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.
originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Jacobu12
A practical way to appreciate how close to the ground AA77 had to be is, on any sideview of the aircraft, just extend the landing gear, as most diagrams show the aircraft with gear up.
And so, it means Hani The Magnificent had to be flying as close to the ground as if he were taxiing, in ground effect, at Vmo +90 and that's ridiculous.
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Where did you find that data? If you don't mind my asking?
Nooooo. Radiation is transmitted as a point source. To "focus" radiation in a direction it needs to be built like a flashlight, radar gun, or those funny cones on a microwave tower. Then it still radiates in a cone with "weak" leakage in all directions.
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12
No, we found answers long ago. We just grow tired of people who act as if everything they find about 9/11 is something new and then insist that their ideas are reality....when those ideas were disproven long ago.
originally posted by: Jacobu12
This my last post on 9/11 here. Ted Olson is a liar tell proven otherwise.
As one critic of Ted Olson pointed out
“Ted Olson could give his adherents closure, and shut his critics up,” Morgan pointed out, “by simply producing the Department of Justice’s telephone accounts, showing a couple of hefty reverse-charges entries charged from Flight 77’s Airfone number at around about 9:20 AM on 11th September, 2001.
originally posted by: Jacobu12
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12
No, we found answers long ago. We just grow tired of people who act as if everything they find about 9/11 is something new and then insist that their ideas are reality....when those ideas were disproven long ago.
They have not disproven anything that's why the 9/11 truth movement is bigger every year. You are guys just debunkers and it so transparent.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12
By the way, George W. Bush, one of the most hated president perhaps, Facebook profile has over 4 million likes.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Facebook profile seems to be stalled under 500,000 likes.
originally posted by: roadgravel
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12
By the way, George W. Bush, one of the most hated president perhaps, Facebook profile has over 4 million likes.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Facebook profile seems to be stalled under 500,000 likes.
In all fairness, that not a very good comparison.
Lots of average people would identify with an ex president, even if it is only just over 1% of the country. Most people would most likely not be looking at profiles for science type persons.
originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: MrBig2430
Well let's suppose the plane did glance off the lawn as some witnesses suggested. Can anyone seriously suggest that the building would have been saved if it did actually touch the grass on the way in?
It's just arguments for the sake of arguing the way I see it
originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: MrBig2430
Well let's suppose the plane did glance off the lawn as some witnesses suggested. Can anyone seriously suggest that the building would have been saved if it did actually touch the grass on the way in?
It's just arguments for the sake of arguing the way I see it
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12
No, we found answers long ago. We just grow tired of people who act as if everything they find about 9/11 is something new and then insist that their ideas are reality....when those ideas were disproven long ago.
That's what happens when "open minded people" with little science, technology, and industrial backgrounds spend all their time on conspiracy sites that rely on sensational innuendo and the hiding of facts to create foot traffic.
I would think to present the best arguments, a conspiracist would visit debunking sites to hone their skills. I guess it better to stay in conspiracy safe spaces. It's sad how "open minded people" act on ATS when their fantasy narratives are questioned.
They always try to make it about pushing "the official narrative." Not seeing conspiracists are pushing pseudoscience and rely on the suppression of facts.