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.

 

World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

page: 62
135
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

From your link.



As well as the reports of molten metal, data collected by NASA in the days after 9/11 finds dozens of “hot spots” (some over 1,300 degrees) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001).


1300 degrees F. is above the melting point of aluminum, but far below the melting point of steel.



Nist was unable to prove their pancake-theory conclusively, why should we believe anything they say at all? It's a cover-up, let's get it over with!


That doesn't work because firefighters reported that the explosions they heard were actually the floors pancaking downward.

Check it out.



Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.


The explosive-like sounds they heard were not from explosives, the sounds they heard were from collapsing floors as they pancaked during the collapse.




posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Even pilots with years of experience failed in doing so during simulator runs. Know more!


That is pure bunk!!

Look what we do with our large aircraft on a regular basis and notice that the tactical maneuver begins at 16,000 feet, which is roughly 9,000 feet higher than the altitude began by American 77, and it is done with a rate-of-descent three times that of American 77, and we do this on a regular basis. At Travis AFB, altitudes up to 10,000 feet are cleared for the tactical maneuver.

Jump to time line 2:25 for the cockpit view.



A piece of cake!! It is amazing to me that any experience pilot would claim that the Hani maneuver was impossible when large transport pilots conduct similar maneuvers on a regular basis that are up to three times as drastic as the maneuver performed by the American 77 hijacker.

BTW, did you know that Air Force One also performs such tactical maneuvers that far outmatch the maneuver performed by the American 77 hijacker whenever it flies into a war zone for a landing? Needless to say, Air Force One is much larger than a B-757.

As I have said before, it helps to be in a position to know when to hold 'em.


edit on 10-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409
The FDR data for the flight in question has been posted and analysed here years ago. The maneuver in question was actually very 'unsmooth' as depicted in that data supporting the assertion that Hani was not exactly the best of pilots but he didn't need exceptional skills to hit an object as large as the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Oh, you're going to ask American Airlines?

Why don't you ask AT&T who violated the Fourth Amendment for Bush? Why don't you ask the various tobacco companies who lied for many years about the dangers of tobacco? Why don't you ask any of the other mendacious US corporations who work hand in glove with the government?

Your arguments are ludicrous, and not persuasive in the least.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

He did need some skills at all, didn't he? Witnesses 'in the known' said he possessed none, how am I supposed to believe you now? Right, I'm not and I got lost completely on why you keep comparing that n00b with experienced pilots.

The original article regarding O'Brians statement at Dulles Airport:


"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

Maneuver Indicates Advanced Flying Skills

They've got it all wrong? Well... let's take a look at this rehash with Jesse:



Not that easy then, innit?
Agreed to disagree.

Why do some people miraculously change their opinions you may ask. Well...


FAA and TSA continue suppressing and stonewalling federal aircrew and other airline employee whistleblowers. Federal law protections, politicians and law enforcement turn a blind eye. The multi-agency "national security" system systematically fails to protect the public by failing to protect whistleblowers. Instead, it protects terrorists and high-level corruption.

www.examiner.com...

Can we continue our other discussion now?



Explosives, Thermite or both, where should we go next?
Which residues are we supposed to find if anything of this would be the case?


Are you going to answer that question or not? I'm still curious to see your take on residues.


edit on 10-9-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2015 by PublicOpinion because: abcnews-link

edit on 10-9-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum



The FDR data for the flight in question has been posted and analysed here years ago. The maneuver in question was actually very 'unsmooth' as depicted in that data supporting the assertion that Hani was not exactly the best of pilots but he didn't need exceptional skills to hit an object as large as the Pentagon.


That is correct and you are also right that no exceptional skills were needed to strike the Pentagon. Hani failed to maintain altitude whenever the autopilot was disengaged, which was another indication that American 77 was not flown by a professional pilot under remote control.


edit on 10-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

In regard to your video, tell the pilot to watch this video and let the younger pilots show him how to do it since he thought that it was impossible to fly that low at high speed.



In other words, the KC-135 high speed flyby shows that he has a lot to learn about low altitude high speed flight.

Perhaps he would like to see how this flight crew does it.



Then, you can explain to him why aircraft near the ground tend to ride on a cushion of air whenever it flies near the ground.

Ground Effect Vehicle



edit on 10-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander



Oh, you're going to ask American Airlines?


Why not?! After all, American 77 was the property of American Airlines.



Airframe of American 77 Registration

Reserved N-Number
Type Reservation Fee Paid
Mode S Code 52072030
Reserved Date 09/15/2006
Renewal Date 08/27/2014
Purge Date 10/15/2015
Pending Number Change None
Date Change Authorized None
Reserving Party Name GREENWAY JONATHAN JAMES
Street PO BOX 714
City FREDERICK
State MARYLAND
Zip Code 21705-0714
County FREDERICK
Country UNITED STATES
Deregistered Aircraft
Deregistered Aircraft 1 of 1
Aircraft Description
Serial Number 24602 Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991
Manufacturer Name BOEING Mode S Code (base 8 / oct) 52072030
Model 757-223 Mode S Code (base 16 / hex) A87418
Year Manufacturer 1991 Cancel Date 01/14/2002
Reason for Cancellation Destroyed Export To None
Type Registration Corporation

Aircraft Registration prior to Deregistration
Name WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY TRUSTEE
Street RODNEY SQ NORTH ATTN CORP TRT ADM
City WILMINGTON
State DELAWARE Zip Code 19890
County NEW CASTLE
Country UNITED STATES

Deregistered Airworthiness
Engine Manufacturer ROLLS-ROYC Classification Standard
Engine Model 54555 Category Transport
A/W Date 05/08/1991


Now, you know the rest of the story in regard to the airframe of American 77.



Why don't you ask AT&T who violated the Fourth Amendment for Bush?


Why?! AT&T wasn't flying American 77.



Why don't you ask the various tobacco companies who lied for many years about the dangers of tobacco? Why don't you ask any of the other mendacious US corporations who work hand in glove with the government?


No need to ask them because they were not flying American 77 either.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Maneuver Indicates Advanced Flying Skills


Why does this FDR chart make a mockery of the claim that the maneuver of Amerrican 77 indicated advanced flying skills?

FDR Altitude Chart

Just goes to show that you are posting comments from those who have no idea what they are talking about.
edit on 10-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Explosives,...


First of all, there is no evidence of explosives at ground zero, which is evident by the fact there are no explosions evident as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed, which is of no mystery considering that since the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 began where they were struck by the aircraft and there are no secondary explosives at the impact points nor are their secondary explosions as those buildings collapsed, which is undeniable proof that no explosives were planted in those buildings.

Secondly, no evidence of explosives was ever found in the rubble.



Thermite ...


Thermite was debunked years ago especially after Steven Jones got caught posting that doctored photo of a flashlight reflection and claiming the reflection was molten steel, and after Richard Gage was caught lying on video.





edit on 10-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

You posted:



"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."


Slamming American 77 into the Pentagon was unsafe as well. Now, let's take a look at the rest of the story because she makes it very clear that her statements were distorted by Thierry Meyysan, who first popularized the "Pentagon was hit by a missile" theory.



Letter From Danielle OBrien

In the manner Mr. Meyssen took my statements from context and arranged them to support his theory, his conclusions are a blatant disregard for the truth.

911myths.com...


It is very clear that Thierry Meyysan was the person who distorted her statement. In other words, you committed another blunder by posting her remarks thinking it supported your case.
edit on 10-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

To make one thing abundantly clear for you: abc-news article, nobody took anything out of context. If you wanna sue them or tell me they corrected this statement later: do ya worst! I don't care about the french at all, even if his blog has some good pieces now and then. Well. Ok then, you didn't care about the examiner either. Point taken.

Your answer is a nice multilevel cop-out with video-spam. Guess what: who cares? Can you show me that NIST even searched for evidence? Guess what: nobody cared there either. Which brings me back to my initial question, for curiosities sake if you like:



Explosives, Thermite or both, where should we go next?
Which residues are we supposed to find if anything of this would be the case?


(Emphasis yours, truly)

I start to like this! For the report: high brass military struggles with a straight answer so far. Rather amusing, innit?




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



To make one thing abundantly clear for you: abc-news article, nobody took anything out of context.


Taking comments out of context is one reason why the Truth Movement has been placed in a negative light.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Well, it's the "taking out of context"-thingy people laugh about.
Now embrace yourself, this is a tough one: guess who just took this abc-news citation out of context to place the Truth Movement in a negative light.

Funny how things turn out again, innit?


edit on 15-9-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

No, the truth movement has been placed in a negative light because the government and the perpetrators are threatened by the truth. Their story cannot withstand scrutiny, and so they do their best to vilify the truth seekers, attack the messengers.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Well, it's the "taking out of context"-thingy people laugh about.
Now embrace yourself, this is a tough one: guess who just took this abc-news citation out of context to place the Truth Movement in a negative light.


I can remember how the context of Peter Jennings when he suggested a controlled demolition, which is now history and has been used by truthers. However, a correction was later made, but the damage was already done to the Truth Movement.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander



No, the truth movement has been placed in a negative light because the government and the perpetrators are threatened by the truth.


Remember, it was the Truth Movement that confused United 93, which was a B-757, with Delta 1989, Which was a B-767, at Cleveland Airport.

It was the Truth Movement that confused a team of scientist boarding a bus at Cleveland Airport as passengers of United 93. The scientist had just disembarked from a KC-135, which is a four-engine aircraft, unlike the two-engine B-767 and B-757.

Their claim about the sound of explosions has also placed them in a negative light when corrections were made in regard to those who reported hearing explosions. What was overlooked at he time was the exploding gas lines, gas tanks of vehicles on fire, molten aluminum coming into contact with water, collapsing floors, crashing elevators, structural failures, etc.

One firefighter became angry at Peoples Magazine when it reported that he said bombs were responsible when he said no such thing. In a televised interview with NBC News, firefighters reported the explosions they heard were from exploding gas lines, not from bombs. Demo explosives would have left evidence in the form of data on the seismic monitors, yet no such evidence was ever found in the seismic data.

I have had to correct truthers when they confused aerodynamic fairings and MLG doors, which are standard on all B-767's, as an attached pod to carry explosives.




edit on 16-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

I agree generally, but have no clue to which statement from Jennings you were referring to.

It would be nice if you could generally refrain from pulling things out of context as well. If you criticise their methods, which is perfectly fine for me, you shouldn't fall into the same behaviour yourself. It would be utterly pathetic to preach water whilst drinking wine, wouldn't it?

Seems like you were unable to find any correction of that abc-news-article either. Agreed to disagree then.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I rely on my own experience and knowledge to know when to hold 'em and when to throw 'em. I find myself repeatedly correcting truthers when they post false and misleading information, and I do so from my own experience in the real world.

Case in point, references to false information from "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" relating ACARS. I knew that website was posting false and misleading information on ACARS, which were used as references by truthers. Even the folks at ARINC, the ACARS experts, provided me with information that debunked what truthers were posting.

Rob Balsamo, founder of "Pilots For 9/11 Truth," committed so many blunders and missteps that I knew as a pilot myself, was such, that I began to question whether he was a real pilot. Someone later confirmed to me that he was a pilot. I think he needs to go back to flight school.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Yep. I had the questionable honour of being banned from Balsamos site for raising simple questions myself, you run into open doors here. I'm with you on that page, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water! The Pilots for Truth contributed some good information as well, I can live with both sides of the medal so to speak.

The thing is, I often find myself correcting your false and disingenuous assertions regarding my postings. No? Yes. Duh! I enjoy our discussion and would like to keep it as factual as possible, that's all.





top topics



 
135
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join