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.

 

2nd plane hits south tower.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You guys do realise there is no way to project a hologram into mid-air right, certainly not on that scale and at that speed?
And I don't mean 'Not possible apart from the super-duper science defying military projects', I mean not possible.


If you are not privy to "super-duper science defying military projects'" how can you say "I mean not possible". IYO you mean surely.
I also find it very hard to believe in this hologram theory, but thats not what i am talking about in this thread.

So it is no suprise to me seeing in 5 years what has been proved beyond doubt, not much i say, and i think i can see one of the reasons why. Some people think their theory is right, some the official theory is right. When another question does not flow with their theory or the other, it is quickly hidden by a pile of unrelated tosh.




posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
If it was a hologram, how did they produce the sound of the jets, and where was the projector located? These are 2 crucial questions for your thoery to be possible.

Also, you would need to know who to cause an explosion that would bow metal inward, and not outward, the perimeter columns as shown when looking at theplane impact site on the South tower.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:27 AM
link   


It frankly would be a lot simpler to (you guessed it) get some airliners and fly them in. Even the remote-control theories hold water


Are you telling me a Boeing 767 weighing 395,000 lb (179,170 kg) and travelling at its top speed of 540mph slamed into the south Tower and wouldn't come out the other side?
No way, the weight would have torn a gaping hole in the building and come out the other side in a flaming wreak. If you believe its not possible fair enough, but if the US government had something to do with this you think they'd use tecnology that you or i could google the next day? Obviously not, the US government are literaly a decade ahead of the civilian world, tecnology wise.

What i suggested was a small enough un-manned drone, with projectors INSIDE it, projecting the the image of a 767 to cover itself while it makes its way to the target.Wheather its cargo is a load of fuel of explosives for the inital explosion, i don't know. In regards to the sound, in order to reach that speed, the drone would require a bigger engine. Why not stick a General Electric CF6-80C2 on the back and we'll see what happens... The General Electric TF39 and CF6 family of high-bypass turbofan engines are the most popular large aircraft turbines in the world, powering civil and military widebodies from a variety of manufacturers.

I beleave that cover your questions eedad71



If it was a hologram, how did they produce the sound of the jets, and where was the projector located? These are 2 crucial questions for your thoery to be possible.


Unfortunatly i don't understand the second part of your post. Explain please...

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Marquall]

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Marquall]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Do you think that a 767 would impact a building like the WTC and NOT shred into pieces? And parts of the plane DID come out the other side and land blocks, in other buildings, and on the streets.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Heres another interesting still of the second plane. The plane has entered the building, but has made no hole and hasn't exploded yet.

You can just make out the wings, but where has the tail gone?

Something about this just doesn't look right to me.



I don't have the video I took this still from, it was posted in another 9-11 thread a while ago. I'll try to find it.

[edit on 28/3/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   
I know there is only the one, fairly distant shot of the first tower being hit, but even from that one angle, the two airplane strikes seem very different.
The first explosion certainly seems to happen while the plane is mostly outside of the tower.

Can the speed and/or angle of the planes hitting have anything to do with this?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   


Do you think that a 767 would impact a building like the WTC and NOT shred into pieces?

Obviously there would be damage, but i think a few major parts of the fusealage would come out, i mean come on, the speed and weight of the aircraft, assuming it is a 767, I've seen pictures of aircraft skidding on the ground. They go a good few 100 meters before coming to a stop. Its the only logical conclusion that the aircraft wasn't a 767. are you going to tell me that 179,170 kg of weigh, excluding the turbofans still running, would be stopped be a bit of concrete and steel pipes?

In regards to your picture ANOK, i can't really draw anything from that, its to blurry, but if you find the film i'll definatly check it out.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   
There was at least one engine, and parts of the landing gear found within about five blocks on the WTC after impact, along with a lot of smaller pieces of wreckage.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Didn't know that. New to me



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   
wtcdebris.0catch.com...

That's all debris that was found on the street around the WTC on 9/11 from the impacts.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I don't buy it, remember when the Pentagon was hit, there were reports of vans throwing debris out of the back and onto the grass embankment... All those parts could have been lifted for all we know. New York is a big place. And with thousands of eyes on the Trade Centres it wouldn't be difficult to chuck a wheel out the back of a moving van in the confusion. As well, when they collapsed and the dust was thrown up, nobody could see move than 10 foot in front of themselves...



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   
If you watch the videos closely you can SEE some of that debris falling to the ground from the buildings.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
You said a 5 block radius... Tell me, was it pushed by the wind



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marquall
You said a 5 block radius... Tell me, was it pushed by the wind


No, it was pushed by the planes that were driven by terrorists you wise ass. That mere fact that you believe a hologram of a jet projected by 'some type of remote drone' that was 'loaded with explosives' hits the howers is enough to dismiss you man. That is not an answer.

The impact sent debris more than 5 city blocks. They were picking up body pieces on the roofs of adjacent buildings. Have you ever seen the WTC before 9/11. I think that some people who post never saw then and know exactly how large they were. They amazed me since the first time I went to the top in 75.

3 questions.

1. Where are the planes?
2. Where are the passengers?
3. How did they recreate the SOUND of those airliners?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I have a feeling that some people here have never heard of Occam's Razor. Why the convoluted explanation of a missile covered by a hologram (congratulations, that gives you the 2006 Baldrick Prize for artistic silliness) rather than the actual explanation of, um, a 767?
Esdad, I applaud your common sense and also your patience. I would have resorted to sarcasm long before.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Forgive me esdad71, that was a little harsh. I'm just getting a little annoyed of having to repeat myself.


Firstly, i want you to tell me who you believe the "terrorists" are? Al'queda? The US government? Me: i believe its the US Government.
(oh and for the record i said there "might" have been explosives in the drone, hell you saw the explosion yourself on the video, but natuarly i don't know cause i wasn't in the bloody thing!!!!)

Secondly, if it wasn't a unmanned drone, what was it? A real plane? If it was then yes, i'd totaly agree with you, but it wouldn't just be 2 wheels, half a engine and a window from the hull that would've come through, almost the ENTIRE fuselage would've shower down on 10+ blocks, that wasn't the case. Obviously, just assuming it was a drone for a second, and it did crash into the WTC there would been debris falling, hell if anything crashed into the WTC debris will fall. I understand that, its common sense, every action cause an equal and opposite re-action.
For the record i haven't very seen the WTC up close.

And now for your questions.
Question 1+2 are your own opinion, in accrodance to my idea there were no plane or passengers involved in the crash.
Question 3 however, i've said this so many time already, its actually getting a little ridiculous, but once more can't do any harm...


In regards to the sound, in order to reach that speed, the drone would require a bigger engine. Why not stick a General Electric CF6-80C2 on the back and we'll see what happens... The General Electric TF39 and CF6 family of high-bypass turbofan engines are the most popular large aircraft turbines in the world, powering civil and military widebodies from a variety of manufacturers.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Sorry, I'll say it again - to the hologram believers, do you understand how holograms work? Do you understand how light is received by your eyes and cameras?
You need to project the image onto a surface of some form or view it through the glass, it's simple.
Unless you find an alternative method that can target areas of space and cause particles present there to emit photons of the correct wavelength to produce the necessary colours so precisely as to create an image of high definition moving at speed, it can't be done.
Regardless of the method used, photons have to be emitted from the target area. Basic physics

Once again, if it was even possible it would be so flawed and liable to failure it would make little sense when there are many aircraft available which could be used for the task. This is the time where even if you don't understand the relatively simple scientific concepts (information on which is easily available on the Internet) you use good old common sense.
Elaborate plans highly susceptable to failure, such as being suggested, are best left for Dr Evil and the movies.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Repeat yourself????you better calm down Sparky, OK?

You are repeating nonsense. Answer the other 2 questions or move on.

The plane left Logan, so where are the passengers? If you wish to call the family members directly or send them a letter with your theory, please do. I am sure they would want to know where there loved ones are if not dead.

Now it goes from 'some type of drone' to a 'some type of drone with a bigger engine on it'. Sure, maybe you could call Cobra Commander and he can help you with the logistics of how to do it, since it sounds like something out of one of my sons GI joe comics.

There was debris for blocks, and this is city blocks, not suburb blocks. YOu can repeat yourself as many times as you want, and you will get the same answers.

Seems to me that you cannot defend any of your assumptions



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
As far as i'm concrened theres no way that was a 767. The combiened weight and speed it was travelling at, it would have caused it to smash its way all the way through the building and out the other side, and i'm not talking about a few scraps of metal.

In regards to your passengers, i really don't know, how the hell am i to know. If you want me to push me for a answer, i remember reading on another forum a while back that some people thought that midway through the flight the transponders were knocked off, they changed coarse and disappeared. Some suggested some sort of hidden military base/camp, others suggested it flew as far as it could and crashed, neither i believe because even with the transponder knocked off, it could still be tracked. Likewise if it crashed, someone would find wreakage. So answer is i don't know, maybe you could send letters to the family victims and say "rest assured, ATS is on the case"

And i've mentioned that the drone would need the bigger engine already, its not like i'm making this up as i go along... Read the 3rd post on the second page. Didn't have any problem with it back then


And you never answered my question, who do you think are the bad guys, US Government and there incompident leader or Al'queda who are living in caves and couldn't scrape togeather enough cash for another AK-47 ammo clip, never mind a America Airlines plane ticket?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
The fact that you are disgracing the memory of the passengers of those flights is horrific. Do you think before you type?

You need proof greater than "I read it in another ATS post". Where is your evidence? Do you have a picture of this 'super UAV' with holographic and sonic deceptive technology? Do you work for DARPA?

Typing something does not make it true....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join