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.

 

Time to call the Mythbusters

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
After reading a recient poll done by Scipps and Ohio University that says roughly I propose a new plan.one third of Americans believe in a 9/11 cover-up I propose a new idea that may help us put these questions to rest.

No matter what you believe I think there are still alot of unanswered questions to what really happened on 9/11. People examine these pictures left and right and they go over all of this video clip looking for inconsistancies and they all leave out one critical point. Nothing like this has ever happened before! We have never seen a plane crash into a building with full fuel tanks at 500mph ever before. So all of these assumptions that are made are completely baseless. You can analyze all you want but a "theory" will never make it until we retest this all again.

This is why I propose we get the Mythbusters to build a 110 story building and run a 757 into it and also for them to recreate a section of the Pentagon to put all questions to rest once and for all. Whaddya think folks?!




posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Yeah, while we’re at it let’s donate the billons needed to build all this and lets get them a construction company, then we can wait years until they build the building.
Let’s try to be realistic here.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   
This thread was suppossed to be taken a little tounge and cheek.

The point that I'm trying make here is that all this analysis is inherently flawed since we have never experienced a scenario like this before.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I’m no structural engineer but I believe with limited testing, knowledge, design plans, and computer simulations a lot can be learned. One thing we do know for sure is that a large skyscraper can take a hit from a jumbo jet and continue to stand for some time, something which I would have doubted before 9/11.

EDIT:

Look at this video; it gives a pretty good indication of what would happen in a high speed crash.

Link

The Phantom in the video weighs around 30,000 Lb and is traveling at 500 MPH, near the cruise speed of jet liners, however the Phantom in the video had no fuel or weapons on board meaning no explosive power, just pure kinetic energy. A Boeing 757 weighs around 250,000+ Lb when loaded and carries 92,000 Lb of fuel. A 767 weighs 375,000+ Lb and carries 192,000 Lb of fuel. And people ask what happened to the plane parts; look at what happened to the Phantom, completely dematerialized.



[edit on 4-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
This topic have been covered already under "Recreate 9/11"... Myth Buster was even mention in there by me



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Well its just that alot of people on both sides keep making assumptions without any real basis. I'm just trying to point out that, unless we recreate it, we won't be able to prove these theories either way. IMHO, the whole explosives in WTC7, also in the twin towers or the Global Hawk theory make no sense what-so-ever. But I must be a neocon then


Anyway, sorry for reposting a topic I should have looked a little further back. But this was more of a comical approach to deal with people who have their minds so made up.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Surely we don't need to build a 110 story building and smash planes into it to see that its possible for giant planes to knock down buildings?



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
If you've ever been to the Mythbusters forum on Discovery Channel's website, there is a topic that is stickied saying something to the order of "do not ask about 9/11 conspiracies here".



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Who is to say that the Mythbusters won't do an experiment in such a way that it will always result in their expectations? I've often had the feeling that their experiments weren't always that honest.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join