It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

page: 3
89
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthNow88

Are you kidding me? "Near indestructible"? What a joke. I've had to change an engine because ICE went through it and caused so much damage it had to be torn down and rebuilt.

Engines are fragile as hell because of the high skeered and temps they operate at.




posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Because they fell from high altitude at high speed. They weren't exactly small either.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
"If the 47 main core beams were severed before the plane hit, then how did the towers still stand for 90 minutes? "

I think you somewhat misunderstood what I meant, as the 4 phases of attack I am referring to (which happened in overlapping cycles, in a wave down the building over a ~12 second period in this order... 1 to initiate each collapse at the desired time, followed by 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 3 repeated ~10x per tower all the way down) are related to the actual collapse initiation themselves, not the time of impact like you seem to of assumed. The impact demolition that took place just prior to each planes impact (completely separate from the primary 4 phase tower attack) wasn't designed to weaken the structure, it was instead designed to create the illusion of more damage then there really to onlookers by overly damaging the exterior impact zone for each tower (which only held a small amount of the buildings overall weight and was done less for demo purposes, and more to help "sell" the coming collapse (via 4 phase attack) that was soon to follow).



a reply to: liejunkie01


edit on 14-2-2015 by TruthNow88 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2015 by TruthNow88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: IamAbeliever
Both the discovery and order to evacuate was FDNY from what I could tell. The only other thing I recall as weird was when we were walking down to ground zero from Chelsea Pier. There was landing gear, from what was obviously a large aircraft, laying next to a building a few blocks away. It had already been taped off by NYPD or FBI, but what struck me as odd was its' pristine condition. Almost as if it had been placed there straight off the assembly line. a reply to: sg1642

it is plausible that the landing gear could have been the front flanding gear and tucked away in the fuselage, was propelled out of the building and don't suffer as much damage.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthNow88

A 767 hit a skyscraper in excess of 500 mph.

Why would there need to be a "more dramatic" visual display.

I am sorry, I have to disagree with your premise.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

Because they fell from high altitude at high speed. They weren't exactly small either.


93 didn't just fall though it was propelled. And yes they were hardly small but nowhere near the size of a complete aircraft.


A complete aircraft made that hole.


Part of an aircraft made that hole. Now compare the vehicle in that picture and the hole.


And compare it to that vehicle and the size of the scar in relation to that vehicle.


edit on 12121642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Wow!
Thanks for the thread.

Chasing missing pieces to the puzzle is what people who want to get the complete picture are doing.
Hiding pieces to the complete story is what we are up against. The commission sold us a piece of work that is incomplete.

Does that little fact not make this less trivial?



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

are you suggesting the aircraft was white hot when it entered the ground/butter ?

funbox



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

I was talking about Pan Am. Those were large and heavy pieces falling from high altitude. Flight 93 was flown into the ground while intact from low altitude.

What about the scar? The 757 is a narrowbody aircraft so isn't that large.
edit on 2/14/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: sg1642

are you suggesting the aircraft was white hot when it entered the ground/butter ?

funbox

I don't get what you mean. I'm saying the exact opposite. I don't agree that 93 made that hole.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

A 757 has a 14 foot diameter fuselage. It's not going to leave a massive hole at impact.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

your right, even if the plane was mildly warm it would still easily penetrate butter, a bit like it did to the white house's buttermilk construction

shouldn't there be a crime scene constructed array of photographs of this scene ?,

funbox



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr There have been other similar looking results of the very same thing.


too bad the one you chose (lockerbie) IN NO WAY resembles the 'flight 93 crater'.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: funbox

The impact area was a filled in mine. It might as well have been butter.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: RoScoLaz4

There are no pictures of other impact sites that are similar. The most recent was ValuJet and that impact area was under water.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   






In those 3 pictures (not as big as I would like), it's quite visible that the top of the tower was more or less completely broken up before the rest of the tower began to fall. I don't understand how it supposedly had sufficient force behind it to bring the rest of the tower down.

Zaphod you may well be correct but it doesn't add up to me.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

The 767 is bigger, heavier, and was flying faster than the 757 in Pennsylvania. It did a lot of damage just from kinetic impact alone.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642






In those 3 pictures (not as big as I would like), it's quite visible that the top of the tower was more or less completely broken up before the rest of the tower began to fall. I don't understand how it supposedly had sufficient force behind it to bring the rest of the tower down.

Zaphod you may well be correct but it doesn't add up to me.


The buildings were not designed to withstand the kinetic energy of the massive amount of weight of the falling "upper" sections.

Remember the falling weight did not fall on a solid block. The weight and energy fell on the connections holding the upper intact floor.

Shear strength alone explains the failure.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

The 767 is bigger, heavier, and was flying faster than the 757 in Pennsylvania. It did a lot of damage just from kinetic impact alone.
yep I agree but the aircraft was far from complete when it hit the ground and no single piece was anywhere near the size of a 57.
edit on 5421642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: sg1642






In those 3 pictures (not as big as I would like), it's quite visible that the top of the tower was more or less completely broken up before the rest of the tower began to fall. I don't understand how it supposedly had sufficient force behind it to bring the rest of the tower down.

Zaphod you may well be correct but it doesn't add up to me.


The buildings were not designed to withstand the kinetic energy of the massive amount of weight of the falling "upper" sections.

Remember the falling weight did not fall on a solid block. The weight and energy fell on the connections holding the upper intact floor.

Shear strength alone explains the failure.


What a load of crap. The bottom section had a solid base. NONE of it was compromised or experienced an increase in temperature. The top section had a wide open gaping wound for a base and the pictures you responded to illustrates exactly what would be expected to happen. The top section, with its open wound for a base, tore apart as it collapsed onto the bottom, perfectly sound structure with a solid base.

The collapse of the bottom section has never been explained, only theorised by NIST to support pre conceived notions that were dictated and acted upon by the MSM and Bush administration that PAID NIST for those results no matter how you spun it.

Show me a graphic simulation of the WTC 1 and 2 collapse if you think it is convincing. Oh wait! There isn't one because NIST was not paid to provide that. Just a bunch of theory that works out on paper but can not be simulated without looming like a joke.
edit on 14-2-2015 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join