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.

 

9/11 is not a conspiracy!

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

At 36,000 feet in thin air they can do those speeds cruising, not as you say 400 feet above sea level, and I went and looked at Youtube footage thatb was on all the news stations and they were near level for over a minute, no in a sudden dive.




posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: myss427

No one said "a sudden dive". United 175 was still in a shallow dive just before it hit, but you don't level off and instantly slow down. It takes time. When you're driving a car and go downhill, when you level off it takes a minute to slow down. Why would aircraft be different?
edit on 5/9/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/9/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: myss427

Flights 93 and 77 were gravity assisted to their crash sites with full throttles applied. Flight 77 descended 2000 ft in 4 miles with throttles worked to full to its crash site.

By MIT’s analyst the WTC jets hit at 375 and 470 knots with an altitude of at least 400 feet above sea level. Which in reality is more like 700 feet above sea level.

Which 9/11 jets could not reach the witnesses speeds?

Flight 77 460 knots.
Flight 93 505 knots.


Please cite a source the engines could not produce the needed thrust to acquire the witnessed speeds in the context of the actual crashes?

Or do you only have gossip?

edit on 9-5-2018 by neutronflux because: Corrected speed



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

They actually couldn't, but that only applies if they were in level flight and fire walled.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Flight 175 was descending at 10,000 ft a minute when it hit? Is that a consensus?

Sorry this one subject is hard to research. Doesn’t help when false arguments like “ flying level” are used.






en.m.wikipedia.org...

At 08:55, a supervisor at the New York Air Traffic Control Center notified the center's operations manager of the Flight 175 hijacking, and Dave Bottiglia, who was handling both Flight 11 and Flight 175, noted, "we might have a hijack over here, two of them."[2] At 08:58, the plane was over New Jersey at 28,500 feet, heading toward New York City. In the five minutes from approximately 08:58 when Shehhi completed the final turn toward New York City until the moment of impact, the plane was in a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 5 minutes 4 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute.[14] New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues "were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute.


edit on 9-5-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Also doesn’t help when the government calculates one speed vs MIT, and so on.....



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't know what the decent rate was, but if you watch the wide angle video, you can see it level off somewhat and appear to fly level for the last couple seconds up until impact.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I thought this was interesting? Not sure how accurate though?




debunked-pilots-for-9-11-truth-wtc-speeds.t2942/

www.metabunk.org...

By TWcobra

To give you a précis: Vd is the fastest speed that an airliners V-N envelope is certified to. The aircraft is guaranteed to not suffer structural failure at Vd at 2.5g/0.0g; which are the limit loads.

The airframes ultimate load is 1.5 times the limit loads.


In addition, the 767 was certified to a requirement that it be free of aeroelastic flutter at Vd+20% or Mach one, whichever comes first. At low altitude that is 504 knots EAS. UA 175 never exceeded that EAS till about 5 seconds before impact. Video shown on this site appears to show the beginnings of aeroelastic flutter from the left wing tip just prior to impact.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

The numbers sound about right. I'm not even gonna try to watch the video until I can get on my laptop again. It's actually surprising, because manufacturers rarely give Vne, and always use Vmo. One of the reasons is that if they provide a Vne speed, then during the certification process they have to prove the aircraft can handle something like Vne+10%. If they don't, they won't get their operating certificate.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Just learned about Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771.

Thought this was interesting? Because the speed of the crash. Found spent bullet casings, and a note on an airsickness bag?



Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771
en.m.wikipedia.org...

The plane was estimated to have crashed slightly faster than the speed of sound, at around 770 mph (1,240 km/h), disintegrating instantly. Based on the deformation of the hardened steel black box data recorder case, the aircraft experienced a deceleration of 5,000 times the force of gravity (G-force) when it hit the ground. It was traveling at an approximately 70-degree angle toward the south. The plane struck a rocky hillside, leaving a crater less than two feet (0.6 m) deep and four feet (1.2 m) across. The remains of 27 of the passengers were never identified.[citation needed]

After the crash site was located by a CBS News helicopter piloted by Bob Tur, investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) were joined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). After two days of digging through what was left of the plane, they found the parts of a handgun containing six spent cartridge cases and the note on the airsickness bag written by Burke, indicating that he may have been responsible for the crash.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

That one was pretty bad. All because someone didn't take his security badge away.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 04:03 AM
link   
I never realized how many Truth Movement arguments are ridiculous absolutes?

The jets were going impossibly fast? Only if you ignore the angle of descent, gravity, and crash history?

The passport should have never survived. Only if you ignore crash history with repeated examples where personal items, IDs, and documents survived the most extreme crashes.

The WTC was not treated like a crime scene? In the example of a burning building with trapped people might be a possible arson? Where fire fighters are going to spray down the possible evidence to contain the fire, and contaminate the crime scene looking for survivors? How many buildings suspected of arson had all the remaining building placed in the evidence locker? The WTC was a balance of looking for survivors, digging through the pile, removing the toxic rubble holding up the slurry wall, looking for evidence while digging, and taking the rubble to the lay down yards for further scrutiny.

The WTC steel was never examined. In reality, the steel was taken to the lay down yards for cataloging, sampled, and analyzed. NIST has documentation of their investigation of steel. But the argument is always the steel has never investigated.

Fire collapse is impossible. Well, code requires steel to be insulated from fire for a reason. The WTC had deficient fire protection. Jets did knock of fire insulation. The real argument is factors lead to buckling from the effects of heat, thermal stress, and thermal expansion. The buildings minimized cost by minimizing concrete usage and tried to maximize open space.

The buildings could not have fallen at the rate of free fall. The buildings did not collapse at the rate of free fall.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 06:01 AM
link   
The government, or the secret societies behind the government, evidently had an interest in staging the thing. The "war on terror" causes civilian casualties, makes a misguided interpretation of Islam interesting to people who see the unjust wars and aren't clever enough to work out that ISIS or whatever is not the answer. The "war on terror" therefore makes more terrorists which creates an excuse for heightened security, taking away civil liberties... Steps on the way to the fascist NWO.

If you want to work out who's behind something, you often just need to consider who has the greatest interest in the thing happening...



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: shankara

How long has the Middle East been in Jihad? And factions been at war within the Middle East? Since before the USA was even founded? What is the common denominator dating back before 1000AD?

Hell, you cannot even want to renegotiate a nuclear peace deal without the Iranian parliament shouting death to America? Oh the irony? With proof Iran is not living up to the expectations of the deal anyway?




Iran lawmakers shout 'death to America,' burn U.S. flag after Trump nixes nuclear deal
www.usatoday.com...

edit on 10-5-2018 by neutronflux because: Added not living up to deal



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: shankara




Steps on the way to the fascist NWO.

Hows that NWO working out for you?
People have been claiming NWO for decades but I haven't seen any shift.
Recently they claimed Jade Helm and Walmart was the start.
Remember the large ammo purchased by the government agencies?
Remember the body bags and coffins claimed by another agency?
All this is BS on Youtube. Shut down YT and it all goes away.

The closest NWO I can think of is North Korea.
I doubt any of TPTB want to go down that road.
Even after all the school shootings, gun confiscation is not on the horizon.
Just one or two locals over stepping the constitution.
NWO is a claim by people with low level jobs and no ambition to do better for themselves.



If you want to work out who's behind something, you often just need to consider who has the greatest interest in the thing happening...

Name that person for 911.
Cheney with the bad heart? Ha
The Bush's? Their lives didn't take any dramatic turns after 911.
It sounds to me like you are repeating a line in a movie .




top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join