Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Why won't govt explain this mystery?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
445 replies to this topic

#91    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,446 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 08 January 2012 - 02:46 PM

Q

It seems to me that some positions on this debate want to have it both ways--the airplane was fragmented into small pieces that somehow blew backwards onto the lawn, even though its supposed velocity was somewhere around 350 knots, AND there was still enough mass to penetrate through several rings and end up making an "exit hole", as shown in the picture posted by Sky yesterday.

It seems to me that in that exit hole photo, the only part of the airplane that might have penetrated that far would be the steel nose wheel landing gear assembly, and that is not visible.

I don't see how it could BOTH penetrate the building AND be blown backwards onto the lawn?


#92    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 08 January 2012 - 04:17 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 January 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

I don't see how it could BOTH penetrate the building AND be blown backwards onto the lawn?
The same as a bullet through an apple: -

Posted Image


Except imagine the bullet surrounded with an aluminium shell which begins breaking upon penetration.

Better example…

The same as the WTC impact: -

Posted Image


This can also be seen in video footage.

In each case pressure and/or the explosion causes debris to exit the entry hole.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#93    Paracelse

Paracelse

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,074 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France

Posted 08 January 2012 - 05:57 PM

View PostErix, on 05 January 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

If a car travels at high speed and crashes, no much of car, same with anything really.
Erix a car crashing at any speed wouldn't really loose any masses, the parts would just be scattered further that all.

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither Benjamin Franklin
République No.6
It's time for a sixth republic.

#94    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,446 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 08 January 2012 - 09:02 PM

Q

Excellent pictures, but not perfect comparisons. And your point is right on.

All I can say is that, for purposes of the picture the bullet maintains its structural integrity and shape.  That does not apply to the case of a fuselage v. building, as you mentioned.  Fuselage and engine no can do, going through walls, even though the landing gear would make a huge gash.

Regarding that diagram you showed about WTC, would much change if explosives had been employed there?


#95    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,229 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 08 January 2012 - 09:48 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 January 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

Q

Excellent pictures, but not perfect comparisons. And your point is right on.

All I can say is that, for purposes of the picture the bullet maintains its structural integrity and shape.  That does not apply to the case of a fuselage v. building, as you mentioned.  Fuselage and engine no can do, going through walls, even though the landing gear would make a huge gash.

Regarding that diagram you showed about WTC, would much change if explosives had been employed there?

You're neglecting to take into account the explosion that happened at the time of impact. That would also throw debris in all directions.



Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 08 January 2012 - 09:49 PM.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#96    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,427 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 January 2012 - 12:35 AM

Incidentally, I have seen a few people comment that the aluminum does not vanish or vaporize, however, there are cases in which is appears to have done just that (key word being "appears").

On more than one occasion, sheer friction has cause the aluminum skin on a plane to ignite and melt.  Similarly, smaller pieces of airborne aluminum passing through intensive heat will also melt into blobs before resolidifying in flight.  This results in tiny beads of aluminum dispersed over a wide range.  A person unfamiliar with both of these phenomena will wonder why there doesn't seems to be as many puddles of melted aluminum as one would expect.  Even at that, it is sometimes surprising how miniscule the total amount of sheet aluminum used for a plane compared to the total amount of space (people being people tend to confused space and mass).


#97    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 09 January 2012 - 01:00 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 January 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

Regarding that diagram you showed about WTC, would much change if explosives had been employed there?
I don’t think so - as Cz mentioned, there was an explosion at the moment of impact in any case.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#98    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,446 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 09 January 2012 - 02:58 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 08 January 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

You're neglecting to take into account the explosion that happened at the time of impact. That would also throw debris in all directions.



Cz


Which explosion is that?


#99    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,446 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 09 January 2012 - 03:04 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 09 January 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

Incidentally, I have seen a few people comment that the aluminum does not vanish or vaporize, however, there are cases in which is appears to have done just that (key word being "appears").

On more than one occasion, sheer friction has cause the aluminum skin on a plane to ignite and melt.  Similarly, smaller pieces of airborne aluminum passing through intensive heat will also melt into blobs before resolidifying in flight.  This results in tiny beads of aluminum dispersed over a wide range.  A person unfamiliar with both of these phenomena will wonder why there doesn't seems to be as many puddles of melted aluminum as one would expect.  Even at that, it is sometimes surprising how miniscule the total amount of sheet aluminum used for a plane compared to the total amount of space (people being people tend to confused space and mass).

I agree with your point in general, but cannot go with the "puddles of melted aluminum", absent some heat source besides friction.

When I use the term "crashed airplanes do not vaporize", I am refering NOT to the aluminum skin so much, as to the steel and titanium parts in the engines and landing gear assemblies.  Also, in this case, the baggage and bodies of the supposed passengers.

I have viewed from above the wreckage of an F-16 that hit the ground somewhere around 350knots in a flat trajectory.  There, at the end of the debris field and fire, was the engine and landing gear pieces, perfectly visible.  Not much else to see but burnt trees and vegetation, but the engine and landing gear were easy to see.


#100    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,446 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 09 January 2012 - 03:05 PM

View PostQ24, on 09 January 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

I don’t think so - as Cz mentioned, there was an explosion at the moment of impact in any case.


Again I must ask, exactly which explosion are you talking about?


#101    thalassinus

thalassinus

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 74 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:wiltshire

Posted 09 January 2012 - 03:39 PM

hello. yeah i have seen alot about this, like, surely the fact that when the planes were hijacked, the loss of radio contact would of arose suspicion. and also radar, in all air spaces, they are monitored constantly, so the change of plot would of been noticed. also in videos, the plane has no windows, which would not suggest passenger planes. and the black boxes in planes are made to with stand explosions and such, but none were found.

"Hate is easy, Love takes courage."

#102    randym23

randym23

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 808 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2003

  • the question IS the answer

Posted 09 January 2012 - 04:08 PM

the real question is why is there only one angle? should the pentagon have a whole array of cameras on it?

and visit my site:
Posted Image

#103    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 January 2012 - 07:55 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 09 January 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

Which explosion is that?
The explosion that happened when the plane impacted the building.


#104    itsnotoutthere

itsnotoutthere

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,113 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Royston Vasey

  • “Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while”

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:41 PM

View PostNuke_em, on 05 January 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Erix that is based purely on the speed of vehicle. Even at supersonic speeds no aircraft on this earth would vaporise ( i mean entirely with engines and all ), except if it burns when entering orbit ( we don't have such airplanes ), but that was not the case. I know offical lie is a airplane but i think it was more of bomb or a missile already planted there before event took place. I've seen videos of planes falling almost directly to ground, with big fireball and all, and even then there were lots of pieces big ones, small ones... None what so ever at pentagon. And yes Babe Ruth i agree with you, they know what those cameras filmed and they can't release any videos at all.. Freakin' mind games..


i beg to differ :-



“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

#105    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,446 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:43 PM

Boo

Assuming for the sake of discussion that there were NO explosives planted beforehand at either WTC or the Pentagon, the big differences between the airplane impacts is that while at the Pentagon the mythical airplane flew into a concrete wall, at WTC the airplanes flew essentially into a steel sieve with openings about 2 feet wide containing glass.

One, a solid congrete wall, the other into a sieve.  Thus, IMO, the so-called "melting" of the WTC airplanes into the structure.

Point being that using Q's examples, the dynamics would be quite different in terms of blowback, or whatever term one chooses to use.

However it seems highly likely that explosives were planted beforehand at both locations, greatly effecting the dynamics and photos.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users