757 Engine Impact Not Noticeable at Pentagon

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
One thing that concerns me about the Pentagon strike is that the engines are much more dense than the aluminium nose of the plane, yet the nose is what does all the damage to the wall at least in some of the pictures that have been seen. Based on kinetic energy and density of those engines should not have something shown up as impacted. If you have ever used a titanium hammer you will understand what I am saying.


The 757 is fitted with either Pratt and Whitney PW2000's, or Rolls Royce RB 211's, both of which are huge engines.
They would have been like mini missles on impact, but the aluminum nose which is much softer does all the damage.

Yes I understand that the nose hit first, but those engines weren't far behind especially at that speed.

Thoughts?
edit on 2-8-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
So you are saying the engines did no damage?




I also meant to add. Can you show some if those pictures you are referring to?
edit on 2-8-2013 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
So you are saying the engines did no damage?





No I am saying they should have done way more damage than what is seen, even on the towers those engines punch right through the steel, and even blew out the other side.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I am in no way an expert on this but reading the thread made me think of a Mythbusters episode when they want to see if a car can be pancaked. One of the coolest clips from MB's vaults if you ask me.




The high speed shots are mind blowing! In the video the car is impacted at 700 miles per hour, what do they say the plane impacted at? This may be evidence of it being a plane, except the lack of wide spread damage done by what would of been the wings, if it was an airplane, has always not set well with me.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
The thing is...If you watch slow motion for any plane crash test? It's not the "nose" that does the damage. It's the looooong tube of aircraft right behind it that pancakes into the space the nose started a hole that does the job.

I'm somewhat surprised about the lack of clear impression and damage from the engines too. I was at the time ..but then I did ask myself just what I'd been expecting to see, a cartoon like hole in the shape of the plane?

The thing about that whole thing is...They couldn't have hit a worse side as one to attack on. It just so happened to be the side that had just wrapped up with additional armor/reinforcement to withstand vehicle bombs like the Embassies in Africa were obliterated by.


American Airlines Flight 77 struck the portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes--enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety.

The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows--2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each--that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out.
Source

There is an article with a bit more information about just HOW bad a choice it was from the perspective of an attacker. They literally had 5 chances to pick a winner ...and couldn't even get THAT right on 1:5 odds. Just not their day. It sure could and would have been worse for everyone there if luck had broke differently though.

Just my opinion.
edit on 2-8-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
The plane would of had to fly low for miles.. There are plenty of people that could of recorded it and not one video has surfaced.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Yea, isnt it weird that the only "punch hole" was made by the aluminum frame and not the steel based engine with titanium blades?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Theres a picture that shows the impact site on the pentagon, All it shows is one single small round hole. There are NO marks where the wings would have collided, and no wings stuck to the wall either!

It was not a plane that hit the pentagon!



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
www.davesweb.cnchost.com...&plane.jpeg

edit on 8/2/2013 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Both engines left a mark.

The starboard engine went through a chain link fence and then left a mark all the way through a construction generator. If you think the engine would have impacted the generator and remained attached to the wing, to leave a impact mark in the proper position on the building, then you have a silly way of thinking. The engine would have parted ways with the wing and found its own path to travel.




The port engine also left a mark on a short concrete wall (bottom left in this photo) The distance between the 2 impact marks align perfectly with the distance between the 2 engines on a 757.




posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I know right?
Maybe let's label that "yet another first"
anomaly #642



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





I'm somewhat surprised about the lack of clear impression and damage from the engines too. I was at the time .


Wrabbit, that is not the only inconsistencies with the "official story" regarding the Pentagon. Impacts on light poles, lack of damage to grass and not to mention the angle of impact which would place the port side engine 3' underground. However, they did manage to doctor a CGI image showing the aircraft just above the ground yet the engines would have damaged the grass and the grass was unharmed. The turbine disk of one of the engines that was said to be from the 757 was way to small for it to have been either from the P&W or RR RB211 stated.

There was something about an investigation into some "missing money" starting and then the next day... amazingly that aircraft just managed to hit the area where the records were kept...what luck! Hmmmm...



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pstrron
 

Indeed.. There are some odd points to the Pentagon attack site, but not near as many as myth and media seem to suggest. If anyone is curious to see the original material and the actual evidence used in the criminal trial to convict a man of all this? The Federal Government took the heretofore unprecedented step of turning 100% of the material, trial exhibits and evidence to the public. It's sitting there in perpetuity, as I understand it, for a record to review now and for however long into the future people are curious to look.

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui Criminal No. 01-455-A

In there are the 1,202 exhibits, reports, photographs and pages of testimony used by both Prosecution and Defense in the only criminal trial to yet run for the 9/11 attacks. ( a literal handful are classified for the natuer of material or methods used to get it. A few of the 1,202) Original photos covering most, if not all your points were also used at trial and are among that case file.

**** Fair warning on that, if you choose to go digging into the actual evidence. It was a murder trial. Murder trials are never pretty and Jurors have been known to lose their lunch from time to time on photographs that are standard fare in a murder trial....let alone THIS one. These are also BIG files, which means high resolution of those scenes. That is to say, bodies and parts of bodies are among those exhibits and photos. Nothing is blurred and nothing is covered. The first time seeing some of it, some will probably wretch. I almost did and I thought I'd seen almost everything. Err... Wrong.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Anyone who can actually believe that the government BS is the truth needs a thorough head examination.....
Precedence alone will tell lots.......
pay attention.
USS Maine, The USS Lusitania ,Pearl Harbour, USS Maddox. All false flags perpetrated by administrations anxious to go to war.
Is it reasonable that 19 arabs could have even pulled this off armed with box cutters?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by cass1dy09
 


No it wouldn't. It would have only had to do a descending turn, and drop down for the last part of the flight into the building.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I am pretty sure that there are marks on the outer facade of the pentagon where the engines hit but more so, they found bits of the engines.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Maybe the debunkers can explain their way through this:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by pstrron
 

Indeed.. There are some odd points to the Pentagon attack site, but not near as many as myth and media seem to suggest. If anyone is curious to see the original material and the actual evidence used in the criminal trial to convict a man of all this? The Federal Government took the heretofore unprecedented step of turning 100% of the material, trial exhibits and evidence to the public. It's sitting there in perpetuity, as I understand it, for a record to review now and for however long into the future people are curious to look.

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui Criminal No. 01-455-A

In there are the 1,202 exhibits, reports, photographs and pages of testimony used by both Prosecution and Defense in the only criminal trial to yet run for the 9/11 attacks. ( a literal handful are classified for the natuer of material or methods used to get it. A few of the 1,202) Original photos covering most, if not all your points were also used at trial and are among that case file.

**** Fair warning on that, if you choose to go digging into the actual evidence. It was a murder trial. Murder trials are never pretty and Jurors have been known to lose their lunch from time to time on photographs that are standard fare in a murder trial....let alone THIS one. These are also BIG files, which means high resolution of those scenes. That is to say, bodies and parts of bodies are among those exhibits and photos. Nothing is blurred and nothing is covered. The first time seeing some of it, some will probably wretch. I almost did and I thought I'd seen almost everything. Err... Wrong.

So where is the proof the burnt, broken bodies came from Flight 77? Where is the proof ANY of the so-called"evidence" presented at the Moussaoui trial demonstrates that the alleged 9/11 hijackers were on the crashed planes? There is none. The government's case is purely circumstantial, with planted, suggestive evidence but no hard proof. Which, of course, could not exist because the alleged hijackers were never on the crashed planes. Moussaoui's "confessions" were extracted by the torture of water-boarding - he even confessed to robbing a bank which had not been built at the time he was supposed to have committted the crime! The trial was a farrago of ludicrous lies extracted by torture.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
The aircraft people can correct this if wrong but the engine isn't a giant hunk a solid steel the size of the outside housing. The densest parts are smaller in diameter in the center. It may not necessarily create a hole that size.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
So where is the proof the burnt, broken bodies came from Flight 77?


ww2.dcmilitary.com...





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum