9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by gavron I think TY is actually on topic. The discussion was on kinetic energy, which is all pretty interesting.

Actually we are not talking about kinetic energy but the material of the plane and building. Can you show me an aluminum airframe going through a building intact, YES or NO ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Actually we are not talking about kinetic energy but the material of the plane and building.

Actually, several posts on the previous page (page 261) were talking about kinetic energy: www.abovetopsecret.com... www.abovetopsecret.com... www.abovetopsecret.com... www.abovetopsecret.com... www.abovetopsecret.com... www.abovetopsecret.com... TY's topic was definately following the theme of the thread at that time.

Originally posted by gavron [Actually, several posts on the previous page (page 261) were talking about kinetic energy:

But thats not what i was talking about. I noticed you failed to answer the question of showing an aliminum airframe going through a buidling intact.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 I was interested in the kinetic energy information being presented by other users. I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just viewing all the information out there. Just letting TY and those that were discussing kinetic energy, that others here are interested in their information.

Originally posted by gavron I was interested in the kinetic energy information being presented by other users.

But are you interested in the actual materials involved, and the facts about them? Still waiting to see and aluminum airframe going through a building intact.

reply to post by HLR53K sorry. it's a heated topic, and sometimes i LIKE being obnoxious, LOL! anyway, not 120 tons of air pressure, 120 tons of PLANE. th airpressure would not be 120 tons, but when the alleged plane hits the pentagon in the alleged strike, it's not air pressure anymore that the plane is 'feeling'.

Since physics was brought up in relation to the pentagon, how about applying in to the light poles again. What laws in physics allows a plane to strike down 5 light poles at 500+ mph and leave the poles neatly laying on the lawn with out damaging it. On P4T, using a dynamic physics simulation the light poles went flying at tremendous speeds. Then using hand calculations, it showed they would probably have been moving at over 4000 fps if the plane really hit them and sheared them from there basis. Can you imagine the damage 180 lbs could due to the Pentalawn moving at just half that velocity?

I also find this pretty interesting. If it has been brought up here before, I apologize, there are a lot of pages to sort through to find anything now. Has anybody confirmed or debunked that the plane was missing in August and never landed and departed from Logan on 9/11?

Originally posted by PplVSNWO Can you imagine the damage 180 lbs could due to the Pentalawn moving at just half that velocity?

Well for one, the FDR from AA77 states that the planes flight path was not even close to the light poles.

Well, I'm just saying the debunkers say "if a 757 didn't hit the pentagon, what hit the light poles". When it's obvious that the poles couldn't have been downed by an aircraft as heavy as a 757 moving at over 500 mph as claimed(if that's even possible to begin with). We should have seen a lot more damage caused by the light poles, unless of course, they were just laid there by hand...

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Ultima, Back that up please. After all you filed an FOIA for the FDR information. Care to show us that the FDR does NOT support the plane hitting the light poles?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt Back that up please. After all you filed an FOIA for the FDR information. Care to show us that the FDR does NOT support the plane hitting the light poles?

If you did any research at all you would have known this. There is also another thread on here that has the 2 cops that witnessed the plane on the other side of the gas station so it would not have been on the path to hit the light poles. But i guess that just proves my point that beleivers like you are aftraid of the truth, afraid to do research.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Ultima, Thats not what you said. You stated that the FDR does not bring flight 77 near the light poles. In fact it does. CIT's claim is that the FDR is fraudulent. He makes this claim because witnesses have stated the plane flew north of the Citgo station. Get it?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt In fact it does.

NO thats where you are wrong. The FDR also shows the plane being on the other side of the gas station (as stated by the police witnesses) so it was not on a path to hit the light poles.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Sir you are mistaken. YOU did an FOIA on the FDR. Show me where you got that information. Go watch the Pentacon again, or go to Pilots 4 911 Truth. They both claim the FDR is fraudulent.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt YOU did an FOIA on the FDR. Show me where you got that information.

I received the 2 CDs from the NTSB with the FDR data. You can too all you have to do is go the webpage and fill out the FOIA request.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Dodge and weave Ultima. What did you get out of it? Can you please show me where it is in error? Thank you

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt Dodge and weave Ultima.

Why are you afraid to get the data from the NTSB? That way you can see for yourself.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ulitma... YOU stated the FDR does not show flight 77 hitting the light poles. Please provide the evidence.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt YOU stated the FDR does not show flight 77 hitting the light poles. Please provide the evidence.

Look at the animation on 9PFT. Its basically the same animation that the NTSB sent out.