Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Reinforced concrete.

????

Show that. You make that same claim, with no evidence.

It was in inner wall, and looked like it was NOT a load-bearing wall, either. Bricks. Lath and plaster.

How many times would you like to ignore it?

The one element of the Pentagon not constructed of reinforced concrete is the outermost perimeter wall. It is the limestone wall that everyone sees on the outside of the building. This article is primarily about the remainder of the 1,000,000 square feet of the lightwell walls which are now undergoing a complete Repair, Rehabilitation, and Protection program.

The Pentagon consists of five separate rings, each approximately 90 feet wide with approximately 30 feet between the rings. The space between the rings is known as the lightwells. Thus, we call the perimeter walls of each ring the lightwell walls. The lightwell walls, constructed of poured in place, reinforced concrete, are both bearing and shear walls.

The Pentagon Lightwell Walls

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6229d1d6f8d7.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Reheat

 

eg. when the Twin Towers collapsed someone found a passport of a terrorist so terrorists did it. They later found the same guy alive, but that's IRRELEVANT!

The passport recovered in New York belonged to Satam al Suqami. If you have a look at this link, scroll down a bit, you will see that al Suqami was included in an al Qaeda video of the " flight 11 martyrs " :-

www.911myths.com...

So your evidence for him being alive is what exactly ?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weedwhacker, you claim somehow compressed air was involved in the hole in the C-wing, and implied you know this due to physics...

please describe which law or formula you are using?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Weedwhacker, you claim somehow compressed air was involved in the hole in the C-wing, and implied you know this due to physics...

please describe which law or formula you are using?

I'm not weedwhacker, but I don't blame him for taking a break. It helps to maintain sanity.....

Hello physics.....

E=1/2mv^2

reply to post by Thermo Klein


...or pulling my leg or pulling my finger...where do they get firemen?

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Weedwhacker, you claim somehow compressed air was involved in the hole in the C-wing, and implied you know this due to physics...

please describe which law or formula you are using?

I'm not weedwhacker, but I don't blame him for taking a break. It helps to maintain sanity.....

Hello physics.....

E=1/2mv^2

right...
what value did you use for mass? and what E do you think it took to break through the wall?

by the way the question was about condensed air blowing a hole in the C-wing - the formula for kinetic energy has NOTHING to do with that.

For the record we all know you guys know absolutely NOTHING about physics in regards to the events of 9/11... I just want to at least see an attempt since you continually tell other people they should understand physics.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Airplanes fly low to the ground, every day. It IS rather necessary, for take offs and landings.....

Planes don't land at 500 mph, you should know better than that weedy.

A planes landing is a controlled stall. Flaps and slats help keep it stable at low speed by creating more lift. So btw if they were extended at 500mph (if they even could), like you once suggested, it would be even more difficult to control.

And yes military fighter jets can fly low at high speed because the wings don't create as much lift as bigger passenger aircraft do. Bigger wings, more lift and more drag.

reply to post by Reheat


reheat, you have the audacity to answer a question about condensed air using the formula for kinetic energy... I thought this picture of Einstein might be more fitting for how you view physics...



Throwing out some random formula with no values is about the lamest argument I've seen you make. People can't even prove a plane was in there, much less the speed the wreckage was traveling at

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Weedwhacker, you claim somehow compressed air was involved in the hole in the C-wing, and implied you know this due to physics...

please describe which law or formula you are using?

I'm not weedwhacker, but I don't blame him for taking a break. It helps to maintain sanity.....

Hello physics.....

E=1/2mv^2

right...
what value did you use for mass? and what E do you think it took to break through the wall?

by the way the question was about condensed air blowing a hole in the C-wing - the formula for kinetic energy has NOTHING to do with that.

For the record we all know you guys know absolutely NOTHING about physics in regards to the events of 9/11... I just want to at least see an attempt since you continually tell other people they should understand physics.

edit on 15-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)

Yes, it does have something to do with that. I suppose you didn't know that air has mass and that was weedhacker's valid point in mentioning it. Talk about ignorant, you've just proven it with that comment.

BTW, I fully recognize your bait, so I obviously didn't use numbers... Duh'

It is, obviously, impossible to determine numbers due to the chaotic nature of any crash particularly one through several walls. No one that I know is stupid enough to even attempt it.... But, it was worthwhile just to get you to reveal your now confirmed ignorance.....

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Airplanes fly low to the ground, every day. It IS rather necessary, for take offs and landings.....

Planes don't land at 500 mph, you should know better than that weedy.

A planes landing is a controlled stall. Flaps and slats help keep it stable at low speed by creating more lift. So btw if they were extended at 500mph (if they even could), like you once suggested, it would be even more difficult to control.

An incorrect statement. It is more correct that flaps simply change the lift vector to allow an aircraft to fly slower without stalling. They don't produce lift.

Originally posted by ANOKAnd yes military fighter jets can fly low at high speed because the wings don't create as much lift as bigger passenger aircraft do. Bigger wings, more lift and more drag.

Well, mr. aeronautics expert, please explain in detail what this has to do with flying at low level. Pssst = zilch But, let's hear what you have to say anyway. Or you'll ignore it and show that you have NO CLUE what you're talking about.....

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Throwing out some random formula with no values is about the lamest argument I've seen you make. People can't even prove a plane was in there, much less the speed the wreckage was traveling at

You're absolutely correct. I can't provide the numbers and neither can you. Neither did the Purdue team as they are not fools either. If you want to show everyone how smart you are in determining numbers from unpredictable chaos go ahead and give everyone a big belly laugh otherwise you're simply blowing hot air from the wrong end.....

reply to post by Reheat

Originally posted by ANOKAnd yes military fighter jets can fly low at high speed because the wings don't create as much lift as bigger passenger aircraft do. Bigger wings, more lift and more drag.

Well, mr. aeronautics expert, please explain in detail what this has to do with flying at low level. Pssst = zilch But, let's hear what you have to say anyway. Or you'll ignore it and show that you have NO CLUE what you're talking about.....

Do you know what an aspect ratio is Reheat?
If you do then please compare the aspect ratio of a fighter jet to that of a 757..

Then we can talk about the different effects of air on each..

Originally posted by backinblack
Do you know what an aspect ratio is Reheat?
If you do then please compare the aspect ratio of a fighter jet to that of a 757..

Then we can talk about the different effects of air on each..

No, I don't know. Go ahead and teach me, I'm listening.....

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by backinblack
Do you know what an aspect ratio is Reheat?
If you do then please compare the aspect ratio of a fighter jet to that of a 757..

Then we can talk about the different effects of air on each..

No, I don't know. Go ahead and teach me, I'm listening.....

Well why are you telling people they are wrong if you don't know yourself ??
Seems a little odd...

Originally posted by Yankee451
I'm still waiting for you to explain your reasoning for the C ring hole.

Like I already said, it looks to me it was made from the shredded debris of the fuselage, sort of like a shotgun blast can make a somewhat round hole in something at close range even though there's no large object among the shotgun pellets.

Originally posted by Reheat
It is, obviously, impossible to determine numbers due to the chaotic nature of any crash particularly one through several walls. No one that I know is stupid enough to even attempt it.... But, it was worthwhile just to get you to reveal your now confirmed ignorance.....

it was WEEDWHACKER'S argument! Thank you for pointing out it "impossible to determine"


Asking for a formula (with values in it) when someone claims they use Physics is not bait... it's called proof, which you can't provide.

FINAL ANSWER: the hole in the wall of the C-wing was NOT made due to compressed air formed into a sphere in front of a pile of kinetically driven (unmeasered) airplane debris.

reply to post by Reheat


[Off Topic quote and remarks removed]

I think you know enough about aerodynamics to know a fighter jet acts very different to a passenger jet..

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Fair enough. The confetti had enough mass and velocity to cut a round hole in reinforced concrete and what looks like a couple layers of brick facing. If that's what it looks like to you, thanks for your answer.