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 Helicopter Rescues At The WTC’s On 9-11

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Now to answer this question specifically. If the plane was hit by a missile while in flight, it would lose mass from the explosion prior to impact.


Really, are you sure? Would it would lose mass if it was hit by a missile in an engine?

Would it lose mass if it was hit by cannon fire instead of a missile?




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Now to answer this question specifically. If the plane was hit by a missile while in flight, it would lose mass from the explosion prior to impact.


Really, are you sure? Would it would lose mass if it was hit by a missile in an engine?

Would it lose mass if it was hit by cannon fire instead of a missile?



YES if a missile hit it, the missile would explode and scatter plane parts while the plane was still in the air. Thus the mass would decrease prior to final impact of the greater body mass.

And cannon fire??? Really? Are you saying they shot it with a cannon? REALLY???? A cannon??? Or maybe a bunch of guys with musket's shot down the plane????

[edit on 19-9-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
YES if a missile hit it, the missile would explode and scatter plane parts while the plane was still in the air.


Kind of like the large area of debris shows.


And cannon fire??? Really? Are you saying they shot it with a cannon? REALLY???? A cannon???


Are you serious? You do not know that the big gun that a plane carries is called a cannon? What grade are you in?




[edit on 19-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
YES if a missile hit it, the missile would explode and scatter plane parts while the plane was still in the air.


Kind of like the large area of debris shows.

Maybe, maybe not.


And cannon fire??? Really? Are you saying they shot it with a cannon? REALLY???? A cannon???


Are you serious? You do not know that the big gun that a plane carries is called a cannon? What grade are you in?

[edit on 19-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Before you post another childish comment, you should understand that people don't know what you think, only what you post. You didn't specify what kind of cannon, I just had to guess what you meant....as usual.


What would be the point of using a gun instead of a missile?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You didn't specify what kind of cannon, I just had to guess what you meant....as usual.


Are you really serious, what other cannon would i be talking about? If you do not know anything about what is being posted maybe you should not respond, or try doing some research to get information before responding so you do not look so immature.


What would be the point of using a gun instead of a missile?


Not all the fighters sent to intercept the airliners were carrying missiles. Again maybe you should do some research and get a little more information before responding.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Are you really serious, what other cannon would i be talking about?


Since you did not specify weapons fire from another plane, we had to assume this:

www.youtube.com...



Not all the fighters sent to intercept the airliners were carrying missiles. Again maybe you should do some research and get a little more information before responding.


Were the guns on the planes loaded with cannon ammunition? Can you prove that these aircraft routinely have their guns loaded when patrolling?

I think you need to do better research, Roger.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Were the guns on the planes loaded with cannon ammunition?


Gee, thanks for showing you do not read post on here.

This question has been answered. You really should read post or get someone to read them for you.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Perhaps you should read the post above mine. It just makes you silly and immature.

The question was NOT answered in this thread. Show me the post in this thread that answered it, otherwise you are lying again.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by gavron]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Perhaps you should read the post above mine. It just makes you silly and immature.


Actually people responding to post without knowing what they are talking about are really silly and the most immature.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



Show me where in this thread it answered the question, Roger.

Otherwise you are lying again.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Otherwise you are lying again.


If you call me a liar 1 more time i will have to ask the mods to step in again.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by gavron
Were the guns on the planes loaded with cannon ammunition?


Gee, thanks for showing you do not read post on here.

This question has been answered. You really should read post or get someone to read them for you.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]


I am asking you show the post in this thread that answers my question:

Were the guns on the planes loaded with cannon ammunition?

You said it has been answered....please show me where. Otherwise you have LIED and posted false information.....which I believe is against forums rules.

besides, I notified the mods on the other thread. But ig trying to take credit for it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, then you can believe what you like.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by gavron]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
I am asking you show the post in this thread that answers my question:


And here is your post. I will be waiting for you to apologize for calling me a liar.


Originally posted by Boone 870
You're right. www.freerepublic.com...

Two of the first F-16s had 500 rounds of TP ammunition and the other one had 105 rounds.



[edit on 19-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You have failed again, Roger.

Boone 870 has not posted in this thread at all. So, the question was NOT answered in this thread.

You really should read what users post or get someone to read them for you.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Boone 870 has not posted in this thread at all. So, the question was NOT answered in this thread.


Why will not accept evidence that is shown to you? I told you that the question was answered and you called me a liar.

Now apologize or i will have to ask the mods to have you removed.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Wass Boone's post in this thread.

Yes or No?

If it was not, then you once again have lied.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
If it was not, then you once again have lied.


The question was answered as i stated.

I am notifying the mods of you behavior.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by gavron
Were the guns on the planes loaded with cannon ammunition?


Gee, thanks for showing you do not read post on here.

This question has been answered. You really should read post or get someone to read them for you.



The question was not answered in thie thread at all. You "assume" that all forum readers have read every single thread. Some of us do have lives and families.

So, perhaps next time, the proper thing would be to post a link to boones thread, rather than start whining and crying and calling people immature.

It would be the adult thing to do.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
So, perhaps next time, the proper thing would be to post a link to boones thread, rather than start whining and crying and calling people immature.

It would be the adult thing to do.


And the next time you call someone a liar and they show you proof you should apologize. Thats the aduilt thing to do.

The mods night not like another notice.




[edit on 19-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Was Boone 870s post in this thread, Roger?

[edit on 19-9-2008 by gavron]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join