Pentagon crash during 9/11

[Last Rezort]

Originally posted by: KeyserSoze

Originally posted by: EKKC
Osama bin laden doesn't exist
Saddam Hussein is an American government agent
so is Michael Jackson
9/11 was a ploy to invade the Middle East
Pentagon is just an empty building. DoD is housed actually in some mountain base in West Virginia
Hurricanes are created by aliens

FINALLY. Someone that understands.



KS

God created the universe.
Dinosours dont exist.
ect ect....

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: gigapet

everyone knows planes vaporize when they crash

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/concreteplane.html

pic1

pic2

pic3

 

[DidlySquat]

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
Fact Of The Day (FOTD): Did you know that even if the twin towers didn't collapse following the crash and fires, the damage would have likely been too extensive to fix safely, so they would have to be torn down anyway ? such a demolition project would have cost big $$$ and would have been a dangerous undertaking.......

QFT

 

[conjur]

Why is this thread still open?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: conjur
Why is this thread still open?

Because people are stupid and in general they like to congregate and stroke each others stupidity.

 

[conjur]

Apparently

 

[Lifted]

Thread Police?

 

[DidlySquat]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: gigapet

everyone knows planes vaporize when they crash

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/concreteplane.html

pic1

pic2

pic3

wow !! gigapet pwned

 

[MadRat]

I don't mean to extend this thread out, but the video and picture fail to portray the test parameters. The plane was basically a scrap hull, no harnesses, engines, avionics, etc. The basis of the test was to show the likelihood of damage from a kamikazi attack on a nuclear powerplant. Unfortunately the test only proved that 10, 461 pounds of aluminum will pulverize at 500 knots. If the plane was closer to 40000 pounds then it would have created enough overpressure to disintegrate the center of the target. So the test did everything it was concieved to do, give Senators enough proof that a light plane could not damage the containment structure around a nuke plant.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: MadRat
If the plane was closer to 40000 pounds then it would have created enough overpressure to disintegrate the center of the target.

How can you qualify that statement? You instantly dismiss an actual study that the government did, but then you pull an arbitrary number out of thin air and expect us to believe it.

If you don't believe their test, how about you show us the results of your test? You know, the one showing us how at 40,000 lbs, the "overpressure" (wrong term) would disintegrate the center of the target.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: MadRat
The plane was basically a scrap hull, no harnesses, engines, avionics, etc. The basis of the test was to show the likelihood of damage from a kamikazi attack on a nuclear powerplant. Unfortunately the test only proved that 10, 461 pounds of aluminum will pulverize at 500 knots. If the plane was closer to 40000 pounds then it would have created enough overpressure to disintegrate the center of the target. So the test did everything it was concieved to do, give Senators enough proof that a light plane could not damage the containment structure around a nuke plant.

BTW, you were even dead wrong on your other statement.

Link

"The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom ? including both engines ? onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines."

So it was not an empty scrap hull with no engines, harness, etc. It was a fully intact F-4 Phantom with engines and water in the fuel tanks. The weight of an F-4 is about 30,000 lbs when empty, and this one was not empty, as it had full tanks.

Your argument = owned.

 

[MadRat]

The plane had no engines by the pictures.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: MadRat
The plane had no engines by the pictures.

Wrong. It clearly did.

It clearly has engines, and the pictures clearly show it. What throws it off is the fact that they painted the jet and put that "crash dummy" tape on the side of it.

But if you look at it again, you can see the nozzle on the back of the engine protruding from the back of the fuselage. The fuselage is white, and the nozzle is painted red. Where the engines mount, the fuselage ends roughly under the root of the tail fin. With engines installed, the nozzle sticks back a few more feet.

Test plane, with engines

Here is a picture of an F-4. The nozzle is usually dark gray:

F-4

And here is a picture of an F-4 with the engine taken out:

without engine

And here is the nozzle itself:

nozzle

And just to make it unmistakable, I even made you a picture pointing it out.

The blue dot points out the obvious

So as I pointed out, the test aircraft definitely had engines mounted in it, just as Sandia said it did.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: MadRat
The plane had no engines by the pictures.

Nope, definately didn't have engines. It did have a single turbine, as the F4 was a single engine plane. Are you looking for engines mounted to the wings or something? The F4 is a fighter, it's engine (note, not plural) is mounted in the center of gravity in the plane to allow agility. The turbine nozzel is clearly visible, so unless they took the engine out and mounted a fake nozzel I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Lol, nevermind, my eyesight is apparently as bad as yours. It was pointed out that the F4 does in fact have two engines which now that I think about it is true of most planes as the airforce demands redudancy in engines in case of engine faliure.

Does anyone know which jet was the first one with a single engine? Was it the F-16?

 

[91TTZ]

BTW, for anyone wondering where the plane is in the Pentagon, the pieces are in the pictures if you look for it. I don't see what's so confusing about the issue.

Text

pics


And this is from a website that is usually quite anti-government.

 

[raildogg]

this crap again?

this BS has been proven WRONG a trillion times

do you religiously follow French websites or ultra leftist anti-American blogs?

 

[l Xes l]

happy new years to ya~

 

[bluestrobe]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: MadRat
The plane had no engines by the pictures.

Nope, definately didn't have engines. It did have a single turbine, as the F4 was a single engine plane. Are you looking for engines mounted to the wings or something? The F4 is a fighter, it's engine (note, not plural) is mounted in the center of gravity in the plane to allow agility. The turbine nozzel is clearly visible, so unless they took the engine out and mounted a fake nozzel I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Lol, nevermind, my eyesight is apparently as bad as yours. It was pointed out that the F4 does in fact have two engines which now that I think about it is true of most planes as the airforce demands redudancy in engines in case of engine faliure.

Does anyone know which jet was the first one with a single engine? Was it the F-16?

The F4 had (2) engines. Instead of trying to correct someone, check your own information first. It had two General Electric J79 turbojet engines which were mounted as the picture shows, each side towards the rear. Also the F86 is one of the first jets with a single engine. I didn't research other countries though.