 3000 degrees, gas temperature does not mean material temperature, so the titanium doesn't melt, and landing gear components were indeed found.

Anything else?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by pshea38
 


Congratulations, that could be the most asinine post I've read on ATS ever. If not, very close.

Spank you very much!



The plane part Penny found was dislodged by the plane impacting a pole (either a light pole or the VDOT pole) on the way to the Pentagon.

Shure it was!



That said, plane parts impacting the Pentagon which were flung sideways and backwards weren't all scorched, that part of accident physics exists only in your mind.

Shure they weren't!
edit on 15-2-2012 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by pshea38
Now where are those titanium landing gear components that can survive temperatures
of 3000 degrees?


Fires never reach 3000 degrees, gas temperature does not mean material temperature, so the titanium doesn't melt, and landing gear components were indeed found.

Anything else?


Pictures?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure he was saying any onlookers that get in the way of official government business....

get the official government business.


In case you didn't notice, you were being threatened for asking too many questions.





top topics
 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join