Where are AA77's wings?

Originally posted by notreallyalive

Originally posted by Lillydale
I know that ATS frowns upon brief opening posts but this is a subject that really needs very few words. In all the bickering over 'evidence' at the pentagon attack, I still have not seen a decent explanation as to what happened to the wings of the plane. I have asked and seen it asked many many times on ATS but still have not seen it answered. I am hoping someone can help me out.

No airplane hit the Pentagon, period.

* There's no FAA video from the airports

Please explain what FAA video are you refering to?

* There's no hole in the ground

No there isn´t. The plane hit the building.

* There are no airplane parts from the scene

Many parts have been shown on pictures taken even a few minutes after the crash.

* The hole in the Pentagon is SMALLER than the fuselage of an airplane

The damage corresponds exactly to the size of the aircraft.

* The flight path which has been shown as real is both aeronautically and physically impossible for that size airplane to manage hitting where the explosion was

The flightpath corresponds exactly to the facts.

IT IS A RUSE! No airplane hit the Pentagon.

AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Next question... why would they say it did? And, why do I feel sick inside when I think about it.

"They (is this everybody?) had to say it hit because that´s what happened. Do you think they could have made you believe something else? Maybe a car bomb? How about a shoulder fired missile? Would you have believed that?

A media and government that lies to it's people can only last for so long.

Like China, Rusia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, etc...

****

A simple comparison would be if tire tracks were found on your side yard and there's a two foot hole in the front wall of your house. The proponents would be saying it was a car that drove through the front of your house.

How does this compare? What tracks are you comparing at the Pentagon?

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Well Lillydale.
Now you have a new question...
How did the wings hit the wall with enough force to brake into millions of pieces and then get inside the wall without breaking the wall to do it?
Let me get this straight.
Are you telling me that if I explain this to your satisfaction you would admit AA77 crashed at the Pentagon?

Well, not exactly. I will admit it was something with wings.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by Lillydale]

I'm still at a complete loss as to how the nose of the aircraft can penetrate the wall, but the mass of the engines - travelling at the same velocity - could not penetrate the wall. These engines weigh close to 7500 lbs. so I'm sure they would at least make a dent. The nose section of the aircraft - which did not apparently disintegrate - penetrated into the inner rings of the pentagon.
And where's the tail?

reply to post by Badgered1


Hi Badgered1.
You would have to define what you mean by the “nose” of the plane penetrating the wall.
You see, it isn´t really the nose but the whole thing together that makes this mass, traveling at a great rate of speed. The hardest or toughest parts make it further and the weakest or flimsiest are obliterated in milliseconds. The hardest parts would be the landing gear struts and the wheels. The nose is actually thin metal designed to be aerodynamic but it isn´t very strong. Someone earlier mentioned a bullet fired at a wall. Well this is totally different from a bullet.
Now, the landing gear in the front of the airplane seems to be the part that carried the most inertia going through the walls and all the cables and the rest of the structure “pulled” along.
I would also think that the explosion “pushed” some of the mass further down the building. (However this is only conjecture on my part.)
Now, you mention that the engines “couldn´t penetrate the wall”. How come?
Where do you get that idea? The engines did penetrate the wall and they were found inside. There are photographs of this. Here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Lillydale


great pic~! cuz' anyone with a half a brain should be able to see that there is NO wing damage PERIOD ON THE building itself. .. anyways.. yes.. .......

the amount of questions never seem to subside and instead, multiply exponentially after just one question is asked.. which also brings up another question in my mind..

Why don't those who believe it was a plane that hit the 'penta-lawn' ever ASK any questions.. just fully swallow whatever is given to them..at least to me, I've never read where they questions any of it.. if they have ....

it's few & VERY far between!!!

Originally posted by rush969

Now, you mention that the engines “couldn´t penetrate the wall”. How come?
Where do you get that idea? The engines did penetrate the wall and they were found inside. There are photographs of this. Here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am having a little trouble finding evidence that both engines were found inside the building. There is a picture of a piece of engine and some text claiming it was one of the engines found at the scene. Where are there two engines and where were they found inside the building?

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by Lillydale

 

great pic~! cuz' anyone with a half a brain should be able to see that there is NO wing damage PERIOD ON THE building itself. .. anyways.. yes.. .......

I guess that is why asking them to point it out has turned out to be such an outrageously impossible undertaking. All I wanted was someone to take a paint program and draw an outline. I guess they get lost when someone asks for something solid.

I would imagine still connected to the plane - it did not crash - so its scrapped by now or renumbered and sold to India Airlines.

Originally posted by Anti-Evil
I would imagine still connected to the plane - it did not crash - so its scrapped by now or renumbered and sold to India Airlines.

Even though you could never prove that, so far it sounds more like an actual answer than any of the babbling nonsense put before me so far.

reply to post by Lillydale


The Pentagon Building Performance Report.
Has many more photographs worth taking a look at.
On page 29 a photo actually has a note that says: "gashes from impact of right wing".

www.fire.nist.gov...



[edit on 18-10-2009 by rush969]

reply to post by rush969


Yeah well since I have not installed any adobe software just so I can download links from people on the internet that make it clear they do not like me since the last time I said that......your link helps about as much as a glass full of air.

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by rush969

 

Yeah well since I have not installed any adobe software just so I can download links from people on the internet that make it clear they do not like me since the last time I said that......your link helps about as much as a glass full of air.

Well. I guess then you´re pretty much just wasting your time and not doing any serious research. You just go by your hunches and what you´re told by the "side" that likes you.
My "link" however... helps a lot of people who are interested and want to seriously look at the issues from all perspectives.

Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by rush969

 

Yeah well since I have not installed any adobe software just so I can download links from people on the internet that make it clear they do not like me since the last time I said that......your link helps about as much as a glass full of air.

Well. I guess then you´re pretty much just wasting your time and not doing any serious research. You just go by your hunches and what you´re told by the "side" that likes you.
My "link" however... helps a lot of people who are interested and want to seriously look at the issues from all perspectives.

It's the nature of the beast. Lillydale has more than adequately demonstrated how much she fears evidence inconvenient to her. She refuses to look at any of the evidence presented her.

It's hard to imagine, however, that she has never even read or heard of the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. It's been available since January 2003 for heaven's sake.

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by Lillydale

 

The Pentagon Building Performance Report.
Has many more photographs worth taking a look at.
On page 29 a photo actually has a note that says: "gashes from impact of right wing".

www.fire.nist.gov...

Anything with .gov should be immediately suspect. Their record of telling the American citizenry the truth about much of anything is not very good.

IMO those wings should have sheared off and left debris all over the place.

The wings Folding back into a small hole with the engines make absolutly no sense whatsoever. You really must do better than that!



[edit on 24-10-2009 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa

IMO those wings should have sheared off and left debris all over the place.

THAT´S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED!!!

Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by whaaa

IMO those wings should have sheared off and left debris all over the place.

THAT´S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED!!!

Where is this debris again? I do not think that I need to repost the pictures because we have all seen the pics of the lawn after the crash. Where was all that wing debris?

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by whaaa

IMO those wings should have sheared off and left debris all over the place.

THAT´S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED!!!

Where is this debris again? I do not think that I need to repost the pictures because we have all seen the pics of the lawn after the crash. Where was all that wing debris?

First, there has never been a Boeing 757 that has ever flown without wings.

Second, please tell us what the debris is in the background where all the men are standing.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/010469869cb8.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by jthomas


First, there has never been a Boeing 757 that has ever flown without wings.

That is your "first of all?" Did I ever claim that one could fly with no wings?

How about first of all you learn the difference between you just saying random things and you actually making a pount.

Where did I claim that palnes fly without wings, again???? You are refuting it so I guess I must have said it happened. Please explain. That is your first of all.

Second, please tell us what the debris is in the background where all the men are standing.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/010469869cb8.jpg[/atsimg]

Hmmmm...well I could guess plane debris. I could guess wing debris. I could even guess it is a sea of dead seagulls. I can guess all day long but unfortunately, that is all you can do too. Not one thing in that picture indicates that it is debris from "shattered" wings.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas


First, there has never been a Boeing 757 that has ever flown without wings.

That is your "first of all?" Did I ever claim that one could fly with no wings?

How about first of all you learn the difference between you just saying random things and you actually making a pount.

Where did I claim that palnes fly without wings, again???? You are refuting it so I guess I must have said it happened. Please explain. That is your first of all.

I'll remind you that you asked the question: "...I still have not seen a decent explanation as to what happened to the wings of the plane." The answer is obvious. The wings are part of the aircraft debris.

Second, please tell us what the debris is in the background where all the men are standing.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/010469869cb8.jpg[/atsimg]

Hmmmm...well I could guess plane debris. I could guess wing debris. I could even guess it is a sea of dead seagulls. I can guess all day long but unfortunately, that is all you can do too.

Exactly. Now you are catching on. You can look at that photo of debris all day long and you agree that you are unable to tell us of what that debris is composed.

Not one thing in that picture indicates that it is debris from "shattered" wings.

Since you agree you cannot tell us of what the debris in the background is composed, then you would agree that you cannot tell us that the debris does not contain wing debris. You can only say, "I don't know."

That was easy, wasn't it. All you have to do is learn to be skeptic and you can learn to ask the right questions and answer them yourselves.

But as I told you long ago, you have thousands of people who can tell you. You can ask them yourself what the debris was they walked through, picked up, recovered, and removed, but you repeatedly refuse to ask them.

In the meantime, we have absolutely no reason NOT to accept ALL of the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Neither do you.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Hmmmm...well I could guess plane debris. I could guess wing debris. I could even guess it is a sea of dead seagulls. I can guess all day long but unfortunately, that is all you can do too. Not one thing in that picture indicates that it is debris from "shattered" wings.

Was there any report of seagulls falling dead on the Pentagon lawn at any time by anyone? ...Let´s rule that possibility out OK?