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.

 

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 104
160
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409



That won't work because you failed to post the demo timelines, which simply means you have no case.


Your fantasy timeline has been debunk by LapTop, why are you ignoring the OP?


The dust samples of the RJ Lee Group found no evidence of thermite or explosives. Would you like to see their report to that effect?



Yes I would.


Still waiting for RJ Lee Group paper?




posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

There is nothing in the that RJ Lee Group report that indicates the use of explosives and as a result of hat report, you have no case for explosives.

edit on 2-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

That won't work and the RJ Lee Group dust sample report shows why "AE 91 Truth" is the laughingstock and discredited group that it is today.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Let's not forget that you trashed LapTop's reference recently. BTW, in your current video, there seems to be a problem because I don't hear demo explosions in that video either.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Still waiting for RJ Lee Group paper?


RJ Lee Group Dust Sample Report

Nothing in the RJ Lee Group report that indicates the use of explosives and thermite. You have no case for either.
edit on 2-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Informer1958

Let's not forget that you trashed LapTop's reference recently. BTW, in your current video, there seems to be a problem because I don't hear demo explosions in that video either.



Funny, I hear it just fine, why don't you get some headphones...



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Ok here are the images tried posting before - not that will believe them.......

WTC 7 steel frames embedded in Verizon

en.wikipedia.org...:Verizon_building_damage2.jpg

Debris piled up against Verizon - notice hole gouged in building

en.wikipedia.org...:Verizon_building_damage.jpg

www.debunking911.com...



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Informer1958



Still waiting for RJ Lee Group paper?


RJ Lee Group Dust Sample Report

Nothing in the RJ Lee Group report that indicates the use of explosives and thermite. You have no case for either.


Are you serious? That paper is full of crap, chimney effect? Hurricane winds? What idiot was that written for... geez.. that chimney effect line is an out right lie..



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Informer1958

Ok here are the images tried posting before - not that will believe them.......

WTC 7 steel frames embedded in Verizon

en.wikipedia.org...:Verizon_building_damage2.jpg

Debris piled up against Verizon - notice hole gouged in building

en.wikipedia.org...:Verizon_building_damage.jpg



www.debunking911.com...




Your links don't work. And what your point ? that building was very close to wtc 7..
edit on 2-11-2015 by wildb because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb




Your links don't work. And what your point ? that building was very close to wtc 7..


Yea - tried to post some links which dont copy well

As for why - have some people claiming that when WTC 7 fell it did not damage any other buildings

That is totally false as I have shown . WTC 7 smashed into Verizon building and inflicted 1 billion in damage

Damaged 30 West Broadway across Barclay so badly have to be demolished



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: wildb




Your links don't work. And what your point ? that building was very close to wtc 7..


Yea - tried to post some links which dont copy well

As for why - have some people claiming that when WTC 7 fell it did not damage any other buildings

That is totally false as I have shown . WTC 7 smashed into Verizon building and inflicted 1 billion in damage

Damaged 30 West Broadway across Barclay so badly have to be demolished


Oh it did, thanks for your reply btw, At the one year anniversary I was all over in and out of the Verizon building and it was damaged , the dust killed them also, the switching gear really got hurt, I got to see places in the building most don't..



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409



WTC Dust Signature Report Composition and Morphology

Prepared by the RJ Lee Group

911research.wtc7.net...


Thank you for posting RJ Lee Group Report on their dust samples.

I agree it does not support A&E scientific study, in fact it only concentrates on the building materials and objects inside the WTC.

RJ Lee Group report is lacking the truth in the particles in the dust samples. I am sure the government is over joyed and perhaps it might be on the Gov. website.

There is way to much missing from RJ lee Group Report and I believe in my "opinion" someone was paid a lot of money to rig that report.

Remember I said my "opinion."

I see why you you defend their report because, it does not talk about the micro spires that A&E found in their dust samples.

Isn't that interesting.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Funny, I hear it just fine, why don't you get some headphones...


In that case, I would like for you to post the time lines in the following video where demo explosions are heard, and if you do, we can try to match them up with the seismic data that is available to see if there is a match.

Now, let's get started. Here is the video, so go ahead and post the demo timelines.




posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Are you serious?


Yes, I am.



That paper is full of crap, chimney effect?


Let's take a look here.



Chimney Effect

Occurs when a construction feature enhances the natural process of heated gas and flames rising. This often results in severe damage and charring inside the construction feature that acted as a chimney. Examples of construction features that can produce a chimney effect include a stairwell, atrium, elevator shaft, laundry chute, dumbwaiter, and skylight shaft.

Source:

Redsicker, David R. and O’Connor, John J. Practical Fire & Arson Investigation (Second Edition). CRC Press. 1997.


Nothing secret about the 'chimney effect.'


... Hurricane winds?


Speaking of 'Hurricane winds,' let's take a look here.



Hurricane-Forced Winds and the WTC Buildings

Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”

Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”

Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”

SALVATORE D'AGOSTINO, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: You could hear the floors pancaking one on top of the other, huge explosions.

LIM: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and faster as they get closer. What I remember the most was the wind. It created almost like a hurricane-type force and actually pushed one of the firemen right by me.

www.debunking911.com...


Since the interior of a building consist mostly of air, what they were feeling was compressed air as the floors pancaked on top of one another, so my advice to you is, don't ridicule that, for which you have no understanding.
edit on 2-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



There is way to much missing from RJ lee Group Report and I believe in my "opinion" someone was paid a lot of money to rig that report.

Remember I said my "opinion."


I'll accept that.


I see why you you defend their report because, it does not talk about the micro spires that A&E found in their dust samples.


The "RJ Lee Group addressed the WTC microspheres in this report.

Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Everything you have posted has been debunked. About that WTC 7 video you posted, there are no demo explosions, which is why you were unable to provide the demo explosion timelines that I have asked for. Apparently, you forget about your own admission recently.


The fact is, You have taken my comments about LapTop to new level. You have spun my comments, and contents to levels I have never seen.

As far as my video in question to why you do not hear explosions, is because you have selective hearing in my "opinion".

As for your silly made up time line, The fact is, LapTop already debunk it, but you didn't know that because you failed to read the OP.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


The "RJ Lee Group addressed the WTC microspheres in this report.


Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust


Yes I read that, and A&E reported the same thing, yet A&E scientific studies go much further and they show how they isolated every single particle in rigorous testing, something that RJ Lee Groups lack in their paper.
edit on 2-11-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Page 101 post by PublicOpinion : He might have a point with regards to speeds, but when I think of remote control nearly everything might be possible. And the flight-path was rather strangely precise, it's quite obvious if you ask me.

Looking forward to read your take on this, care to elaborate on remote-controls?


Which point about speeds? If you believe all those NoC witness statements, then you know the DFDR data for at least the last ten seconds must have been altered. Since a NoC plane could have never flown faster than 250 KTS up to the ANC grounds south-parking, at that position it then accelerated at full throttle, as many witnesses said. And before that point, it flew about 70 to 90 knots above its nominal stall speed, and it thus was more gliding than flying in that first part of its northern turn around the CITGO station.

Regarding remote-controls :

AA77 Pentagon attack aerobatics?

Final Approach.
Also cited as evidence against B-757 involvement in the attack is the shallow descent angle of the aircraft as it made its final approach to the Pentagon. Photographs show no signs of gouging of the lawn by a B-757's low-hanging engines, even though direct impact damage was limited to the first and second floors of the building. How could such a large aircraft be flown so close to the ground, and with such precision?

Two distinct questions are implicit in the previous one.

Were alleged hijackers capable of piloting the airliner through the maneuvers?
Could a B-757-200 perform the maneuvers?

Hani Hanjour may not have been up to the task, but a B-757's flight control computer seems sufficient for that task. It's equipped with radar altimeters and accurate GPS monitors for precise altitude and position tracking. It can analyze and respond to conditions hundreds of times per second. Examples of the extreme capabilities of fly-by-wire systems are reverse swept-wing aircraft, which are inherently unstable and require rapid adjustment of the plane's control surfaces.


However, that's not true, AA77 was NOT equipped with GPS in 2001, and the flight control computer its 3 autopilot systems were switched off already 9 minutes before impact. As shown in the DFDR data, and in the NTSB animation which was based on these DFDR data, as 3 switched off autopilot systems center bars.
The plane was flown manually through that shallow descent angle during its 2.5 minute 270-degree spiral down turn, indicates that DFDR.
However, since the DFDR showed that the airspeeds inside that spiral were from 270 to 320 Knots (311 to 368 Mph), it probably was no difficult task for a human pilot, let it be for a remote controller.
That's quite slow for a 757-200. G-forces would be quite lower than 0.5 G at 400 Mph. (1 knot (kt) = 1.15077945 miles per hour (mph).)
A 757 whose rated G limits are over 2, has proved to be able to withstand G forces of +3.59 G. See the references and calculations in the same link :


RCF = 0.001118 * r * N^2
where
RCF = Relative Centrifugal Force (gravities)
r = rotation radius (meters)
N = rotation speed (revolutions per minute)

If the plane was traveling at 400 miles per hour, it would travel 16.666 miles, or 26,821 meters, in 2.5 minutes. Assuming it was traveling in a circular arc, it would trace out 3/4ths of a circle with a 35,761-meter circumference, giving a rotation radius of 5,691 meters and rotation speed of 0.3 rotations per minute. Plugging those values into the above equation, we obtain a centrifugal force of 0.5726 Gs -- hardly a problem for a 757 whose rated G limits are over two.


The last few hundred meters must have been flown visually or on some sort of remote autopilot system, and at such low heights you can't trust the radar altimeter (a.k.a. radio altimeter) since that one receives bounced back signals off the ground, but also off any trees, bushes, buildings.
Normally the co-pilot calls out the pressure altimeter values while landing above a FLAT runway. That had no sense in a suicidal last attack-run, within ground effect (half the plane's wingspan as its height above ground). A human pilot must manually correct the heavy upwards bumping caused by the increasingly heavier groundeffect all by himself, in those last 500 to 300 meters flown lower than 19 meters (a 757's ground effect area), which is half of its wingspan of 124 ft 10 in (38.05m). Ending just above the light pole heights of 9 meter.
And that's why we should not trust the last unofficially decoded 4 to 6 secs data in the recovered FDR, which indicate a huge air speed and no autopilot in use, while all those last maneuvers were flown manually as these DFDR-data stated.
A human pilot would have been unable to correct those huge ground effect bumps during the last 300 meters of flight under 19 meters altitude above ground level there. he would have been forced upwards, or would have crashed in the soil, when he would have overcompensated the upward forces by pushing too hard down, too long.

Only a remotely programmed auto-pilot system, or even a pilot that remotely steered by means of a nose-cone installed video camera plus autopilot systems, could have made those corrections on that dangerously low trajectory. At those last DFDR speeds. Of up to 573 Mph / 956 km/hr.
We know that B-757 ground effect behavior does become less grave at higher speeds, but it is still there, and must be corrected by repeated fast short downwards-upwards movements of the flight stick or steering column. Which seems not doable by a human pilot at 956 km/hr while still keeping his aim.

How about the straight horizontal imprints of the two wings on the west wall facade ?
Indicating a much lower impact speed, since that means that the wings were not flexed up maximally, as will happen at 573 Mph / 956 km/hr in that dense sea level air pressure. Even at much lower air pressures, at cruising speeds of 573 Mph / 956 km/hr and altitudes between 35,000 and 45,000 feet ( >10 km) the wing ends flex up considerably, up to 1.60 m / 5 feet and more. Which is half the first floor slab height at the Pentagon's West wall impact point of AA77 its nose cone on column 14.

When that plane really flew that ridiculous 956 km/hr at impact, its wings would have been flexed up to its maximum in that dense air, and that should have been visible as bowed up imprints on the limestone plates of that west wall.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[3] Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nano-sized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[4] Nano-energetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are one potential application of nano-energetic materials.[5]

References :
[3] Murday, James S. (2002). "The Coming Revolution: Science and Technology of Nanoscale Structures" (PDF). AMPTIAC Quarterly 6 (1). Retrieved July 8, 2009.
[4] Gartner, John (Jan 21, 2005). "Military Reloads with Nanotech". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved May 3, 2009.
[5] Novel Energetic Materials, GlobalSecurity.org


That's why TB's have initial particle brisance speeds of >20000 m/sec, and conventional explosives like RDX have initial particle brisance speeds of around 8000 m/s speeds.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



The fact is, You have taken my comments about LapTop to new level. You have spun my comments, and contents to levels I have never seen.


I posted a reference from LaBTop, and you posted a response that the reference I posted wasn't credible.



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join