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.

 

Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 20
2
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Then — AFTER the plane is already inside the building — explosions start.

Inertia

The aircraft has a great deal of inertia, as well as everything in it. The fuel causing the explosion will not happen at the point of entry, but will follow the inertia into the building.

Simple.




posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
It is rather logical the fireball would come from within. If you want to compare it, you may compare to a standard HE-Frag artillery shell. There, you can set the fuse several ways: use VT fuse (then the shell explodes before reaching target), point detonation fuse or whatever the correct term is that detonates shell the moment it touches target or delay fuse that will detonate the shell some time after penetrating the target.
In this case, obviously, there was no VT or point of impact fuse in the nose of the plane, but we may assume the plane and tower construction forming the delay fuse - to get explosion you got to have a required jet fuel aerosol and some ignition - ignition won't be problem with all that was happening there but to develop the aerosol it takes some time after the fuel tanks were already breached by collision with the outer columns. In this time, the inertia moved parts of the plane (incl. the fuel) inside building so the explosion comes from inside.
Also, if you'll look at the pics of various stages of fires, you'll noptice the entry holes are rather smoke- and flameless, contrary to the parts of building opposite to them - logical again as the fuel which won't get consumed in the fireball would travel mostly by inertia away from the entry hole.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear mister.old.school:

It’s o.k. if you don’t want to believe the close-up video analysis. But what about the other frames?

The plane appears. And it disappears in to the tower. Nothing gets damaged. Nothing drops down. The plane glides into the building as if it were a circus “tent”. The man below doesn’t bother to turn his head. Then — AFTER the plane is already inside the building — explosions start. And the passerby then and only then turns his head. Am I missing something here? Please enlighten me if I am. The footage proves that the cause (aircraft crashing into building) and the effect (damage to the structure, explosions) are mismatched. The events aren’t “properly” synchronized. I myself am VERY OLD SCHOOL when researching.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.


The plane will not explode as the nose hits as it has little to no fuel to start a fire at this point of the aircraft structure. All that would occur would be shattering of glass and bending/slicing of the tower structure. Once the wings hit (fuel storage area) and heat has built up in the collision then you'll get an explosion. This would be then fuelled by onboard oxygen on the aircraft and any combustables in the tower and aircraft.

If the aircraft had no fuel and no oxygen onboard as it hit, their may not have been an explosion as their would be nothing to ignite and cause a explosion a such.

The myth of an object hitting something and then exploding immediately is a hollywood generated one, not reality.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by probedbygrays
I also want to mention that I worked near an airforce base for a year or so and every day I would watch and listen as their largest planes flew around. Their engines sounded like ordinary ones making the usual amount of noise. But one day one of the pilots put the pedal to the metal and let the engines have full power while flying around. I had never imagined aircraft engines could rev that high. It made me realize that ordinarily large planes do not utilize their full power at all but instead run on only half of it or less. It makes sense that an engine will last much longer if it only runs at a fraction of it's maximum speed and I think that's why planes don't use full power so much.

What I'm trying to point out is that if those terrorists gave the planes full throttle then the speed of the planes would have been phenomenal. Nothing like ordinary planes that we see every day. With full throttle on and time to build up the speed those planes would have been moving at serious speeds.


Oh Gawd, this is so wrong on so many levels.

Were you watching Bathurst yesterday? Have you ever been to a Touring Car race, or better yet the Champcars or F1?

Have you ever noticed how not only is your EB/F/L AU etc Falcon or VX/T etc Commodore so much slower than Dicky Johnson's or Mark Skaife's, it is also so much quieter?...

This is because their cars do not have to comply with noise restrictions and yours does. Their cars are built with a singular purpose, to go fast. Yours is built with many purposes including comfort, safety and, above all else, legal compliance.

It is the same with jets. Boeing 757s are commercial, that is domestic, jets and must comply with domestic laws. One of which is sound limits. F/A 18 Hornets are combat jets, their manufacturers do not have to comply with noise restrictions, which ultimately slow jets down. However, their pilots do over built-up areas in peace time.

Even taking off from Edinburgh the Hornets were louder than the Qantas Boeings leaving Adelaide airport.

The original 707s were horrendously loud, and thirsty, and manufacturers were quickly forced to comply with new noise laws. Their engineers (mostly at Rolls) quickly came up with more efficient and quieter engines that put out the same power for less space and fuel consumption.

If the terrorists gave the planes full throttle they would make little more noise than normal cruising speed. Just as my old man's EBII made little more noise at 180 than it did going 160 or the legal 110.

However, Skaify's Commodore makes a whole hell of a lot more noise doing 280 than it does 110, because it isn't restricted. You don't have to wear ear-plugs when you drive, he does.

Like cars, planes are built to strict parameters. Those parameters are noise and efficiency. Efficiency is dictated by physics, noise by the government.

Jet engines are designed to run max power/efficiency at certain settings and its calculated on a curve. Going to max revs at altitude doesn't give you much extra speed, or a great deal extra noise (it does up your consumption, though). Going to low altitude just makes the noise closer to the witnesses. The loudest I've ever heard jetliners is when they reverse thrust on landing, not at "max" take-off power.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork

Originally posted by probedbygrays
I bought an amazing ufo/alien video documentary and there were strict warnings on it saying that Americans were not permitted to see it.


Uh huh.

Have you any idea of how silly that sounds, probed? Americans don't need "permission" to see anything. Er... except above top secret documents. And you wont find them in Australian libraries.

Juss keepin' it real.


Well then, keep it real by explaining why the Best Oscar-winning documentary about the US invasion of Panama is banned in the US...



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by Tuning Spork

Originally posted by probedbygrays
I bought an amazing ufo/alien video documentary and there were strict warnings on it saying that Americans were not permitted to see it.


Uh huh.

Have you any idea of how silly that sounds, probed? Americans don't need "permission" to see anything. Er... except above top secret documents. And you wont find them in Australian libraries.

Juss keepin' it real.


Well then, keep it real by explaining why the Best Oscar-winning documentary about the US invasion of Panama is banned in the US...

pwned




posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
It was banned in Panama, not the US. unpwned



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   
For anyone wondering what the hell this bizarre exchange is actually about :



Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Well then, keep it real by explaining why the Best Oscar-winning documentary about the US invasion of Panama is banned in the US...




Originally posted by Tuning Spork
It was banned in Panama, not the US. unpwned


the documentary under discussion is :

" the panama deception "

it did ineed win an oscar for best documentary

and was banned by the panamanian govt.

it is reportdly " labled as subvesive " in the USA , though i not find any credible list of what media is " labeled subversive " , by whom , or why


so i think that is hype


hope that clears things up -- my google fu is strong today


[edit on 9-10-2006 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 06:33 AM
link   
It was interesting to listen to the recent Podcast by the "3 Amigos", I think there's a thread about it here

..s'n-word'ing away at the thought of holograms as planes.. well fair enough I guess.. it is pretty ridiculous on the face of it and our understanding of reality. But sometimes, you can never quite rule anything out.. anything is possible. I'm prepared to say "yes" 911 was an inside job, "yes" it was a controlled demolition, a "perhaps, yes" to the inner core of the WTC brought down via a small nuke, but a "perhaps, no" to the idea of holograms. A "99% no", to be precise. But 1% of me is open to the possibility that the tech is out there and its capabilities being massively beyond public comprehension.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
For anyone wondering what the hell this bizarre exchange is actually about :



Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Well then, keep it real by explaining why the Best Oscar-winning documentary about the US invasion of Panama is banned in the US...




Originally posted by Tuning Spork
It was banned in Panama, not the US. unpwned


I'd just like to point out that I did not use the word "pwned", I have never used the "word" "pwned", except to ask whose typo it was, and will never use the "word" "pwned" in any conversation except to show it my contempt.personal superiority/extreme vanity (take your pick).


the documentary under discussion is :

" the panama deception "

it did ineed win an oscar for best documentary

and was banned by the panamanian govt.


Thanks, haven't seen it since it was screened on Australian tv (in about 93), which explains how I got my wires crossed.


it is reportdly " labled as subvesive " in the USA , though i not find any credible list of what media is " labeled subversive " , by whom , or why


so i think that is hype


Could be, sounds like a post-X-Files advertising gimmick.


hope that clears things up -- my google fu is strong today


It did, except for that last part. Here I need to quote from The Odd Couple...

""We're out of toilet paper. F.U." Do you have any idea how long it took me to realise F.U. meant Felix Unger?"

It took me a little while to realise what Google Fu was, which is why I held off on replying.
Better not to say things in haste. Plus, I was sure there was a reason why the mods had let it through.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Originally posted by RiotComing




It was interesting to listen to the recent Podcast by the "3 Amigos", I think there's a thread about it here

..s'n-word'ing away at the thought of holograms as planes.. well fair enough I guess.. it is pretty ridiculous on the face of it and our understanding of reality. But sometimes, you can never quite rule anything out.. anything is possible.



I listened to the program segment where they mentioned my holograph theory and I thought it interesting they did not address the issue.

They giggled.

They snickered.

They sniveled.

They snorted.

But they never addressed the issue.

You have to wonder what the intelligence level is of 3 grown men (and co-owners of ATS) who would address a members post by snickering and giggling without addressing the issue.

Unfortunately for listeners it would seem that snickering and giggling was the extent of their technological expertise on holograph projection.

I would respectfully submit that, regarding the segment on my holograph theory, I’ve heard more intelligent conversation on the Muppet Show.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I would respectfully submit that, regarding the segment on my holograph theory, I’ve heard more intelligent conversation on the Muppet Show.


Well let's get right to it then.

Can you help us understand how a theoretical holograph projection device would function in bright sunlight (much less cast shadows)?

Why not go through the items one at a time... so let's start with that one.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord





Well let's get right to it then.

Can you help us understand how a theoretical holograph projection device would function in bright sunlight (much less cast shadows)?

Why not go through the items one at a time... so let's start with that one.




No. Lets address the main issue first of why the 3 Amigos would attempt to ridicule a post of a member in good standing on their radio show.

Question it? Yes.

Address it? Yes.

Disagree with it? Yes.

But snicker, snivel, giggle? What can you be thinking of?



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Lets address the main issue first of why the 3 Amigos would attempt to ridicule a post of a member in good standing


First, from what I recall... I did most of the "snickering" related to this item.
Springer may have been simply laughing because I was... and Simon was not involved in that episode.

Second, we tend to find a less-serious balance on the podcasts as the we attempt to reach out to a broader audience that is less preoccupied with conspiracy theory than the average ATS member. What you heard would not have been the first time we found a theory amusing in the podcasts, and is certainly not going to be the last.

Indeed, I find this theory to be very silly and have nearly moved this thread to the Skunk Works forum several times (maybe we still should).

And it's not a new theory either... I've seen material on this idea dating back to late 2002... almost the same time the no-plane at the Pentagon theories surfaced.

I'm sorry you took ill to the tone of mention in our podcast. If you'd like to work up a lucid presentation of the theory and supporting material for a special podcast interview with Springer and I, that would be fantastic. I can promise to be a "good boy", and there is ample evidence that we/I can do just that through our interview of Serpo-Front-Man, Bill Ryan. I think I've shown a long enough history that just because I think a theory is rubbish, does not prevent me/ATS from working hard to promote anything that is well presented.

Now... how about those shadows?


NOTE: These are my opinions, any my opinions only. They do not reflect any "official stance" of AboveTopSecret.com

[edit on 24-10-2006 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord




I'm sorry you took ill to the tone of mention in our podcast.


Your half-baked apology is accepted.


Now... how about those shadows?


The technology comes from Planet Slurpo. This may take awhile.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dagebow
The plane will not explode as the nose hits as it has little to no fuel to start a fire at this point of the aircraft structure. All that would occur would be shattering of glass and bending/slicing of the tower structure. Once the wings hit (fuel storage area) and heat has built up in the collision then you'll get an explosion. This would be then fuelled by onboard oxygen on the aircraft and any combustables in the tower and aircraft.

If the aircraft had no fuel and no oxygen onboard as it hit, their may not have been an explosion as their would be nothing to ignite and cause a explosion a such.

The myth of an object hitting something and then exploding immediately is a hollywood generated one, not reality.


Dear dagebow:

My thoughts exactly. About the myth of Hollywood-style explosions. Which is exactly what was shown to us as “live TV” on 9-11. Only it wasn’t really shown “live”. It was first aired later that afternoon — approximately at 4:30 PM. And this information is coming straight from the man who videotaped the TV broadcasts on that infamous day for eight hours straight — Mr. Tim Canale. He asks in his open letter on 10 September 2005 “Why were the video shots of Flight 175 making impact on the back side of the South Tower not aired until after 4:30 pm, when everything else was shown to us quickly, if not live?”

Exhibit 1: Plane flying into WTC-2 (South Tower).


Exhibit 2: Crosscut of 14” x 14” perimeter box column made of 1/4” thick steel, spaced 39.27” on center.


Exhibit 3: Shows perimeter box columns welded to steel 52” wide x 10 ft long “steel spandrel plates”. These steel plates formed “belts” around the entire building every 8 ft consisting of 84 pieces of 1/4” steel plates 52” wide x 10 ft long.




Exhibit 4: View of the WTC core under construction. From the angle that the second plane hit the distance from the outside of the building to the core would have only been 35 ft. How was the plane able to “disappear” without crumbling? The core columns are 2” thick steel. They wouldn’t have budged.


Exhibit 5: View of the “plane impact hole”. A) the plane doesn’t fit. B) the perimeter columns are not dramatically bending/twisting toward the inside of the building. The appear to have been neatly sheared off by explosives.


In short, I do not believe planes could have penetrated all that quarter inch thick steel. The perimeter columns were spaced extremely tight at 39.27” on center. And their 14” x 14” dimensions made them massively strong. To top it off they were welded to rows of 52” steel spandrel belts encompassing the circumference of the building. There is no way no how aluminum aircraft could have smashed through all that in one piece. Which is why the “videos” were released six and a half hours after the fact.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods




[edit on 10/23/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
The technology comes from Planet Slurpo. This may take awhile.




So I guess that means you're really not serious about the theory after all?

I'm confused here.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
the hologram projector could be built onto a missile, so it 'cloaks' the missile.
the shadow could also be a hologram. just good programming would accomodate the realisation of the need for shadows. they knew it would be filmed.

why is it that parts of the plane don't show up on film? does anyone have other footage of planes in flight, with missing wings?
has anyone calculated the difference in strength between a concrete wall, and a steel one like the tower?

because, planes hitting concrete turn into confetti, mostly. the famous footage of the purposeful crash into a concrete block show the plane shredded by the impact. (this should leave debris on the outside of the pentagon, incidentally, of which there is little to none)

how about a cloud of morphing nanites as a screen? this is a theoretical 'dream' of nanobot researchers. why not a reality? is science really that funny to giggle about?

oooo, an "atom" bomb.....snicker, giggle..., ....ooo, an "electric" light, tee hee.
there's an old doctor seuss movie, "the five thousand fingers of doctor T" in which they have a device which is "atomic", and was made by pouring some stuff into a can and stirring it.

the film was made in 1953, 8 years after hiroshima and nagasaki. my point being, that military secrets remain secret for as long as it is possible to hold them, and the current rate of terchnological advancement, based on moore's law, has the potential to make things only seen on 'star trek' , a very real possibility.

the possibility to do it is not that far fetched, and a motive for using such a complicated plan with uber high tech, although unfathomable, is not an impossibility.
perhaps incredulity alone is reason enough to use weapons of futureworld. and, could there be a better in the field test for such weapons? a highly filmed event, which is the biggest historical event since WWII, and will be subject to intense scrutiny(although not by the 'authorities' so much as you and me, and a growing army of concerned citizens) is a perfect litmus for the real time unreality show.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
the hologram projector could be built onto a missile,

I'm not sure that would be a stable enough platform.



why is it that parts of the plane don't show up on film?

Where have you seen that? I'm not aware of any images where parts of the plane are not visible.
Links?



how about a cloud of morphing nanites as a screen?

I suppose that's one approach... but why? Wouldn't an actual 767 be easier?



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Originally posted by stealth knife



It is humanly impossible to make a "solid hologram".


Yes, I would agree with that. Now, lets consider the other possibility.


If you are suggesting the military has found "black, light", then you are insane.


I feel that your calling another member 'insane' to disagree with a posted theory is usually indicative of ones own lack of information. Like using "very silly". And like using the 'giggle', snivel', snicker' factor. Its a manifestation of ones own fear of the truth where the only option leads one to to call his antagonist 'names' for lack of any other informed or enlightened response. Informed debate is impossible for the uninformed.


Black is not a color, it is the absence of light. You cannot project "darkness". To even think its possible would require a very large bong filled with weed.

Just look at your computer screen, and find everything that is black. You are not seeing the color black, you are seeing the absence of light.

To understand this, you have to know how colors work.

When you see the color red on an object, every color in the known universe is being sucked into the object, and the only color not being sucked into the object is the color red, which bounces off and hits you in the eye. Same for every other color.

But, when you see a white object, every single color in the known universe is bouncing off the object, and into your eye.

When you see a black object, every single color is being sucked into the object, or there is no "color" to begin with, meaning there is no "light". That is why, when you wear a black shirt in the sunlight, you get more hot than you would in a white shirt. All the light/color rays are being absorbed into the black shirt, making you hot.

In order to make this 3D hologram, you would need something to bounce the colors off of. They can not just stop in thin air. Also, you would need to make this "hologram" fly nearly 500 mph.

I THINK ALL OF YOU THAT BELEIVE THIS HOLOGRAM THEORY ARE TOTALY EXAGERATING THE MILITARYS CAPABILITYS.


Thanks for your opinion. It is welcome.


When they said they wanted to create tanks, and a fake Saddam, to play mind tricks, they were talking about using it on people in a 3rd world. Only because they wouldn't be smart enough to know the difference. They wouldn't be like "omg there is no shadow!". If they see it, they believe it.

B.T.W. THEY NEVER USED THIS TECHNOLOGY.


Thats quite a statement. What is your source of information for this little gem?


-conclusion-

The answer to your "transparent plane" is so simple its laughable.


'Laughable' falls into the same category as calling people insane, giggling, sniveling, smirking, snorting. You need to stick to your stated facts.


When something is moving fast (around 500mph), and a device like a video camera is trying to film it with a slow shutter speed... its to fast for the camera to capture it frame by frame. So two frames bleed together, and you see the background and the object at the same time.



Stealth Knife, you seem to be very passionate about your theory. But I don't think you are insane.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join