It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 48
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 07:58 AM
Zaphod, zaphod, zaphod......

The FAA notified NORAD at 0838. - At 0824 the following transmission came from the plane: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you’ll be OK. We are returning to the airport.” Seconds later another transmission said: “Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you’ll endanger yourself and the aeroplane. Just stay quiet.” That was the first report of a hi-jacking. As many jets as possible NATIONWIDE should have been scrambled. No matter if it was an accident or not. EVERY jet able to fly should have been launched. - NOTICE: Plural - "We have some planes.

At 0846 Flight 11 hit WTC. At 0853 F-15s were airbourne from Otis, Air national guard. Falmouth, Massachusetts.

0903 Flight 175 had crashed into the WTC. Unfortunatley at the same time Flight 175 had just been notified to NORAD that it was hi-jacked.

0937 Flight 77 "apparantly" crashed into the Pentagon. Now Flight 77 flew as far as Ohio then began flying back to Washington with NO transponder, no communication and F-15s were already airbourne so WHY? wasn't it shot down? They had 25 minutes to fly from New York to Washington. The FAA and NORAD already knew PlaneS had been hi-jacked so why was only 1 set of jets launched? The ENTIRE nation should of had as many jets in the air as humanly possible - why was this not done? And is Andrews AFB not closer to washington than Falmouth???

In fact I find it EXTREMLY hard to believe that the ENTIRE united states didn't have ANY defenses that day? Including SAMS - Apprantly Dr Rice came out and said that the Bush administration had never heard of planes being hi-jacked and flown into national landmarks but Cheney was running tests with fake hi-jackings on that VERY SAME DAY? And Bush got security reports he did not read because he was on vacation for NINE MONTHS So from that point on THEY WERE AND ARE STILL LYING!

Why lie if you have nothing to hide?


posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 09:10 AM

Originally posted by AdamJ
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]

The scales are different in the various graphs presented in this report because the authors were ilustrating different things in each of the different graphs.

One graph is an overall veiw of the seismic traces that day, showing the timeline and the relative intensity of the signals, the others show the specific data related to the ground motion.

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

(emphasis added)

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 09:30 AM
ok lets not go over it again here, im sure there was a seperate thread somewhere or something, but anyway.
You see the scale difference between first impact and first collapse on the first graph on the popular mechanics link, its a big difference.
Well that scale difference between them is not represented in the second graph.
I am not an expert on what an explosion spike looks like and unfortunately i dont trust popular mechanics debunking which is not deep enough for my liking.
So i have not yet confirmed to myself that the second graph debunks the claims that were based on the first.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 10:47 AM
Read the side of the second graph.

The first impact caused a ground motion of 288nm/s

The second impact cause a ground motion of 206nm/s.

The first and second collapses caused ground motions of 4204 and 5777 nm/s respectively.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:07 AM
Have you listened to the TAPES....???????????

Esp. Howard....have you listened to them yet.....would recommend "EVERYONE" on this thread to listen to the tapes and know me....and know how I feel about what happend that day .....and I am now having douts.

They do talk about "Explosions" then the collapes.

Y'r Canadian friend,

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:12 AM

Primary function: Tactical fighter
Contractor: McDonnell Douglas Corp.
Power plant: Two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 or 229 turbofan engines with afterburners
Thrust: (C/D models) 23,450 pounds each engine
Wing span: 42.8 feet (13 meters)
Length: 63.8 feet (19.44 meters)
Height: 18.5 feet (5.6 meters)
Speed: 1,875 mph (Mach 2.5 plus)
Maximum takeoff weight: (C/D models) 68,000 pounds (30,844 kilograms)
Ceiling: 65,000 feet (19,812 meters)
Range: 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks
Crew: F-15A/C: one. F-15B/D/E: two
Armament: One internally mounted M-61A1 20mm 20-mm, six-barrel cannon with 940 rounds of ammunition; four AIM-9L/M Sidewinder and four AIM-7F/M Sparrow air-to-air missiles, or eight AIM-120 AMRAAMs, carried externally.
Unit Cost: A/B models - $27.9 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars);C/D models - $29.9 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)
Date deployed: July 1972
Inventory: Active force, 396; Reserve, 0; ANG,126.

Of course you will not be going in zone 5 afterburn (this is for sprinting) but you sure as heck can go fast enough in the WTC situation to have been there on time. Someone mentioned you cannot have external fuel tanks and missles at the same time. Well you sure as hack can, you just dont have the conforming fuel tanks made for max ferry range. Also why would you need missles for a civillian aircraft? Its 20mm gatling gun would have been just fine.
Someone said something about hang time? How much do you need for a civillian aircraft? They arent going to out manuvuer you so you have to fly around again to re-aquire your target.

The point is in an emergency such as 9/11 they could have gotten there in time to shoot down flight 175 and land at a civillian base. They were told what speed to fly at, and if they really wanted to get it done it would have been done.

If we were this crappy at defending our nation, the U.S.S.R. would have figured that out long ago and kicked our butts!

Flight 77 though is the smoking gun. It struck at 9:38, and was reported hi-jacked at 9:10. Plenty of time for an Andrews AFB intercept!

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:40 AM
so what does the second graph show that the first one doesnt?

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:54 AM

Originally posted by AdamJ
so what does the second graph show that the first one doesnt?

That the so-called spikes are actually the seismic motion from the building collapses. note that there are no "spikes" in the second chart, because those charts are the "spikes" from the first chart.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:09 PM
the question that nags me then is, what would a real explosion spike look like on that second graph. until i know that, the second graph doesnt really mean much to me

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:19 PM
You could always just take the word of the seismologists over Chistopher Bolyn’s contention that the spike in the first graph was from a bomb going off.

However, this ignores the fact hat the impact of the building with the ground will make a seismic signal in it’s own right.

Some interesting info on OK bombing seismic data.

Note that the geology of Oklahoma is different from that of New York. Also, note the seismogram from the demolition of the building.

The seismogram of a pipeline explosion

An interesting power point presentation with seismograms of nuke blasts.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:46 PM
I've been checking out the firemen's verbal interviews that were released the other day, there's alot of them and so far I've only read maybe the first fifteen or so. There's at least 2 of these that seem to indicate explosions and/or lower floors collapsing first. I plan to read through them all when I've got time.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:52 PM

OK bombing seismic data.

How is it different from the 9/11 'collapse' data?

[edit on 15-8-2005 by AdamJ]

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:20 PM

looks different to me.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:24 PM
looks exactly the same to me, i thought that a bomb would look like a spike or something.
I think that id need to be an expert to wrap this one up for sure.
im tempted to accept what the seismologist said, but i dont trust any journalist with the truth.
imo this is still open

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 05:52 PM
Nice post, LoneGunMan, and thanks for the info. A way above from me if I haven't already done so this month.

I might point out though that there were numerous discrepancies with the notification times, etc., even among the official reports. According to NORAD, there was a notification at 9:24. According to the 9/11 Commission, it was 9:34. I would suspect the 9/11 Commission would have more of a reason to lie than NORAD, especially since they moved the time back so much. At any rate, someone is definitely lying, because it can't be both times.

At 8:56 the transponders were apparently shut off, as that seems consistent with all sources, and by 9:10 the plane had made a complete turn-around and was heading towards DC. They had 28 minutes to catch it after it was an obvious hijacking. As if veering at 8:46 and then turning off transponders ten minutes later weren't enough of a warning.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:05 PM
The statement was you can't go supersonic with external tanks and missiles. There are four forces of flight, and this is how they correspond to each other...lift/weight and thrust/drag. If you increase one, you HAVE to increase the other to balance it. The more weight you have, the less lift, the more drag the less thrust. EVERYTHING creates drag, including the paint, but ESPECIALLY things hanging down from the airframe. WIth external tanks and missiles, you have added weidht AND drag, so you have to increase thrust to get more speed to get more lift. As some point you get so much weight and drag you can't get enough thrust to go supersonic. plain and simple.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:59 PM
Zaphod, who said they had to go supersonic? Depending on altitude, the supersonic speed is 760 mph. They didnt have to go that fast, how about 740, 700, 650, 600 or even 575? Any of these speeds would have gotton them there sooner. If I remember right werent they going just above 500 knots? Why would they be going about the same speed as the craft they are trying to catch. They could have easily gone 650 knots without extra fuel, without going into afterburn and been there in time to intercept. Why didnt they go fast enough?

You tell me.

The F-15 can go over 1800 knots. It can sustain 650 knots quite easily without burning too much fuel. Its not like they have to get there and then get back to the AFB. They could have got there fast enough to Intercept, splash the civilian airliner and land at Laguardia airport. All this with the 20mm cannons onboard, without using an air to air missle and without external tanks.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
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.

The transcript in question.

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."

A couple of notes regarding this.

1) The 78th floor was at the very bottom of the fire zone. Photographic evidence shows that at around 9:52 am, there were substantial fires burning on 80 through 83.

2) In any event, the inward buckling of the exterior columns had already started around the 80th floor by this time.

You can see here how by 9:44, the exterior walls were starting to buckle inward.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 08:17 PM
If you can see exterior walls buckling in those pics howard, I think you need to adjust the pincushion/balance on your monitor!

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 08:34 PM
They didn't go 600+ knots, because they didn't know there was a reason for them to. The mission was to intercept, and try to get them to land. They had EXERCISED the possibility of this happening, but it had NEVER HAPPENED in the "real world" so they didn't think it would happen this time. There is always the possibility in the back of your mind, but you don't think it'll really happen.

As far as the F-15-
Speed: maximum level speed 'clean' at high altitude more than 1,433 kt (1,650 mph; 2655 km/h);
cruising speed at optimum altitude 495 kt (570 mph; 917 km/h)
Range: ferry range 3,100 nm (3,570 miles; 5745 km) with CFTs and drop tanks, or 2,400 nm (2,765 miles; 4445 km) with drop tanks;
combat radius 685 nrn (790 miles; 1270 km)

And they were not sitting on their hands for "hours and hours" as was stated previously. I won't argue the timeline, but if they were sitting on their hands for "hours" then how is it that the F-15s were over NYC when the towers came down?

top topics

<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in