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.

 

911myths.com : WHY FAKING >73° BANK-ANGLES for a NoC FLYING PLANE.?

page: 10
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Kadagraks



It's not how long it was on fire, it is the speed of collapse. Do you really think that even the undamaged floors couldn't hold up a second? Have you ever seen a phase diagram? Steel is good.


Let's take a look at this 21-story steel fame building that collapsed during an earthquake.

21-story steel frame building collapsed during an earthquake

Now, let's take a look at the collapse of WTC 6 and jump to time line 1:48 in the following video.





posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: misterhistory



Okay, this bothers me a bit. Why would a very well planned out false flag event forget somethings like the radio tower in the flight path they wanted as the official story?


It doesn't make any sense because there was no 9/11 false flag. It doesn't make any sense anymore than the staging of a terrorist attack by planting downed light poles on, and near, a busy roadway in broad daylight and hoping no one would notice.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

American 77

American 77 Wheel 1

American 77 Wheel 2

American 77 Wing Tip




Still no video of the crash....



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb

That won't fly in your case. I have already posted a segment of the video depicting American 77 in the background, not to mention B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon and the announcement from American Airlines on the loss of American 77.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

You said you had video showing the plane hitting the building, I have not seen that video. The video you posted shows nothing. The damage to the building is not consistent with the impact of a 757.

So until I see video of the event clearly showing the 757 the rest is irrelevant because it could have been staged. Furthermore I don't see how it could have punched through a total of nine feet of 18 inch walls.

And again the first photos show a clean lawn with no wreckage of any kind...



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb



You said you had video showing the plane hitting the building, I have not seen that video. The video you posted shows nothing. The damage to the building is not consistent with the impact of a 757.


That is false. It is consistent with a impact from a B-757 and explains B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb



You said you had video showing the plane hitting the building, I have not seen that video. The video you posted shows nothing. The damage to the building is not consistent with the impact of a 757.


That is false. It is consistent with a impact from a B-757 and explains B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon.



Consistent you say you have seen the impact and wreckage from B-757 personally??
So you know what it looks like then..
How can you use the word consistent in a sentence when its comes to have never seen such thing in your life?
edit on 18/10/2015 by amraks because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   


That is false. It is consistent with a impact from a B-757 and explains B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon.



No sorry it is not false....


www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: amraks



Consistent you say you have seen the impact and wreckage from B-757 personally??


I have identified B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon from photos and that my Wing Commander was inside the Pentagon when American 77 slammed into the building.



So you know what it looks like then..
How can you use the word consistent in a sentence when its comes to have never seen such thing in your life?


Making a career in aviation since 1967, I have seen many aircraft accidents. One career field of mine involved aircraft structures and I have been a pilot since 1969, and have been a supervisor/inspector and airframe technician for the Air Force and major defense contractors.

I have designed components for Air Force aircraft and special tools and equipment for the USAF, U.S. Army, and major defense contractors. In fact, the USAF and Raytheon Aerospace sent me to Pensacola, Florida to develop a technical repair manual for the Air Force's TF-39C jet engine, which powered the Air Force's C-5 transport and on fact finding trips.

I have led two aviation-related chapters as president, and I am historian of one those chapters. My chapters consist of military and commercial pilots, instructor pilots, private pilots, sport and student pilots, military officers and enlisted personnel, DoD civilians and retirees.

I have modified large Air Force aircraft and fighters and knew that the 9/11 airliners could not have been modified to fly under remote control without leaving paper trails across the country and even the the UK. At Hill AFB, UT, I was assigned to a variety of specialized teams that either modified aircraft or rebuild or repair battle-damaged aircraft and helicopters. At Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, Texas, I modified and overhauled helicopters of the U.S. Army and have invented special tools in the airframe shop.

If you want to know who I am, you can find me on the Internet. I also want to add that I am USAF retired and know the government was incapable of pulling off 9/11 and not get caught.
by]
edit on 18-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

All you have to do with to prove me wrong, as I have challenged, so why the stalling?



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

I don't think comparing earthquakes with plane impacts is useful in this case. And as i said, speed is the key.

The hollowed wtc 6 is a mystery on it's own.
Also i don't think is valid to justify a wtc building behaviour with another wtc building from the same event.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Kadagraks

Steel structures react the same. If you leave a steel railroad track in a fire for an hour, a few men can wrap that steel railroad track around a tree by hand.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

All you have to do with to prove me wrong, as I have challenged, so why the stalling?



I just showed there was no wreckage in front of the building, I also showed that the damage was not consistent with a 757, anyone seeing the first photos would question the OS.. except you..



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

False. There was a lot of wreckage in front of the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Kadagraks

Steel structures react the same. If you leave a steel railroad track in a fire for an hour, a few men can wrap that steel railroad track around a tree by hand.




What a load of crap, steel structures do not all react the same...



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

False. There was a lot of wreckage in front of the Pentagon.


Really, go back to the video and give me the times where there is wreckage visible...



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb


All you have to do is the prove me wrong with evidence. It is apparent that you didn't see how WTC 6 was brought down.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Really, go back to the video and give me the times where there is wreckage visible...


Let's begin here.

Photo 1: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 2: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 3: American 77 Wing Flaps

Photo 4: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 5: American 77 Wreckage



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb


All you have to do is the prove me wrong with evidence. It is apparent that you didn't see how WTC 6 was brought down.


Let me tell you what I have evidence of, which you have just provided to me, that evidence is you don't know who or what your talking about..

I provided ten minutes of photos that show no wreckage, that proves you wrong..



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb



Really, go back to the video and give me the times where there is wreckage visible...


Let's begin here.

Photo 1: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 2: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 3: American 77 Wing Flaps

Photo 4: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 5: American 77 Wreckage



I said in the video, try again..




top topics



 
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join