|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 568
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 568 |
Originally posted by a troll Aarrrrrrr:
Originally posted by We Todd:
also you have to remember, when the Pentagon was designed, it was designed to resist a nuclear blast, IIRC.
wow. if an airplane can mange to poke its way through 3 rings (iirc) then i wonder what nuke could do.  
The energy wave generated by a nuclear explosion is a completely different phenomenon from that of a concentrated fireball 20 feet in diameter.
It takes much more effort to fortify something against small-scale, high-energy penetration as opposed to large-scale structural loads.
B. Riley
Melbourne, FL
'01 Camry LE V6/5-spd
Was: '00 Black/Tan SVT Contour #560 - Sold 3/26/03
Before that: '95 Champ/Blue Contour GL V6 ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392 |
Originally posted by a troll Aarrrrrrr:
perhaps showing pictures of surving wreckage may give away info but certainly not video footage of an airplane about to turn into a huge fireball followed by tons of smoke. what could that possibly give away?
it could give away the correct way to fly a plane into the pentagon?  
here's a link that give some support to the fact that a 757 really did hit it... i hope you skpetics give it a good look.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
02 Mustang GT... Tuned by Nelsons. Low 12's, anyone? 
.....______
___|______\_____
|/-\_________/-\_|
.\_/...............\_/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 568
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 568 |
Originally posted by Goonz SVT:
Originally posted by We Todd:
Originally posted by Goonz SVT:
And am I suppose to believe that there was no airplane wreckage found and that every thing burned away..not even a landing gear or anything? Cause I've seen planes burn to pieces like the concorde but still there is somthing left.. I dont understand.. ?
Goonz, as I stated before, there is a great video on ifilms that should help with this. Its a test with a F-4 running into a concrete wall at speed. The video looks to be done in the 80s buy its quality. Search there for that video and it should help explain it. Sorry I can't remember what the title is.
yea but theres a difference between an F4 hitting than a 757..I dunno..oh well
Exactly what difference? One plane is much bigger...so...there's an order of magnitude more kinetic energy involved, so while we're making uninformed guesses based on inexperience and apparent lack of 'believable' real-world examples of 757's crash-tested at 450 or 500 knots into kevlar-reinforced concrete, might as well posit that the leftover pieces would be even smaller with the 757, since the airframe is proportionally weaker to that of a fighter and said energy released at impact is much, much greater.
But let's not bother with the physics involved. It's what people think should happen based on the almighty intuition that takes the day...
EDIT: FWIW, 1) the Concorde had just taken off when its mishap occurred. There is no comparison between the impact speeds involved; 2) The ValuJet 593 DC-9 that TourDeForce alluded to went down nose first with a similar impact speed (as Flight 77) into a relatively soft marsh and dug itself a 40' hole into limestone; many extremely small pieces left, assuming you 'believe' those pictures. There is little reason to believe by comparison that any other airliner, larger or smaller, traveling at a similar speed, striking a fortified obstacle, will result in anything less than billions of tiny, charred, almost unidentifiable giblets.
B. Riley
Melbourne, FL
'01 Camry LE V6/5-spd
Was: '00 Black/Tan SVT Contour #560 - Sold 3/26/03
Before that: '95 Champ/Blue Contour GL V6 ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,241
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,241 |
Originally posted by MxRacer:
Originally posted by a troll Aarrrrrrr:
perhaps showing pictures of surving wreckage may give away info but certainly not video footage of an airplane about to turn into a huge fireball followed by tons of smoke. what could that possibly give away?
it could give away the correct way to fly a plane into the pentagon?
here's a link that give some support to the fact that a 757 really did hit it... i hope you skpetics give it a good look.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
word. thanks dave. i'll add the one from snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
reading people's repsonses and support of these conspiracy videos makes me want to fly an RC plane into their face. KEE AYY!
Jake
96 T-Red SE V6
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,651
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,651 |
Do you guys know about building number #7 in NYC??
It went down after the WTC towers got hit. IT is messed up to watch, it just fell down on its own.
NOthing around it. kinda wierd if you ask me. I guess it was a cia building. It look like buildings that get demolitioned by explosives.
If i find a link i will put it up.
I don't really believe in consipracies.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,600
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,600 |
The inside job conspiracy sounds all too familiar to 24.
#4559 of 6535 born on Feb 17, 1998
Black 1998.5 CSVT
FOR SALE [cleaning house]: SVT rear swaybar. Reasonable offer and its yours!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by Rickson:
Do you guys know about building number #7 in NYC??
It went down after the WTC towers got hit. IT is messed up to watch, it just fell down on its own.
NOthing around it. kinda wierd if you ask me.
Not really weird at all. You have to understand a bit about engineering (mostly structural tolerances) coupled with force (mass and energy). Remember, the WTC towers were huge buildings, a few hundred thousand tons each with load. I've seen estimates as high as 500,000 tons each but let's safely say 300,000 tons each, so 600,000 tons of mass. That kind of mass creates an amazing amount of kinetic energy when in motion. All of that mass was converted into energy when the towers fell, and the energy created when all of that mass collapsed into the substructure of the Manhattan island was extremely destructive. I had the privilege to listen to a young lady who worked in the J.P. Morgan trading house which is within a block of the WTC area, and she was present when the towers came down. Her tearful description of that day I will never forget, and her description of the literal earthquake that occurred when the WTC's collapsed was no less amazing.
Many of the other WTC buildings, including WTC7, sustained structural damage as a result of the WTC towers falling. Specifically in WTC7's case, the amount of damage was so severe that the building simply collapsed after the WTC's did.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
These videos offer absolutely no proof of anything, just speculation.
But, but.... I read on da innernet dat somebody said it was true... 
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 595
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 595 |
Originally posted by CLASSVT:
This is funny. Hippies make me laugh. 
And they smell bad.
Black 1998.5
3L Oval Port
Full HMS Transmission
Lots of other stuff
Ressurected 06/14/06
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by muntus:
Originally posted by CLASSVT:
This is funny. Hippies make me laugh.
And they smell bad.
Free love, baby. 
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
