| 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 (3,860 Views) | |
| Hetware | Feb 5 2008, 12:44 AM Post #76 |
|
I've already made my position exceedingly clear in this regard. The fact that you are bringing up Hani Hanjour shows that you are either not paying attention, or are intentionally trying to distort what I am saying. |
![]() |
|
| behind | Feb 5 2008, 07:25 AM Post #77 |
|
Um... no. Completely wrong. Try to tell engineers that. |
![]() |
|
| Hetware | Feb 5 2008, 09:14 AM Post #78 |
|
Well if you wish to be pedantic, perhaps I should have said "shell". The point being that the mass of the plane is concentrated in the solid parts, and not in the hollow parts which are filled with air. Momentum = mass X velocity. Where is the mass of the plane? I'll ask my brother who has a degree in aerospace engineering. |
![]() |
|
| Stundie | Feb 7 2008, 08:45 AM Post #79 |
|
1. Of course it is dangerous as the Top gear experiment shows you. The point I was making is if AA77 was going at full throttle as the commission states?? (I hope you agree because this is what they say!) And the plane was only 20-40ft above the ground, then there would cars flung all over the place as the video shows you what happens to a car from 50 yards. (Which is much more than 20-40ft!) 2. You creating Strawmen arguments. I've not argued about the dangers of planes taking off, or even landing, or turbulence. 3. Could you please explain what you mean when you say "the effect is greatly minimized and almost completely negated by the forward momentum of the plane?" Also a plane landing is not using the full power of the jet engines, so posting a picture of a plane landing which is much slower than 500mph and of course not using full power, will not create any ground effect. You are creating strawman arguments which have only happened inside your head. |
![]() |
|
| behind | Feb 7 2008, 09:01 PM Post #80 |
|
Yes I would expect that there is more mass in the shell than air. But this is ofcource long and complecated issue, the planes and the damage on the 9/11. For exemple in the Pentagon case the damage inside the building is all to much to be explained with a plane or plane parts. And the experts who tried to explaine it officially, obviously knew that very well and what is interesting to me is how they explained it. Can be seen here and in Pentagon Building Performance Report (2.5 MB) (And they dont try to explaine the so called exit hole) Edited by behind, Feb 7 2008, 09:02 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| behind | Feb 7 2008, 09:24 PM Post #81 |
|
It is imo one of the most absurd part of the official story how low the "plane" allegedly was. Official story: "3.3 SECURITY CAMERA PHOTOGRAPHSA: Pentagon security camera located near the northwest corner of the building recorded the aircraft as it approached the building. Five photo-graphs (figures 3.3 through 3.7),taken approximately one second apart,show the approaching aircraft and the ensuing fireball associated with the initial impact.The first photograph (figure 3.3) captured an image ofthe aircraft when it was approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 sec-ond) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon.Two photographs(figures 3.3 and 3.7),when compared,seem to show that the top of thefuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the first photograph of this series was taken" B757 Body Exterior Width is 12 ft 4 in and the if we say that the enginees are about three feet lower than the body we are talking about 5 feet above the ground "3.7 SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT: The Boeing 757 approached the west wall of the Pentagon from the southwest at approximately 780 ft/s.As it approached the Pentagon site it was so low to the ground that it reportedly clipped anantenna on a vehicle on an adjacent road and severed light posts.When it was approximately 320 ft from the west wall of the build-ing (0.42 second before impact), it was flying nearly level, only a few feet above the ground" Pentagon Building Performance Report I mean ... it is so stupit that it is really embarrising. (But I am from Europe and here it is not as emotional issue as in US and I ofcource understand that, it happened in your country, I am looking at it from a distance) Edited by behind, Feb 7 2008, 09:57 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| SPreston | Feb 8 2008, 01:19 AM Post #82 |
|
Patriotic American
|
officially the aircraft was flying 1 ft 11 in off the ground Yes it is embarrassing. That so many people on this board, and several other boards, who have claimed to study this Pentagon attack in detail, would continue to believe this silly fantasy, is even more embarrassing. As behind points out, the absurdity is how low the aircraft was in the official story. With their obviously altered 'security videos', they screwed themselves by forcing the alleged 757 aircraft to descend a steep hill and pull up in an impossible manuever in order to attain the flight trajectory seen in their manufactured videos. Here in their Pentagon Building Performance Report, they nailed the lid on their own coffin by officially stating the aircraft's height above the ground and the distance from the Pentagon west wall. When viewed with an open mind, their official Flight 77 trajectory became impossible. This official document was produced by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI). This report is the OCT of the Pentagon attack.
![]() The 757-200 fuselage is oval with a width of 12 ft 4 in and height of 13 ft 2 in. The bottom of the engine cowlings are 4 ft 11 in lower. So officially the aircraft was flying 1 ft 11 in off the ground (engine cowlings to ground) when it entered the first photo of the series and was 320 ft from the west wall of the Pentagon. The belly tank hangs about 1 ft 11 in below the fuselage.
first photograph of this series ![]() ![]() However to enter the 1st floor of the Pentagon, the aircraft needed to fly even lower in order to slide under the 2nd story floor slab which is about 13 ft above ground level. The overall aircraft height would have been 18 ft 1 in from top of fuselage to bottom of engine cowlings if they were an inch above ground level. There is no evidence any engines or anything else struck the lawn at any time. Thus the fuselage top was 5 ft 1 in too high to slide under the 2nd story floor slab. Officially the aircraft entered the 1st floor under the 2nd story floor slab and penetrated through the 1st floor rings to exit out the C-Ring wall at the Exit Hole. To make matters worse, there were polyethelene cable spools directly in the path of the fuselage and belly tank with a height of 6 ft 6 in and 5 ft 5 in which could not fit under the belly tank. These cable spools were not destroyed nor damaged nor melted. It is highly unlikely that a 757 diving down the steep 120 ft hill from the Navy Annex at 530 mph would have been able to pull up in order to accomplish the level flight path across the Pentagon lawn 1 ft 11 in above it. The aircraft could not have fit between the 2nd story floor slab and the cable spools. Of course the cable spools were not melted in the phony looking white-hot initial explosion shown in the official security videos, even though they were supposedly surrounded by the exploding jet fuel. Jet fuel does not burn white-hot. That is impossible. Jet fuel burns red/yellow/orange. White-hot is much hotter. There were no shadows in the foreground from the supposedly very bright explosion. Even though the security videos are official, they are very poor fakes. Therefore for multiple reasons, it is impossible for a 757 to have impacted the Pentagon as the official fantasy tells it. It is embarrassing that anyone would be foolish enough to believe it. ![]() ![]() Arrogant Deception - Or an Attempt to Expose a Cover-up?
Edited by SPreston, Feb 8 2008, 01:58 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |











7:27 PM Jul 10