IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Penny Elgas Plane Debris, Anybody know which part it is?

onesliceshort
post Dec 15 2013, 10:14 AM
Post #21



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Dec 15 2013, 02:24 AM) *
I've watched CIT's video two or three times now.
They did a great job with it.

There is just one thing that Ranke fails/refuses to see.

Yes the jet approached from the 'wrong' side. Yes it had to have flown over the Pentagon.
Yes the light poles were planted.
Yes there were planted explosives.

But he doesn't entertain that another aircraft (drone) flew in on the official flight path and entered the building.
This would account for the testimony of the other witnesses who saw a plane fly into the Pentagon
and also for the one second video released by government officials.


There are no witnesses to any type of aircraft on the directional damage path. There are no witnesses to two aircraft.

Why complicate matters? Why reduce the NOC testimony to a sideshow? Screw that.
The OCT on the alleged impact is set in stone. Why give them wriggle room by adding theories that can never be proven?

It's no different to adding theories on to the origin of the Elgas debris Mike. Let them explain it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 15 2013, 10:46 AM
Post #22





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Dec 14 2013, 09:24 PM) *
I've watched CIT's video two or three times now.
They did a great job with it.

There is just one thing that Ranke fails/refuses to see.

Yes the jet approached from the 'wrong' side. Yes it had to have flown over the Pentagon.
Yes the light poles were planted.
Yes there were planted explosives.

But he doesn't entertain that another aircraft (drone) flew in on the official flight path and entered the building.
This would account for the testimony of the other witnesses who saw a plane fly into the Pentagon
and also for the one second video released by government officials.


Good point. It would also account for what debris, engine and wheels, that was actually inside the building.

Not so much, but could possibly explain the light pole damage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 15 2013, 11:12 AM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



It's like talking to a fucking brick wall.

"Yeah, let's dump all of the evidence we have in our hands and go for a theory we can't ever prove"

Read (just how convoluted and messy things get) from here on:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10810155

It includes the so called "impact damage".

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Dec 15 2013, 11:17 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Dec 15 2013, 06:40 PM
Post #24





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 15 2013, 09:14 AM) *
There are no witnesses to any type of aircraft on the directional damage path.



It was my understanding that several drivers stuck in slow-moving traffic heading north, saw a plane fly over them towards the Pentagon.

QUOTE
Why complicate matters? Why reduce the NOC testimony to a sideshow? Screw that.
The OCT on the alleged impact is set in stone. Why give them wriggle room by adding theories that can never be proven?


The NOC is rock solid in my estimation. Let's leave it at that.
There was an entrance hole to the Pentagon.
The NOC can't explain it.
Something has to.
What is your explanation for it, and what is your proof?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Dec 15 2013, 06:52 PM
Post #25





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 15 2013, 10:12 AM) *
It's like talking to a fucking brick wall.

"Yeah, let's dump all of the evidence we have in our hands and go for a theory we can't ever prove"

Read (just how convoluted and messy things get) from here on:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10810155

It includes the so called "impact damage".


Oneslice, as you can see I am a new member here.
A new member does not automatically mean an uninformed or mentally challenged person.

I have read a number of your threads and can easily see that you are very passionate and steadfast in your beliefs here. There is nothing wrong with that.
I don't know why however? Perhaps you have already explained the reason you feel so strongly about getting every last detail correct. If so please tell me the thread and I'll read it. If you haven't. I'd be very curious to know your reason.

I am an open-minded person.
If someone disagrees with a theory or idea of mine, I have no problem with it at all.

I don't believe that if one or more of my ideas or theories don't follow another member's theories that I should feel embarrassed or be marginalized.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 15 2013, 09:23 PM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Mike, that last comment of mine wasn't directed at you. Some people like to wind up here.

If you had followed that last link there is a break down of how we have been conned in to believing that the hole in the Pentagon wall was caused by an aircraft.

Plane + explosion + a sprinkling of unidentified debris + repitition= aircraft impact. How has it got to the point where that hole can in any way be attributed to an aircraft? That an aircraft could physically slot in there and not leave major debris on the lawn or marks on the facade from the extremities?

When you look in detail, you can see evidence of a number of internal explosions.

The "left wing damage" is obviously the result of internal explosives.
The "right wing damage" is the result of internal explosives.

Proof of both of those claims are outlined in detail at that link.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10810155

The central section is open to debate but my own personal speculation is that the generator trailer is probably the culprit using a mortar type device (and possible debris dispersion). As I said. Speculation.


As for the witnesses on Route 27, Mike Walter is a proven liar. His two coworkers Naranyan and Sucherman were describing an NOC entry point on to the road. The latter was (twice) claimed by the former to have been "on the other side of the Pentagon" (Route 110).
Steve Riskus is now a confirmed NOC witness.

I know where the discussion will lead when others try to insert a non witnessed "second aircraft" into the scenario. It makes a mockery of the NOC testimony. Who saw what? When? Where?

Nobody saw two aircraft, which would have had to have been virtually simultaneous. And the drivers on Route 27 didn't see two planes fly over the road.

If you want to discuss this I suggest opening a new thread Mike. Better still, respond in the thread I've linked to. I'm pretty underwhelmed by the response to this thread so far.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 18 2014, 12:34 PM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
Going back to the original question of this thread. Where did the Penny Elgas debris come from?



I came across a piece on how the exterior of an American Airlines aircraft is maintained and cleaned:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagaz...ly/fo01txt.html

The most relevant section is this:

QUOTE
All exterior airplane paint can be classified either as decorative, which includes an operator's markings, or as protective, which is light gray in color. Protective paint is used in certain areas to prevent corrosion, and it is used on all composites to prevent erosion and moisture ingress. These composite areas include wing fairings, control surfaces, radomes, tail cones, engine nacelles, and large portions of the empennage. For this reason, even polished airplanes use a considerable amount of protective paint.


I'll quote the rest in case this is 404ed

QUOTE
Polished and painted airplanes both need to be washed regularly to preserve their exterior surfaces. However, for the sake of appearance and image, it is not uncommon for polished airplanes to be washed twice as often as fully painted airplanes. Regular washing protects against corrosion by removing contaminants. It also gives maintenance personnel the opportunity to assess the surface condition of an airplane, which permits operators to predict the date and extent of future maintenance required for corrosion and erosion. A mild alkaline detergent and pure warm water should be used. It is particularly important to wash new airplanes, because the protective oxide film that naturally forms and grows on aluminum with age is relatively thin and provides little protection. Both painted and polished surfaces can be adequately protected from corrosion. Fuselage skins are made from Alclad aluminum that consists of a high-strength core alloy bonded to a thin layer of pure aluminum or aluminum alloy. Wing skins are made of bare aluminum and are protected by an impact-resistant paint system. Polished surfaces are protected from corrosion by regular buffing after washing. Painting protects against oxidation, salts, and jet fuel spills. However, unrepaired chips and cracks in paint collect dirt and moisture and so may become corrosion sites. Painted surfaces are also susceptible to filiform corrosion, or worm corrosion, which begins between metallic surfaces and paint and erodes both. It creates hydrogen and lifts up the paint layer as it travels across the surface.



The protective paint on an otherwise polished aluminium exterior is "light grey" (from their manual). The only white paint is the decorative stripe.

"All composites" are painted with a light grey protective paint.


Here are a selection of images of "N644AA"

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...9/0/0982095.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...5/4/2080458.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...1/7/0290718.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...5/1/0188155.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...5/1/0188154.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...4/1/0188146.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...3/1/0188135.jpg


Can anybody see where this alleged debris, held by the Smithsonian Museum (and which the curator allegedly admitted in an email exchange, that they have no proof of its origin) came from?



These are the polymer composite sections of a 757



We can narrow it down to those sections with multiple layers (at least three layers anyway).

The wing to body fairings are multiple layered, but they are light grey.


According to the manual linked to above "all composites" are painted with light grey protective paint.


Here are some additional images of a Boeing 767-316F flap fairing damaged by a bird strike (you can see the kevlar):

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/t...ad.main/184925/

QUOTE
Graphic pictures of a bird strike to a composite (Kevlar/aramid + nomex core) flap fairing. Damage found during walk-around.


http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c325/miamiair/8268A.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c325/miamiair/8268E.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c325/miamiair/8268C.jpg


Repaired (note the similarity of white sheen to the Elgas piece):

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c325/miamiair/8268N.jpg


That piece didn't come from "N644AA" according to what I've seen so far.


Bumping this again. whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 18 2014, 05:55 PM
Post #28





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



I can see where you are trying to go with this OSS; it is a noble effort.

Given the outer white paint, this pretty much leaves only a few possible sections of a 757: the tailpiece, the stripe or the nose cone.

Unless documents detailing the construction of a Boeing 757 are available
to the public, which I highly doubt, it seems only a Boeing technical rep would be able to provide the info you are looking for.

If you do decide to approach one, I would be very careful about how I word my questions as to what you are looking for.

In addition, if you were providing them any photos of the section, I would definitely crop the Elgas photo, leaving just the middle part, showing the layers.
This way they wouldn't immediately link the photo to what's available on the web.

Again, it seems the only people who could provide proof-positive info on whether the piece came from a 757 are Boeing reps, and if they are approached it would have to dealt with the utmost caution and subtlety.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 18 2014, 10:06 PM
Post #29



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
Given the outer white paint, this pretty much leaves only a few possible sections of a 757: the tailpiece, the stripe or the nose cone.


Hi Mike.

The nosecone is actually grey as it is a composite. As are both the vertical and horizontal stabilizers:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...5/4/2080458.jpg

The only section coloured white is the white stripe. And this section is aluminium.

As for documentation, all of the claims made are sourced from Boeing themselves:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagaz...ly/fo01txt.html

It would be great to hear from a Boeing employee to actually hammer this home but as soon as the Pentagon, or 9/11, are brought up, they will close up shop. I may ask at an airliner forum but as you've said before, it would have to be delicately put. And the inevitable "why do you ask" will be the stumbling block.

Thanks for the input mate thumbsup.gif

Any help on the issue (or how/who to approach) from members here would be greatly appreciated. I think this is highly significant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 18 2014, 10:54 PM
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Here's a Boeing (767) before the composites are added:

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 20 2014, 12:28 PM
Post #31



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Here's another image of this piece without the box:



In Penny Elgas' testimony, she claims to have been told that it was a piece of the "tail" (which is impossible). She also says

QUOTE
Then I went to my car and faced that piece of the plane that was in the back seat. It appeared to be a piece of the tail. There was no metal on it and it was very lightweight -- all plastic and fiberglass. It was 22" long and 15" wide. I have no idea how it got into my car because I do not remember seeing any rubble flying around while I was at the crash site.....The plane piece consisted of a layer of white paint, and layers of yellow and gray fiberglass as well as a thin brown corrugated material.


Wtf?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 20 2014, 04:48 PM
Post #32





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 11:28 AM) *
Here's another image of this piece without the box:



I was thinking about your thread the last couple of days OSS.
If Boeing is approached I wouldn't even mention a 757 aircraft, so as not to draw attention to it.

I would simply ask what aircraft could the piece have come from and leave it at that.

If the tech person was an expert in their field they would know immediately what family of aircraft it could have come from and which it couldn't, or hopefully even which specific aircraft it had to have come from.

I noticed there is some additional white paint on the borders of 'American' on the fuselage and 'AA' and the insignia on the tail.
However the Elgas piece has a sharp taper at the bottom. This would eliminate virtually all the locations, save the pilot window area.

Doesn't the nose cone in this photo appear to be white?
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...1/7/0290718.jpg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 20 2014, 05:08 PM
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Hi Mike

QUOTE
Doesn't the nose cone in this photo appear to be white?


Maybe that image was a bad choice by me.

Here are two others:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...3/1/0188135.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...1/7/0290718.jpg

If you look at the engine nacelles, you'll see that they're the same colour. Grey.

And you read my mind about the white section under the cockpit thumbsup.gif

But the factory image of the aircraft shell (albeit a 767), prior to adding the polymer sections, shows this to be aluminium

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projec...images/img2.jpg

I've joined an airline forum to throw it out there. Just have to make up the posts to open up a thread.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 20 2014, 05:25 PM
Post #34





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 04:08 PM) *
Here are two others:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...3/1/0188135.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...1/7/0290718.jpg

If you look at the engine nacelles, you'll see that they're the same colour. Grey.


They're certainly not as white as the photo I mentioned, but they do look a bit whitish still.
I don't know how they compare to Elgas' piece though.

QUOTE
But the factory image of the aircraft shell (albeit a 767), prior to adding the polymer sections, shows this to be aluminium

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projec...images/img2.jpg


Maybe you could fill me in a bit on jet construction 101? smile.gif
I see the aluminum shell clearly in the photo above.
What exactly, besides paint, is put on top of the aluminum layer?
You mentioned polymer sections. Where to they go? Thanks!

QUOTE
I've joined an airline forum to throw it out there. Just have to make up the posts to open up a thread.


Sounds interesting, do keep us posted on any developments.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 20 2014, 10:48 PM
Post #35



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



The nosecone is a slightly lighter grey but it's definitely not white. And it's certainly not the same colour as the Elgas debris

Here's another image



As for the construction of Boeing aircraft, here's a quicktime video of the manufacture of a 767 (keep a look out for the cockpit area)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv5gBocOVSs

And from the manual I linked to earlier:

QUOTE
Polished airplanes forgo the base color, restricting the use of decorative paint to stripes, the operator's name and registry number, and logos.

Maintaining the appearance of a polished airplane requires repolishing up to three times a year with a special compound applied with mechanical buffers, as well as regular washing to clean oxidation buildup from unpainted surfaces.


The white stripe can be the only source. And the white stripe is painted directly on to the aluminium shell.

There is no white composite material. Fact.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 20 2014, 11:12 PM
Post #36





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 09:48 PM) *
The nosecone is a slightly lighter grey but it's definitely not white. And it's certainly not the same colour as the Elgas debris


OK.


QUOTE
And from the manual I linked to earlier:

The white stripe can be the only source. And the white stripe is painted directly on to the aluminium shell.

There is no white composite material. Fact.



I guess that settles it.
It still would be nice to get a Boeing official to confirm this orally or in writing, to satisfy everyone.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 21 2014, 05:52 AM
Post #37





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 21 2014, 12:42 PM) *
OK.





I guess that settles it.
It still would be nice to get a Boeing official to confirm this orally or in writing, to satisfy everyone.



Dear 'NP1Mike'

It would also be good: for everyone to exercise their minds: to what other sort of aircraft; that composite component was part of.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 21 2014, 08:07 AM
Post #38



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (23investigator @ Feb 21 2014, 10:52 AM) *
Dear 'NP1Mike'

It would also be good: for everyone to exercise their minds: to what other sort of aircraft; that composite component was part of.

Robert S


That it wasn't from N644AA isn't enough?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 21 2014, 09:31 PM
Post #39





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 21 2014, 07:07 AM) *
That it wasn't from N644AA isn't enough?


It's enough for me OSS.

If there was a court of law, with judge and jury and it was necessary to prove that the piece did not come from a Boeing 757 which of the following scenarios do you think the jury would prefer in making their decision?

a) An expert on plane construction of various companies and models determines that the piece could have come from aircraft, x,y,z,c,g,h,m,n, and s (none of them Boeing 757's).

b) A Boeing expert on plane construction of all Boeing planes determines that the piece could not have come from a Boeing 757.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 21 2014, 10:24 PM
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
(b) A Boeing expert on plane construction of all Boeing planes determines that the piece could not have come from a Boeing 757.


Exactly Mike. No ambiguity, theories, 10,000 page reports or bullshit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd October 2019 - 01:36 AM