| 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! |
| Police stopped traffic before the plane hit; Eyewitness says he saw a plane | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 27 2008, 06:16 AM (3,857 Views) | |
| Hetware | Feb 1 2008, 01:05 AM Post #51 |
|
Parts of the nose of the plane are reported to have been in the debris outside the hole. The fuselage was a long cylinder of sheet aluminum which was traveling parallel to its central axis. The vast majority of the momentum of the plane was in the fuselage, and much, if not most would have been in the skin. Take a drinking straw and cut it off to match the dimensions of the fuselage. Stand it on end on a table, and slam the palm of your hand down on the other end. Examine the wound. Edited by Hetware, Feb 1 2008, 05:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Stundie | Feb 1 2008, 09:01 AM Post #52 |
|
Did you see this clip that I posted from Top Gear?? Here is what happens to car unfortunate enough to get in the way of a jet engines turbines from 50 yards away. So if AA77 was going full throttle and Lloyd saw this plane clip a light pole, (So it is much less than 50 yards away!) then please explain why is car is still intact and not blown over as in like the video above demonstrates?? Also please explain how he removed the light pole without causing any damage to his hood? Edited by Stundie, Feb 1 2008, 09:02 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Stundie | Feb 1 2008, 09:11 AM Post #53 |
|
Another question I would like to raise. The hole in c-ring is a strange one.... If the plane flew over the south side of citgo as the official story suggests, then this hole could not have been cause by it because it was attacking the pentagon at an angle. If it was hit at an angle, then you would not have an almost perfect circles as seen in the c-ring? As whatever hit the c-ring would have entered at an angle and not caused an almost perfect circle. So the damage would be more than likely consistent with the North Side of Citgo flight path because it was perpendicular to the walls of the Pentagon. I can't think of a good enough analogy to explain exactly what I am saying, but I hope you get the picture. |
![]() |
|
| Hetware | Feb 1 2008, 09:29 AM Post #54 |
|
I was talking about his hole. Where is the hole in the shape of "an almost perfect circle"?
Edited by Hetware, Feb 1 2008, 09:30 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Stundie | Feb 1 2008, 09:56 AM Post #55 |
|
Maybe I exaggerated a little about it being a perfect circle, but the points you completely ignored still stand. Does anyone have a diagram of where the holes were located in the different rings? And are these consistent with the angle of the attack?? |
![]() |
|
| Hetware | Feb 1 2008, 11:04 AM Post #56 |
|
The first floor of the Pentagon: The upper floors: ![]() http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/fact911/images/pentagon/images.html |
![]() |
|
| Hetware | Feb 1 2008, 01:17 PM Post #57 |
|
The 757 that passed over Washington Blvd was clocking at 540 mph. In the video you posted the plane was standing still. This is a more realistic, yet sill poor comparison. |
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Feb 1 2008, 07:35 PM Post #58 |
![]()
|
You know full well that what you are saying is NOT consistent with Lee Evey's claim. A piece of fuselage is not a nosecone. Why have you changed his story? Do you have a picture of this 'fuselage piece'? There were pictures taken for that news briefing, right? |
![]() |
|
| Hetware | Feb 1 2008, 08:35 PM Post #59 |
|
What is at the front of the fuselage? What survived the impact with the back wall and what hit the back wall are two different things. I am not at the Pentagon standing in the debris, so I am not able to assess it directly. I can assess the damage with a certain amount of confidence, and that tells me that whatever made the hole in the back wall was about the diameter of a 757 fuselage. The only alternative that makes any sense to me would be an explosion, and the damage really doesn't look to me as if an explosion crated the hole. It really isn't that hard to figure out. Take a 4 inch diameter pipe and slam it end-first into sheet-rock. Now imagine the pipe were flimsy and collapsed as it impacted the sheet-rock. |
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Feb 2 2008, 11:36 AM Post #60 |
![]()
|
YOU weren't there, but, obviously, other people were. You have changed the story. First it was the nose of the plane, then it was a PIECE of the nose, then people said it was the landing gear, now it's a fuselage piece. I don't see a fuselage piece or the nose of a plane in this picture. You could say it was removed, but there's an awful lot of smoke coming from that hole. ![]() |
![]() |
|
| Hetware | Feb 3 2008, 09:56 AM Post #61 |
|
I have not changed my story. You are simply attributing to me claims I have not made, or attempting to distort what I have stated. What hit the back wall was massive material possessing some of the momentum of the 757 which impacted the front wall. This conglomerate of material impacted several internal columns as it passed through the enclosed space between the walls. It consisted of both material from the plane, and building materials which had been set in motion by the force of the impact.
Edited by Hetware, Feb 3 2008, 09:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Feb 3 2008, 10:23 AM Post #62 |
![]()
|
I'm not saying you've changed YOUR story. I'm saying you've changed the official story. I thought I was pretty clear on that.
Ok, now you HAVE changed your story! Why do say you haven't changed your story then proceed to change your story? You are very strange. Too bad your new version doesn't come anywhere close to the original official story. All you have to do is read my sig. The nose of the plane, man. |
![]() |
|
| SPreston | Feb 3 2008, 10:43 AM Post #63 |
|
Patriotic American
|
Why can't these defenders of the OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory) just defend the OCT without changing the OCT? Is the OCT so unbelievable to them also, that they feel the need to rewrite the OCT to fit their own particular requirements? Of course we expect the Bush Regime and their FBI damage control craftsmen to change the OCT when some of the gaping holes become too overly exposed, but supposedly the defenders on this board are not Bush Regime damage control artists. Or are they?
|
![]() |
|
| Reddawn | Feb 3 2008, 10:51 AM Post #64 |
|
Stundie should know that the physics involved with jet blast (ground effect, wake turbulance, whatever you want to call it) are completetly different depending on the situation. 1. When a plane is at a standstill and applying full power. This is the case stundie illustrates and the effect, is indeed rather dangerous and powerfull to anything behind it. 2. When a plane is taking off. This wake turbulance ia also powerfull but not as much as in the first case. The primary danger is to other planes that may take off right behind it as the turbulance creates vortexes in the air that can affect the lift and flying characteristics of planes attempting to depart right behind it. ATC has rules for how long a following plane must wait to depart behind a large jet. The same rules do NOT apply behind landing jets. 3. When a plane is landing or flying close to the ground at full speed. This was the case at the Pentagon. While the engines are still producing thrust and turbulance, the effect is greatly minimized and almost completely negated by the forward momentum of the plane. The supposed "ground effect" that DRG and others espouse is nonsense. Check out this video which shows a 747 landing less than 30 feet above people and a vehicle, with zero effect on them. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2231669038729956701&q=plane+landing&total=15038&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8 Edited by Reddawn, Feb 3 2008, 10:53 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Feb 3 2008, 11:07 AM Post #65 |
![]()
|
That plane wasn't coming in anywhere close to 500 miles an hour, though. According police officer Michael Benedict, the plane flew over the Annex building and cause it shake as it passed over. So I wouldn't say that this ground effect thing is nonsense. |
![]() |
|
| SPreston | Feb 3 2008, 11:21 AM Post #66 |
|
Patriotic American
|
Your explanation is ridiculous. Landing speeds are between 130 and 170 mph and your imaginary 757 Flight 77 was officially 'landing' at 530 mph. The wake turbulence behind your 530 mph OCT aircraft would be much greater than an aircraft taking off at 160 mph or a 747 landing at 152 mph under full flaps. Airliner Takeoff Speeds Wake Turbulence Commercial aircraft technical data |
![]() |
|
| Reddawn | Feb 3 2008, 11:32 AM Post #67 |
|
No, YOUR explanation is ridiculous. The increased speed completely negates any wake turbulance behind it. In fact, if anything, the momentum of such a huge "mass" traveling at that speed would more likely pull something toward it's path than push it away. You guys would be better off asking why Lloyd and the cab weren't "sucked" in toward the Pentagon. LOL. |
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Feb 3 2008, 12:11 PM Post #68 |
![]()
|
Is that why the Annex building shook when the plane flew over it? |
![]() |
|
| SPreston | Feb 3 2008, 12:16 PM Post #69 |
|
Patriotic American
|
Did you mean like your imaginary 530 mph 757 flying just above the ground pulling the bystanders and autos on the road just a few feet below it toward it's path and sending them tumbling? You have never felt the turbulence and pulling force of a semi-tractor trailer rushing by you just a few feet away at only 60 mph? Where is the 757 Flight 77? An aircraft hit this building?
Edited by SPreston, Feb 3 2008, 12:24 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Feb 3 2008, 12:17 PM Post #70 |
![]()
|
![]() How is it that her whole house was shaking well before she actually saw the plane? |
![]() |
|
| Reddawn | Feb 3 2008, 10:50 PM Post #71 |
|
LOL. That was exactly my point. Did you miss the irony? So, which was it? The turbulance from the engines should have knocked everyone backwards (Lloyd, his car, etc) or should the momentum from the plane sent them tumbling" forward towards the Pentagon? It would be nice if your side could make up their minds. |
![]() |
|
| SPreston | Feb 4 2008, 01:10 AM Post #72 |
|
Patriotic American
|
The turbulence is not from the engines. The turbulence would be from the mass of the entire aircraft rushing by at 530 mph similar to the semi rushing by and pulling nearby objects in the same direction. From the engines would come jet wash at full throttle which if any object such as a human or auto or light pole entered that powerful jet wash would be hurled in the opposite direction. Wake turbulence is caused by the airflow over the airfoils (wings) and is greater in a clean configuration (ie no flaps). Ground effects would be the atmosphere squeezed between the aircraft and the ground. All these forces would act powerfully upon any objects nearby and they did not. Thus along with many other reasons, no aircraft flew into the Pentagon on 9-11-2001. No people were hurled to their deaths on the lawn and no autos were overturned on the roads and no light poles were hurled into windshields. 9-11 was an INSIDE JOB attack on America by the Bush Regime and you are fearfully defending them. |
![]() |
|
| Hetware | Feb 4 2008, 07:27 PM Post #73 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Feb 4 2008, 08:15 PM Post #74 |
![]()
|
Nice, but, what's your point? |
![]() |
|
| SPreston | Feb 4 2008, 09:51 PM Post #75 |
|
Patriotic American
|
Hani Hanjour trained with these guys? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |











7:27 PM Jul 10