Proof of a conspiracy

Originally posted by vipertech0596
I said that jet engines are relatively easy to destroy and that a plastic helmet destroyed a jet engine on an EA-6B.

That is not true. The only thing that would be destroyed by a 'foded' engine would be the rotor blades. The engine would not be destroyed.

The main thing that should have remained at the pentagon are the titanium combustion, and compressor section, casings that are designed to be shatter proof in case of internal failure.

The thing is there is not enough engine parts in those pics to make two complete engines. Where are all the rotor hubs, the rotor shafts, the casings?

(BTW I was a jet mech in an EA6-B squadron (VAQ-132 USS Saratoga) for two years before I went on to work at 'I' level on T-56 turboprops)

reply to post by jaffer44


it was a missile that hit the pentagon its too obvious. i saw a recent documentry about this from a pilots perspective and he said that the flight path of the so called plane could not be maintained as this would rip the plane apart before it hit the ground. lets not forget how big these planes are, you cant just fly them like you can a cessna.
there's definately a cover up here because how could the most gaurded building with all the cctv cameras get hit, without a clear video showing this. only the brainwashed sheeple in the world would believe that a plane hit the pentagon.

reply to post by gazzachel


It would seem that a missile hitting the Pentagon was not obvious to the scores of witnesses who saw a plane.

And witnesses seeing a missile = 0.

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by ANOK

The thing is there is not enough engine parts in those pics to make two complete engines. Where are all the rotor hubs, the rotor shafts, the casings?

So basically, you're holding out for more photos. And if there are not photos of every scrap of the plane then that is irrefutable evidence that there was no plane, have I got that right?

Can you maybe see why reasonable people may not consider that approach as the product of a rational mind?

reply to post by Alfie1


a cruise missile looks identicle to a plane to the untrained eye and also how many plane crashes do you know of that give off the smell of cordite. thats from those witnesses you say saw a plane!!!

Originally posted by gazzachel
reply to post by Alfie1

 

a cruise missile looks identicle to a plane to the untrained eye and also how many plane crashes do you know of that give off the smell of cordite. thats from those witnesses you say saw a plane!!!

Huh? Crusie missiles look identical to large commercial jet aircraft? By "untrained" do you mean lived their entire lives in primitive mountain tribal areas in the southern Pacific Ocean and never saw flying aircraft before? And since when did cruise missiles use cordite? Is there some 19th century version of cruise missile that no one else is aware of?

Originally posted by gazzachel
reply to post by Alfie1

 

a cruise missile looks identicle to a plane to the untrained eye and also how many plane crashes do you know of that give off the smell of cordite. thats from those witnesses you say saw a plane!!!

A cruise missile is minute compared to a Boeing 757 and different in every way. Many witnesses specifically identified the aircraft as American Airlines, including the flightcrew of a C130 who followed it in at request of Reagan ATC.

I have read one report of a witness in the Pentagon referring to "cordite". Cordite is an obsolete British propellant that hasn't been used for about 50 years and has no relevance to a 2001 US missile.

If you wish to pursue the missile line you will also have to deal with the evidence of multiple radar tracking and air traffic control placing AA 77 at the Pentagon. Recovery and decoding of AA 77's flight data recorder from the Pentagon. Recovery of aircraft parts all compatible with a Boeing 757 from the Pentagon ; and not so much as a bolt from a missile. And recovery of DNA identified body parts of AA 77's passengers and crew from the Pentagon.

reply to post by hooper


have you seen those drones that the CIA are using? it could have been 1 of those but as for cordite thats what the witnesses said. check out 911review.com/attack/pentagon/witnesses.html

reply to post by gazzachel

have you seen those drones that the CIA are using? it could have been 1

The CIA has drones that look like United Airlines 757's from 200' away? Sorry, they don't try again.

of those but as for cordite thats what the witnesses said. check out 911review.com/attack/pentagon/witnesses.html

Cordite is what a lot of people think they smell when they smell burning chemicals. I don't think cordite has been produced in this country in 30 years.

reply to post by Alfie1


the evidence that was presented was from the government right or wrong?
now if the government was involved in a cover up they wouldn't present the truth now would they? no they would manufacture the evidence but no matter what happened on that day i dont believe the story the government's putting across to the general public.
as for being a plane do you realy believe that a novice can train on a computer simulator then jump in a real plane and do those sort of manouvres?
there seem to be more questions than answers.

Originally posted by hooper
So basically, you're holding out for more photos. And if there are not photos of every scrap of the plane then that is irrefutable evidence that there was no plane, have I got that right?

Well no not really, but you'd think they'd be more than one rotor head photographed when there are around 12 per engine? Two large rotor shafts, and not one pic? Where are the engine casings?

Can you maybe see why reasonable people may not consider that approach as the product of a rational mind?

All I can see is the pics are rather convenient, in that there are no large amounts of debris, just enough to convince the gullible that it was Boeing that hit the pentagon.

reply to post by ANOK


You've never seen the end result when busted blades continue on into the "main" part of the engine?

What have you OS supporters proven? Nothing.

Apparently some of you are desperately trying to appeal to the ignorant ATS readers that the OS is true.
The fact is none of you “OS supporters” have any real evidence to prove your allegations are true.

All those photos prove is nothing, they could have been taken anywhere in the world at any time, or at any airplane bone yard. Just because some of you post some photos it doesn’t prove they belong to said aircraft. Opinions are not facts either.

reply to post by gazzachel


MQ 1 "Predator" drone

General characteristics

Crew: none on-board
Length: 27 ft (8.22 m)
Wingspan: 48.7 ft (14.8 m); MQ-1B Block 10/15: 55.25 ft (16.84 m)
Height: 6.9 ft (2.1 m)
Wing area: 123.3 sq ft[57] (11.5 m²)
Empty weight: 1,130 lb[56] (512 kg)
Loaded weight: 2,250 lb (1,020 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 2,250 lb[56] (1,020 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Rotax 914F turbocharged four-cylinder engine, 115 hp[56] (86 kW)
Performance

Maximum speed: 135 mph (117 knots, 217 km/h)
Cruise speed: 81–103 mph (70–90 knots, 130–165 km/h)
Stall speed: 62 mph (54 knots, 100 km/h) (dependent on aircraft weight)
Range: >2,000 nmi (2,300 mi/3,700 km) [58]
Endurance: 24 hours[1]
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft[56] (7,620 m)


Boeing 757 - 200

Flight deck crew Two
Typical seating 200 (2-class)
234 (one-class) N/A 243 (two-class)
289 (one-class)
Length 47.32 metres (155 ft 3 in) 54.47 metres (178 ft 8 in)
Wingspan 38.05 metres (124 ft 10 in)
Tail height 13.56 metres (44 ft 6 in)
Wing area 181.25 square metres (1,951.0 sq ft)
Wing sweepback 25°
Wing aspect ratio 7.8
Wheelbase 18.29 m (60 ft) 22.35 m (73 ft 4 in)
Cabin width 3.54 m (11 ft 7 in)
Cabin length 36.09 m (118 ft 5 in) 43.21 m (141 ft 8 in)
Empty Weight 57,840 kg
(127,520 lb) 64,590 kg
(142,400 lb)
Maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) 115,680 kg
(255,000 lb) 123,600 kg
(272,500 lb)
Take-off run at MTOW 9,550 ft (2,911 m) 9,600 ft (2,926 m)
Cruise speed Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 458 knots, 850 km/h at cruise altitude, i.e. 35,000 ft or 10.66 km)[44]
Range, loaded 7,222 km (3,900 NM)
-200WL: 7,600 km (4,100 NM) 5,834 km (3,150 NM) 6,287 km (3,395 NM)
Maximum fuel 43,490 L (11,489 US gal) 42,680 L (11,276 US gal) 43,400 L (11,466 US gal)
Service ceiling 12,800 m (42,000 ft)
Engines (2×) Rolls-Royce RB211, Pratt & Whitney PW2037, PW2040, or PW2043 turbofan engines
rated at 36,600 lbf (163 kN) to 43,500 lbf (193 kN) thrust each

I presume you can read....

Predator drone lenght 27 feet, wingspan 48 1/2 to 55 feet depending on mod

Speed 135 mph

Boeing 757-200

Lenght 155 to 178 feet depending on mod, wingspan 125 feet

Speed Mach .8 , 530 mph

Tell me where a drone is comparible in size and speed to a Boeing,

Originally posted by impressme
What have you OS supporters proven? Nothing.

Apparently some of you are desperately trying to appeal to the ignorant ATS readers that the OS is true.
The fact is none of you “OS supporters” have any real evidence to prove your allegations are true.

All those photos prove is nothing, they could have been taken anywhere in the world at any time, or at any airplane bone yard. Just because some of you post some photos it doesn’t prove they belong to said aircraft. Opinions are not facts either.

The sad part is that you truly believe what you posted. There are literally hundreds of witnesses to Flight 77's final seconds and the aftermath/clean up at the Pentagon. Witnesses that absolutely blow the conspiracy theories out of the water. And yet, you believe they 'were all in on it'

reply to post by ANOK

Well no not really, but you'd think they'd be more than one rotor head photographed when there are around 12 per engine? Two large rotor shafts, and not one pic? Where are the engine casings?

Why? Why would you think that? What thought process would want to prioritize taking photos of every scrap of the plane? To what end? For what purpose? To satisfy you and few other fellow travellers?

All I can see is the pics are rather convenient, in that there are no large amounts of debris, just enough to convince the gullible that it was Boeing that hit the pentagon.

So the evidence "conveniently" proves the case? Spoken like a true believer.

reply to post by ANOK


And your post shows why it is rather fruitless to discuss it with you. You complain that there isnt enough wreckage, in your eyes, to justify two RB-211 engines, and in the very next statement you pretty much say it would not matter if the pictures DID show what you were asking to see. It would be more " too convenient" photos...or photos taken in a boneyard.....

reply to post by impressme

What have you OS supporters proven? Nothing.

To you - nothing. Why? Because evidence and proof are the purview of the rational.

Apparently some of you are desperately trying to appeal to the ignorant ATS readers that the OS is true.
The fact is none of you “OS supporters” have any real evidence to prove your allegations are true.

Actually, you mean all the real evidence supports what you refer to as the "official story". There is no evidence to the contrary.

All those photos prove is nothing, they could have been taken anywhere in the world at any time, or at any airplane bone yard. Just because some of you post some photos it doesn’t prove they belong to said aircraft. Opinions are not facts either.

Wow, ANOK claims not enough photos is evidence of an inside job and now we have that photos are not evidence. There's just no breaking through with that kind of logic.

reply to post by vipertech0596

What have you OS supporters proven? Nothing.

The sad part is that you truly believe what you posted There are literally hundreds of witnesses to Flight 77's final seconds and the aftermath/clean up at the Pentagon. Witnesses that absolutely blow the conspiracy theories out of the water. And yet, you believe they 'were all in on it'

The sad part is you believe in everything the government tells you.
The fact is there were plenty of eyewitnesses at the Pentagon that didn’t see an airplane yet you will deny that to.
Do you have evidence that all these witness were not forced to lie, since most were government military employees.
As far as your cleanup crew at the Pentagon, photos taken right after the alleged impact, show no airplane debris on Pentagon lawn, are you going to deny that to? WE all have seen live on television of the men with garbage bags allegedly picking up aircraft debris right after Pentagon explosion or were they planting the evidence as video seems to support. Witnesses that absolutely blow the "OS" out of the water and yet you believe the government wouldn’t tell you a lie. How does that work for you.

reply to post by impressme

Do you have evidence that all these witness were not forced to lie, since most were government military employees.

And this statement sums up the paranoia the truth movement suffers from. They were all either in on it or "forced to lie", which in and by itself is too goofy for words.