Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Fuslage from United 175 found on top WTC 5
Topic Started: Jun 3 2008, 11:15 AM (10,377 Views)
ShaDow

Posted Image

Quote:
 
United Airlines Flight 175 A portion of United Airlines Flight 175's low calcium emedicine fuselage on the roof of 5 WTC.


Would this be right? I thought WTC 5 was the other side?

Also, any reason there is yellow spray paint on it?
Edited by ShaDow, Jun 3 2008, 11:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SPreston
Member Avatar
Patriotic American
Quote:
 
United Airlines Flight 175 A portion of United Airlines Flight 175's low calcium emedicine fuselage on the roof of 5 WTC.
ShaDow
 
Would this be right? I thought WTC 5 was the other side?

Also, any reason there is yellow spray paint on it?

No, WTC 5 is on the correct side. That piece was most likely planted there prior to 9-11. It is highly unlikely that piece of fuselage traveled through heavy structural steel walls at 545 mph. It would be badly gouged by the steel in a linear pattern along its horizontal axis and almost unrecognizable as a fuselage piece. How did a short light aluminum fuselage piece maintain the inertia after traveling through two strong exterior walls and multiple interior walls, to fly over a hundred yards through the open air to the roof of another building off to the side? It could not. It was planted like much of the other evidence of 9-11.

Flight 175 allegedly impacting the South Tower at 545 mph. (click map)
Posted Image

The alleged Flt 175 fuselage piece. (click photo) http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Miragememories
Member Avatar

Posted Image
Posted Image

SPreston
 
"No, WTC 5 is on the correct side. That piece was most likely planted there prior to 9-11. It is highly unlikely that piece of fuselage traveled through heavy structural steel walls at 545 mph. It would be badly gouged by the steel in a linear pattern along its horizontal axis and almost unrecognizable as a fuselage piece. How did a short light aluminum fuselage piece maintain the inertia after traveling through two strong exterior walls and multiple interior walls, to fly over a hundred yards through the open air to the roof of another building off to the side? It could not. It was planted like much of the other evidence of 9-11."

As much as I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, I'm unwilling to state something is a
fact just because it's a better fit with my belief.

That piece of fuselage may have been planted but there is nothing to support that claim.

It would seem quite possible for a piece to arrive there as a result of the original aircraft's destruction while passing through
WTC 2.

As part of the fuselage, it had the opportunity to follow any entrance and exit holes in the perimeter walls of WTC 2 that would have been punched out ahead of it by stronger heavier debris ie. the right engine and landing gear.

It's a relatively small section and lacks the weight and shape that would lead to an expectation of a continuous linear flight after exiting. Who knows what it's physical orientation was while passing through WTC 2. None of the debris on the WTC 5 roof looks badly gouged or scratched.

Once out in the open air, still traveling at a high rate of speed, having significant elevation and acted upon by updrafts and a light wind, it could easily have drifted a bit westerly and made it from it's 78th floor elevation to the roof of the 9 story WTC 5.

MM
Edited by Miragememories, Jun 4 2008, 07:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Just throwing this out there -

Posted Image

http://www.ericoconnell.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HeadLikeARock

Miragememories
Jun 4 2008, 07:17 AM
Posted Image
Posted Image

SPreston
 
"No, WTC 5 is on the correct side. That piece was most likely planted there prior to 9-11. It is highly unlikely that piece of fuselage traveled through heavy structural steel walls at 545 mph. It would be badly gouged by the steel in a linear pattern along its horizontal axis and almost unrecognizable as a fuselage piece. How did a short light aluminum fuselage piece maintain the inertia after traveling through two strong exterior walls and multiple interior walls, to fly over a hundred yards through the open air to the roof of another building off to the side? It could not. It was planted like much of the other evidence of 9-11."

As much as I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, I'm unwilling to state something is a
fact just because it's a better fit with my belief.

That piece of fuselage may have been planted but there is nothing to support that claim.

It would seem quite possible for a piece to arrive there as a result of the original aircraft's destruction while passing through
WTC 2.

As part of the fuselage, it had the opportunity to follow any entrance and exit holes in the perimeter walls of WTC 2 that would have been punched out ahead of it by stronger heavier debris ie. the right engine and landing gear.

It's a relatively small section and lacks the weight and shape that would lead to an expectation of a continuous linear flight after exiting. Who knows what it's physical orientation was while passing through WTC 2. None of the debris on the WTC 5 roof looks badly gouged or scratched.

Once out in the open air, still traveling at a high rate of speed, having significant elevation and acted upon by updrafts and a light wind, it could easily have drifted a bit westerly and made it from it's 78th floor elevation to the roof of the 9 story WTC 5.

MM
A refreshingly honest post MM.

My thoughts are that it isn't unreasonable to expect to find some pieces of debris beyond the exit zone of each plane. The walls weren't constructed of solid steel, there were windows in between the steel beams that it's possible some fuselage fragments could have been thrown out of. As yo say, it could also have gone through the punch-in and punch-out holes. This small section is badly mangled and also appears burnt. I don't see any evidence supporting the theory that it must have been planted. I wouldn't rule it out, but I find it very unlikely. I don't see why there would be a need to plant such evidence, unless you subscribe to the no-planes theory, which I certainly do not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ShaDow

I still don't understand why it has yellow paint on it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
einsteen
Member Avatar

ShaDow
Jul 18 2008, 10:01 AM
I still don't understand why it has yellow paint on it?
maybe to enumerate the pieces.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ShaDow

Why didn't they use the F.B.I evidence tape?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JackD

Popular Mechanics says Evidence tape would have ruined the perfect shot, after they spend great effort setting it up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ShaDow

Ah that would make sence, thanks for filling me in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sparkoflife420

There is no real wreckage of the plane... hmm, i wonder why ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mightyqueen801

It is highly unlikely that piece of fuselage traveled through heavy structural steel walls at 545 mph.

Sorry, I saw a chunk of burning fuselage lying on the Plaza when I got out of Tower One a few minutes after Two was hit. There was a plane, a real plane. As you know, thousands saw it hit live, and I know quite a few people who saw the plane from inside the towers.

What you see on the videos is like a cartoon compared to being there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grit1645

SPreston
Jun 3 2008, 07:33 PM

No, WTC 5 is on the correct side. That piece was most likely planted there prior to 9-11. It is highly unlikely that piece of fuselage traveled through heavy structural steel walls at 545 mph. It would be badly gouged by the steel in a linear pattern along its horizontal axis and almost unrecognizable as a fuselage piece. How did a short light aluminum fuselage piece maintain the inertia after traveling through two strong exterior walls and multiple interior walls, to fly over a hundred yards through the open air to the roof of another building off to the side? It could not. It was planted like much of the other evidence of 9-11.
Not my point to argue with SP, but just a little physics here:

Supposing the fuselage piece to be emerging horizontally at around 780 feet above the plaza (78th floor?) and landing on top of a 9 story building (about 90 feet above the plaza) would make a vertical drop of 690 feet. Using y=(1/2) g t^2 for the equation of vertical motion: 690 = 0.5 * 32.2 * t^2 gives a time in vacuum of 6.54 seconds.

Using a conservative horizontal travel distance of 400 feet and a time of 6.54 seconds, and a horizontal equation of motion of x = v *t: 400 = v * 6.54 then v = 61 feet/second or about 42 miles per hour as a necessary horizontal velocity on leaving the North wall of WTC 2 (in vacuum, of course). Since a piece of debris that large would experience considerable drag, a higher velocity value would be needed, however an offsetting longer fall time would also result from the drag. Given the original velocity on the order of 500 mph, this does not seem like an unreasonable event, just on the surface of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colorado_Bobby

First post on this board:

Thank you for being here. The perpetuity of "Eastasia" as a war zone sucking up TRILLIONS of dollars, along with Thousands of Americas youth's lives, is becoming more convincing that the creation of the 'enemy' being the Mohammedans and that W and Cheney are at the head of this monumental lie.

The military-industrial-(congressional)-complex is real. Think what the course of our country could be if the $$$ spent in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting an ever pissed off 'enemy' in Bush's "Crusade" were spent here instead. We are no farther ahead in these wars, and in truth they will never end. :cigar:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
911conspiracyTV

Could this be the N6 from tail number N612UA?

Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DoYouEverWonder

The window on the piece of debris with the numbers, doesn't line up with the windows on the other piece of debris.

Looks like someone tried to make it look like it was still all one piece.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Michal

well, this part is extremely deflected so it is not that easy to ascertain
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · United Flight 175 · Next Topic »
Add Reply