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 Challenge

page: 46
4
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
The two figter wings were NOT sitting there armed even with canon rounds. Note how long it would have taken Syracuse to arm their fighters, an hour to an hour and a half if they wanted full load outs. Most bases with alert fighters have between 2 and 4 fighters fully armed ready to launch. They do NOT have entire wings sitting armed ready to launch at a moments notice.




posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Andrews always have aircraft ready for intecept, to protect DC. Sure they dont have both wings armed at all times, but they always have a percentage that have ther cannons loaded. You dont get it do you?

They always intercept hijacked aircraft, especially after we were attacked twice and still have one flying headed for the capitol!



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   
"Two fighter wings. The 3 Falcons that were on a training mission is NOT the same as the two fighter wings that are ready at all times. The story that they only had the three trainers was government spin."

Make up your mind. Here you say they have two wings ready at all times, then your next reply you say they AREN'T ready at all times. I get it perfectly well thank you, but as usual I think differently than you do so you have to slam my intelligence.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Ok enough of going around in circles with you. Fighter wings are under repair all the time, these are high tech machines and need multiple wings. To say they have two wings ready at all times does not mean EVERY plane in the wing.

You can have two fighter wings ready at all times and still have some of the aircraft down for repairs.

Learn to be an American. Americans ask questions, fascists never do they just tow the party line.

Be American, think like an American!

Its late and I'm going to bed.

Nighty night.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Hey I'm impressed. I've come a long way. I went from ignorant, to sheeple to an unAmerican facist.
Why is it that anyone that disagrees with a conspiracy theory, is either automatically wrong, or stupid, or (insert name here)? Why is it so hard to have a civil debate without the name calling?

[edit on 12-8-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Learn to be an American. Americans ask questions, fascists never do they just tow the party line.

Be American, think like an American!


Thanks, but I'll stick to being a Brit. We have better tea.

Are you perhaps towing the ubiquitous "It was a set-up, but there's not much proof when you get down to it" party line yourself?

Did you just miss the masses of testimony from various AFBs in question, who would seem to poke holes in your facts quite capably?



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   
The government air response timeline is false. They rewrote the timeline to fit the 9/11 report. Take a look at this link concerning Otis response.

www.capecodonline.com...
Fighters were in the air heading toward NYC just moments news broke on television. One of our fighters arrived in NYC as the second plane hit WTC 2.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
From the source quoted:



"Several minutes earlier, Isch had heard the two F-15 jets scrambled just a couple of hundred yards away. But even after turning on CNN in the weapons shop break room, he didn't make the connection.

................."As soon as that second tower was hit, we all started to scramble to action," he recalled. The Otis pilots on training were called back"


Otis = Massachussetts. The pilots were not called back until after the second tower was hit. This source itself plainly states...as soon as that second tower was hit....

It then goes on:


Back in the air, the plume of smoke and dust became visible as the Jayhawk approached the city....


Clearly, the attacks had already taken place before the Jayhawk was even close.


Next point. Even here (not the most objective source in the world), we find this:


Within minutes after a flight ceases to respond to ground control, the FAA is expected to alert NORAD - which scrambles jet fighters to intercept the errant flight for reconnaissance purposes. These are supposed to be airborne within 10 minutes of the problem arising.
(emphasis mine)

Simplified: There is no automatic NORAD alert. The FAA has to physically, manually alert NORAD.

There is supposed to be a protocol, and it's supposed to be effective; just to reiterate, nobody is disputing that grave errors in judgement and action were made.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   





Note that the second article states that the fire only burned for three hours, not four. ( a moot point, I admit
)

It appears that the damage was mainly confined to one floor.

A wiring chase also caught fire and this is what burned on the 6 floors. I suspect that the reason it took three hours to put out the fire was that it took time to access and open up the chase to put out the burning telephone wire insulation.

In any case, I don’t see how this fire is in any way comparable to 9/11, do you?


[edit on 12-8-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 12-8-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
snapping of all the steel beams into 12 foot sections


I had to come back to this part.


It is interesting how that number keeps changing. First it was into 38 foot sections. Then it was 24 foot sections, now WCIP is claiming that ALL of the steel columns were snapped into 12 foot sections!




BTW, the majority of the WTC columns were prefabricated into 38 foot column trees and were assembled on the building by bolting the sections together.



[edit on 12-8-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
Here are some major skyscraper fires in the U.S. before 9-11
----

These fires burned at 2,000+ degrees fahrenheit, so why didn't these buildings collapse?


Different structural designs, different fireproofing. The use of concrete core columns. etc.

Apples and Oranges

Also, none of those buildings was hit by a large airliner filled with jet fuel, now were they?


Jet fuel is just an accelerent, it does not make the fire burn any hotter.


As WCIP pointed out in another post, don’t confuse heat and temperature.

Jet fuel adds to the fuel load of the fire. Thus the total heat energy released is much higher. Also, you are correct, it is an accelerant, thus the WTC fires reached the point of being fully involved much quicker then those other building fires.


Originally posted by LoneGunMan
It was not apples and oranges, he mentioned the WTC north tower fire of 1975!


All of the other buildings were of different construction details, size etc. from the WTC, thus, the performance of those buildings in a fire is not comparable to the WTC on 911.

In additiion, as I pointed out in my post above, the 1975 fire in WTC was not comparable to the 911 fires.

That is like comparing a fire in a wastebasket to a forest fire.



It is either one or the other. The heat from the fire did it, or it was because a jet blasted a hole in the building and the fire helped weaken it and bring it down.


It was from both.

The buildings probably would have survived the damage caused by the impact alone.

The buildings probably would have survived the damage caused by the fires alone.

The buildings could not withstand both the impact damage AND the fires. Add to that the loss of key areas of fireproofing from the impact, and their fates were sealed.



Which is it HR? If it was from structure damage then inertia would have biased the building fall.


In both cases, the top of the buildings tilted (or rotated) slightly at the start of the collapse. What more did you expect?



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Let's compare A Boeing 707-320B to a Boeing 767

707 Specifications

Advanced 707-320B

Wingspan 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m)

Length 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m)

Wing Area 3,010 square feet (280 m2)

Gross Weight 336,000 pounds (152,400 kg)

Cruising Speed 607 mph (977 km/h)

Range 6,160 miles (9,913 km)

Service Ceiling 36,000 feet (10,973 m)

Power Four Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofans of 18,000 pounds thrust each

Passenger Cabin 141 passengers mixed class or a maximum of 189 all economy

Boeing 767-400ER

Passenger-seating configuration

Typical 3-class configuration - 245
Typical 2-dlass configuration - 304
Typical 1-class configuration - ~375

Cargo - 4,580 cubic feet (129.6 cubic meters)

Engines - Pratt & Whitney PW4062 - 63,000 lbs (281.6 kN)
General Electric CF6-80C2B8F - 63,000 (282.5 kN)

Maximum Fuel Capacity - 23,980 US gallons (90,970 Liters)

Maximum Takeoff Weight - 450,000 lbs (204,120 kgs)

Maximum Range - 5,645 nautical miles - 10,454 km
Typical City Pairs
London - Tokyo, Newark - Moscow, Chicago - Warsaw

Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet - 0.80 Mach 530 MPH (551 km/h)

Dimensions: Wingspan - 170ft. 4 inches (51.9 meters)
Overall Length - 201ft. 4 inches (61.4 meters)
Tail Height - 55ft. 4 inches (16.8 meters)
Cabin Width - 15ft. 6 inches (4.7 meters)

Which plane would have done more damage if hitting the towers at a higher speed?

[edit on 08/07/2005 by gimmefootball400]



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I've a theory that could explaing the collapse of WTC 1&2:

WTC towers weren't damaged dramatically from airplanes, they were designed to withstand the impact. But the fuel caused large fires to towers, and airplane crushed some floors. Exteriol columns didn't get enough horizontal support, so they bended and they wasn't able to carry the weight of upper tower. That's why floors begun to collapse down, and shortly after that tower walls collapsed because there weren't horizontal support. Central core wasn't able to carry the weight of upper floors, so it collapsed too among outer walls. The collapse of WTC couldn't have stopped, because of the pipe structure. Floors can't stop heavy steel beams from falling down and crushing floors, and when there were no floors outer walls didn't have any horizontal support.

At the beginging of WTC 1 collapse it's clearly seen that exterior walls were bending inwards. That can't be done by explosives.

Sorry if I wrote unclearly...



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
people who wernt there can theorize all they like. they can fall for false flags and manipulation, plane hits building, building falls down, so plane hit = cause of building collpase.
but in my opinion this is damning testimony...
William Rodriguez
mp3.rbnlive.com...



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   


As WCIP pointed out in another post, don’t confuse heat and temperature.

Jet fuel adds to the fuel load of the fire. Thus the total heat energy released is much higher. Also, you are correct, it is an accelerant, thus the WTC fires reached the point of being fully involved much quicker then those other building fires.


Howard you really do not know what the heck you are talking, about and I am sick of your disinformation. I AM A FIREFIGHTER. I took fire science and have been to nearly every different kind of fire. It adds to the fuel load of the fire... so does anything combustable, but unlike JP8 (which by the way is kerosene with some additives ) it was atomized from the impact and blew its energy nearly all at once. The fires were NOT intense and were NOT long lasting. Firefighters that were on scene stated that there were two small fires and they could knock it down with two hoses. TWO HOSES HOWARD. These profesionals do not make mistakes ther are too many lives on the line. Most house fires require four or more hoses. When they said two hoses it means the fires were not burning hot enough to need a whole lot of cooling!!!! Within minutes those fires were burning a dark red with lots of black smoke. This means a fire that has been oxegon starved and burning at a low heat.




As WCIP pointed out in another post, don’t confuse heat and temperature.


Temperature is a number that is related to the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance. If temperature is measured in Kelvin degrees, this number is directly proportional to the average kinetic energy of the molecules.

Heat is a measurement of the total energy in a substance. That total energy is made up of not only of the kinetic energies of the molecules of the substance, but total energy is also made up of the potential energies of the molecules.


The energy of this fire at WTC was used up.



All of the other buildings were of different construction details, size etc. from the WTC, thus, the performance of those buildings in a fire is not comparable to the WTC on 911.

In additiion, as I pointed out in my post above, the 1975 fire in WTC was not comparable to the 911 fires.

That is like comparing a fire in a wastebasket to a forest fire.


You have to be kidding. First you try and state you know the difference between heat and temperature, and then make the above statement.

A three hour long building fire creates huge amounts of energy, much more than a fire that was started by an accelerant that atomized and burned out, leaving residual fire that lasted a short period of time.

Stop spinning the truth HR or people will see you for who you are, like I do. You degrade thos 343 hreoes that were killed that day, everytime you try and hide the truth with backspin. Stop it! We need the truth to come out not just some hogwash put out by a corrupt government. Those Firefighters deserve so much more than a weak investigation that NEVER asked the hard questions. You should be ashamed.

[edit on 12-8-2005 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   
ok if you say y'r a fireman lets' see some proof.....just t'a make sure.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I'm glad to hear that the FDNY 911 tapes and transcripts have been released.

Hopefully all of us will learn more as the content is revealed.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
ok if you say y'r a fireman lets' see some proof.....just t'a make sure.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



Dont even ask me for proof of what I do, and then have the gaul to end it with y'r Canadian friend! What I do for a living is my passion for doing something right in the world. What is YOUR reason for being. Have some respect!!!!!

[edit on 12-8-2005 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
ok if you say y'r a fireman lets' see some proof.....just t'a make sure.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



Hey man, you asking someone for proof? C'mon TROLL!! you can do better than that...

I've asked you a couple of time in this circular thread, in my roundabout way, to show me some proof of your claims of being in the construction industry for 25 yrs.

You have ignored everyone of my questions...Not that I really care it just makes me extremely suspicious...

You're worse than Howard, at least he tries a little harder. Failles miserably but he tries. Maybe enough for the fence sitters, who really want to believe the government story, but too many of us on this site actually think about things, question everything.
Maybe if you guys tried that sometime you may begin your path to de-programing your selfs.
Man you would be amazed what's out there, all you've got to do is quit allowing your thoughts and feelings to be dictated to you by the state.

I still don't understand why someone would come on a conspiracy site, where people like to discuss, not argue or defend, just discuss conspiracies (at least that what I thought) and waist their time taking people in circles with never ending arguments. Let alone coming on just to say "I agree Howwie sweet buddy"


I think I'll go over to a gaming forum and just disagree with every post, and run them round in circles for awhile. Hey sounds like fun, you with me Sven?



"Edited for speeling"

[edit on 13/8/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Did everyone just forget or chose to ignore these links?

Firefighters interview
firefighter 1 - ...we made it outside, we made it about a block...

firefighter 2 - we made it at least two blocks and we started runnin' -- four by four, bam ba dam

firefighter 1 - It was as if they had detonators, detonate -- you know as if they were planed to take down a building, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.

firefighter 2 - All the way down I was watchin' it and runnin'.

firefighter 3 - I just ran up with him.

firefighter 2 - And then you just saw this cloud of %#^& chasing you down the..


Secondary explosions
...Then they a saw secondary explosions and then the subsequent collapses...

Heavy duty explosion
"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway,
there was a heavy duty explosion."


Witness to explosion
"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard
a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we
had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building
might not last."


Secondary devices
"The Chief of Safety of the fire department of New York City told me
he recieved word of the possibility of a secondary device--that is,
another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he
could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place and according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices
that were planted in the building."


Eye witness
"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions ... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of ... tip
over and fall in on itself."


Eye witness
"... and then all of a sudden it started like ... it sounded like
gunfire ... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all
of a sudden three big explosions."


Eye witness
"45 minutes into the taping that we were doing, there was an
explosion. It was way up where the fire was and the whole building at that point bellied out in flames and everybody ran."


Couple all those people with this guy William Rodriguez a big hero on 911, he went back into the buildings to save people 3 TIMES.


On 9/11, Rodriguez single-handedly rescued fifteen (15) persons from the WTC, and as Rodriguez was the only person at the site with the master key to the North Tower stairwells, he bravely led firefighters up the stairwell, unlocking doors as they ascended, thereby aiding in the successful evacuation of unknown hundreds of those who survived. Rodriguez, at great risk to his own life, re-entered the Towers three times after the first, North Tower impact at about 8:46 A.M., and is believed to be the last person to exit the North Tower alive, surviving the building's collapse by diving beneath a fire truck. After receiving medical attention at the WTC site for his injuries, Rodriguez spent the rest of 9/11 aiding as a volunteer in the rescue efforts, and at dawn the following morning, was back at Ground Zero continuing his heroic efforts.


1.0mb MP3

~Peace
~



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join