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: 47
4
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
post 1597014

Originally posted by HowardRoark
....
I will state this once and once only: There is NO seismic evidence of any explosions prior to the collapse.

The idea that there is, is apparently based on Christopher Bollyn’s inability to read and understand the data presented in the seismic chart. Whether this was intentional or accidental on his part has not been determined.



No im sorry this hasnt beenm concluded. we were discussing it and no conclusion was reached. You have only concluded that in your own mind.
If i remember right you failed ever to explain why the scale was different on the posted seismic graphs.

[edit on 13-8-2005 by AdamJ]




posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
uhm....still not proof y'r a fireman......why such a problem to show some proof?

And yes I have been in the construction industry my hole life....and you ?

So what proof you want from me? be more than happy to supply it....maybe my web site would help


And you guys always try to "knock" us for believing what we saw that day...just like you guys...and if' there w'r "secondary" explosing....why not ONE video to show this crazy idea ? ....just like to see proof of these explosion....one picture one movie....NOTHING.....and with ALL the Cameras that day on the buildings you would figure they would see this NO?

And go ahead and knock us ....just show's how in-denial you really are.

Y'r Canadian frined,
Sven

PS Stick to the point guyz (stop putting people down).



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
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?



I really believe when the circle starts, we need to recognize why. It is the spinmasters game, look at how the government spins. Its the same thing.



We had no idea the terrorist would ram buildings with hijacked aircraft





The president must make the decision to shoot down a hijacked aircraft





Our air defense failed because we were running drills that day


After 9/11 they would lie get caught and then lie again to cover up what they lied about before. If people are to daft to not catch on to the lie after lie, how can there eyes ever be opened?

To Sven:

I dont care what you beleive, why would I go and identify myself on the Internet? A person would have to be crazy to do that. Would you want some neo-con nutjob stalking you and your family because they think they are some sort of American Patriot?

Another thing that really bugs me. The people that want the truth get called conspiracy theorists, and are put neatly on a shelf catagorized, and demonized. You people think w didnt go through the same horror that you went through after 9/11? I for one, for the most part out of blind horror bought most of the government line after 9/11. The nagging questions wouldnt stop though.

Where was our air-defense?

Why did three building fall like a demolition?

Why did the president react like he knew the sore in advance? ( you dont just sit there for 7 minutes after being told the country is under attack, secret service would wisk you out of harms way and you would start making decisions right away, unless you knew in advance how the game was going to be played out)

Why were the black black boxes not found? (rescue workers found them and turned them over to the FBI)

Where is the Pentagon security camera footage of flight 77? (Walmart monitors its perimiter, I guess the pentagon feels it doesnt need that kind of securtiy. B.S.)

Why did the FBI, within minutes of flight 77 go to the gas station accross the street from the Pentagon and confiscate there security camera footage?

Why, if the government was not covering something up, lie to us over and over again?

Why was FEMA setting up shop on Sept.10 2001?

I could go on and on but my wife needs me...



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
And you guys always try to "knock" us for believing what we saw that day...just like you guys...and if' there w'r "secondary" explosing....why not ONE video to show this crazy idea ? ....just like to see proof of these explosion....one picture one movie....NOTHING.....and with ALL the Cameras that day on the buildings you would figure they would see this NO?


We did, You all blew it off as "compressed air flowing through the ventilation system, and exiting the building via the air intakes and windows".

As for the witness/fireman account of multiple explosions - um, if you were in there place at that moment, a hundred some story building activly collapsing behind you as you run from the hurling debris - would you STOP AND TAKE PICTURES?!?!? Ugh

But, you don't want to digest what we have shown, it's easier to blow it off.

Misfit



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
uhm....still not proof y'r a fireman......why such a problem to show some proof?

And yes I have been in the construction industry my hole life....and you ?

So what proof you want from me? be more than happy to supply it....maybe my web site would help


And you guys always try to "knock" us for believing what we saw that day...just like you guys...and if' there w'r "secondary" explosing....why not ONE video to show this crazy idea ? ....just like to see proof of these explosion....one picture one movie....NOTHING.....and with ALL the Cameras that day on the buildings you would figure they would see this NO?

And go ahead and knock us ....just show's how in-denial you really are.

Y'r Canadian frined,
Sven

PS Stick to the point guyz (stop putting people down).


So all the people who were there that day including fireman are lying, are they?

It just shows who is really in denial.

~Peace
~



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Are you going to believe the fireman with twenty years on the job or are you going to believe a man that WON'T listen to ANYONE? I'm going with the firemen on this one, ya'll can gripe your own opinion too.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Sorry guy'z but don't believe what people say ....esp. over what I saw like millions of other people....so you think they fell down by TNT well then y'r just gon'a need to prove it.............with just one picture man....one movie...showing this TNT explosions....hmmm.....does not exist....so go ahead keep knocking us if you want just does not help...
but no one has "brushed" off the "theorys" you have been bringing up......and Howard of all people have more then explained each situation (with a bit of my help) (cheering as some on here have said).

So if you don't have HARD evidance then.....at least be OPEN to logical anwsers that follow....and I'm the one that is not open minded man....I'm the one here listening to you and reading what you have to say (esp. fireman) so it seems what ever we say you just brush us off... and some even "IGNORE".

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Still looking for some proof.......of the TNT explosions and what's the big deal to show "SOME" proof y'r a fireman.....?



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Another thing that really bugs me. The people that want the truth get called conspiracy theorists, and are put neatly on a shelf catagorized, and demonized. You people think w didnt go through the same horror that you went through after 9/11? I for one, for the most part out of blind horror bought most of the government line after 9/11. The nagging que"stions wouldnt stop though."

And why is it ok for the conspiracy theorist to slam the people that think differently from them? I've been called just about every name in the book for disagreeing with what was said, or trying to present an idea of what may have caused it.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Where was our air-defense?


Hasn't this one been explained in earlier posts? Seriously - are you saying you missed those posts, or are you saying you don't believe the content therein?





Why did the president react like he knew the sore in advance? ( you dont just sit there for 7 minutes after being told the country is under attack, secret service would wisk you out of harms way and you would start making decisions right away, unless you knew in advance how the game was going to be played out)


Why exactly is that an assumption? Much as I'm not a fan of Bush (if that wasn't screamingly obvious), it's plausible that after hearing the news of the planes crashing - and when the circumstances were still not clear - that a leader might wish to portray calm in the face of confusion.

Wouldn't it seem ill-advised to further panic a nation already suffering from confusion?



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
uhmmm.........been listening to the tapes.......OMG

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven


PS: AUDIO776923.mp3 (talk about secondary explosion and "explosion")
hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................................... (and I'm not open minded eh?)



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Hasn't this one been explained in earlier posts?


No. They had plenty of time especially to react to Flight 77. The fact that no interceptors were sent up for it until afterwards has never been explained. A red flag to the official story.

And it should be clear to any free-thinking person that knows anything about the Secret Service and the amount of precautions they take, that as soon as there was even the thought that there may be terrorist attacks unfolding, the president would be immediately taken to safety until things were clear. They would never sit around with the pres somewhere confused and exposed at a publicly-announced time and location. Either you don't understand this, or refuse consider it. It's another clear red flag that something was up that morning; there's no two ways about it.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Not to mention the curiosity of the fact that the planes which did scramble to intercept were ordered to fly slowly, wtf is that kind of logic?
Waiting for something perhaps? Another plane in Penn.? Guys running around cutting up security tapes with scissors and putting them into seperate trash cans ought to tell you something folks, jesus.
I guess if you get an instant message from Odigo telling you to get out of a building, or when Condiliar Rice calls you and tell you not to fly, or if FEMA is checking into hotels in the middle of the night, you might want to be extra careful that day huh?
Yes secondary explosions Sven, we have been preaching that, post after post, thread after thread. Welcome to your first moments of doubt, may they propel you to truth.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
They were ordered to fly slowly? Where's the evidence of this? You DO know that fighters with external fuel tanks and missiles have to choose between dropping them and going supersonic and burning all their fuel, or flying subsonic with the tanks and weapons and having fuel to loiter, right? An F-15 with external stores can get into the transonic range, but can NOT go supersonic, and an F-16 can get into the low transonic range. That Mach 2 top speed for the F-15 is with nothing hanging externally.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   
A few snippets from the timeline I found here...
pages.infinit.net...


According to the NORAD timeline, these planes take about 19 minutes to reach New York City. Calculated from the this timeline and the distance travelled, these fighters must have flown at around 600 mph. F-15 maximum speed is 1875mph. If they had traveled at top speed they would have been in New York at 8:59, four minutes before Flight 175 crashed into the WTC.



9:49 A.M. Three F-16's scrambled from Langley at 9:30 reach the Pentagon.
The official maximum speed for F-16's is 1500 mph. Langley is 129 miles away, the journey takes 19 minutes (instead of six minutes at top speed), or a speed of about 410 mph! Why were they travelling so slowly? Had they traveled at top speed they would have reached Washington five minutes before Flight 77 and might have prevented it from crashing into the Pentagon.

A second timeline that includes some other relevant information is here...
www.fromthewilderness.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Maximum speed is WITHOUT EXTERNAL STORES. Meaning no fuel tanks, no missiles. If they fly at maximum speed without anything external, they can fly at that speed for 45 minutes tops. They would have arrived over NY with a few minutes of time left before they would have had to land or run out of fuel. Fighters CAN NOT fly at their top speed if they have someting hanging off the wings. It's that simple. The more drag you have the lower your top speed and the more fuel you burn to go faster. An external fuel tank carries 600 gallons of fuel, that's approximately 4000 pounds of weight per tank. An F-15/16 carries three of them. That's 12,000 pounds more weight. A missile weighs about 85 to 100 pounds depending on the type, an F-15 carries 8, so you're looking at up to 800 pounds more weight from missiles, not counting gun rounds. So just from external stores you're up to 12,800 pounds of weight on an F-15, and that doesn't take into account the drag factor that those tanks and missiles would add. Fighters CAN NOT reach their top speed when they are weighed down with external stores. it's that simple.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yeah, I'm sure that Andrews tracked that airplane all the way out where it was originally hijacked, until it hit the Pentagon.
I too have a pretty good grasp of how it works, and by the time they were tracking the plane it was within minutes of hitting the Pentagon at the speed it was flying at.


The Mineta testimony to the 9/11 Commission (which was left out of the final report) confirms that the plane that hit the Pentagon was being tracked from as much as 50 miles out.

Mineta Testimony




Mineta: “During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??”



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   
And do you know how fast it would have covered that 50 miles at the speed it was flying? It impacted the Pentagon at a little over 500mph. Most alert fighters are Alert 15, meaning they have 15 minutes to get airborne after the alert sounds. Even if they got off in 5, that would have given them 5 minutes to get over the Pentagon, into position, and shoot it down.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:34 AM
link   
You're missing the wood for the trees here.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Zaphod, they sat on their arses for hours dude, while planes smashed into national landmarks killing thousands. For HOURS... It doesn't matter how long it would have taken the jets to get there, it's the fact that they weren't there from the first sign of problems. They always were before, intercept was policy, and we are talking about arguably the most secure airspace in the world. The one day that a hijacking occurs, is the first time in the history of NORAD they fail to respond to a threat, THREE TIMES doesn't sound fishy to you.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Maximum speed is WITHOUT EXTERNAL STORES. Meaning no fuel tanks, no missiles. If they fly at maximum speed without anything external, they can fly at that speed for 45 minutes tops. They would have arrived over NY with a few minutes of time left before they would have had to land or run out of fuel. Fighters CAN NOT fly at their top speed if they have someting hanging off the wings. It's that simple. The more drag you have the lower your top speed and the more fuel you burn to go faster. An external fuel tank carries 600 gallons of fuel, that's approximately 4000 pounds of weight per tank. An F-15/16 carries three of them. That's 12,000 pounds more weight. A missile weighs about 85 to 100 pounds depending on the type, an F-15 carries 8, so you're looking at up to 800 pounds more weight from missiles, not counting gun rounds. So just from external stores you're up to 12,800 pounds of weight on an F-15, and that doesn't take into account the drag factor that those tanks and missiles would add. Fighters CAN NOT reach their top speed when they are weighed down with external stores. it's that simple.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Zaphod58]



this is probably partly right, but i wouldnt have thought the missiles and fuel tanks make as much difference as that. I would guess that that 1000mph+ top speed whatever is with afterburner going, not 100% throtle. thats where the real difference might be imo.
600mph sounds an understandable speed to me.
The more important question is why were they unable to intercept, were there not aircraft closer to the scene? did new york have its own air defense craft that were not used? etc.




top topics



 
4
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join