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: 12
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
None of the official reports state it was a combination since they have not been released.


None of the official reports state the fire was the primary cause, since they have not been released yet.




posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
None of the official reports state the fire was the primary cause, since they have not been released yet.


But there are several agency reports that state fire was the primary cause and only 1 agency report that states it was combination of factors.

Plus we know that NIST has failed in doing proper investigations, like failing to recover steel from buidling 7 for testing.


[edit on 20-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


the planes started the fires. they were the cause of the collapse. i would guess that the plane hitting the building with no fires would be more likely to cause those buildings to collapse than the fires without the plane. but combined...well you saw the results on that terrible day.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Since those "agencies" are not the official reports, you are only speculating what might be in them. Once they are released to the public, only then will you see what the official cause was.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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?

With you, who knows?

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.

Maybe I missed it. Please show me any post ON THIS THREAD, that specifically mentions the idea that a planes "cannon" was used to shoot down flight 93. Obviously aside from the few posts you and I have been talking about it.


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.

How do you know?


Again maybe you should do some research and get a little more information before responding.
[edit on 19-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Maybe you should put your money where your MOUTH is. Prove that there were no fighters sent to intercept the airliners, were not armed with missiles. While you're at it, prove flight 93 was shot down. If you can't maybe you should do a bit more research before posting


[edit on 20-9-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NextGen5
 


Good post my friend. I understand your frustration with silly, inane comments !

Keep up the good posts



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by NextGen5
The towers collapsed due to structural failure. The fires, i would believe, played a smaller part than two other major factors. One, being that a JUMBO JET crashed through the entire building, destroying the support beams that were located in the center of the building.


Problem is most reports state that the buildings withstood the plane impacts and that fire was the main cause of the collapse.



What those "reports" state is that the plane impacts caused a lot of structural damage AND the fires caused MORE damage. The total RESULTANT damage caused final complete collapse.

I've read every report you have posted so far and that is what they all say. You're either deliberately misinterpreting their meaning OR you simply cannot comprehend their meaning. Either way, stop making it our problem.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ReadilyUnavailable
 


I think this was started deliberately to give all of us, who are looking for answers to some very valid questions, a bad name. To then enable them to tar us with the same brush. As nutjobs

But maybe I am being paranoid.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by NextGen5
the planes started the fires. they were the cause of the collapse.


The planes may have started the fires BUT they were not a casue of the collapse.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Since those "agencies" are not the official reports, you are only speculating what might be in them.


You mean just like the official story is speculating? Since the media does not have the official reports

[edit on 20-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Not all the fighters sent to intercept the airliners were carrying missiles.

How do you know?

Try reading the source i posted or doing some research and you will find the answer. Really simple.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I've read every report you have posted so far and that is what they all say.


Please read the following, pay specail attention to the highlighted portion.

www.tms.org...

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
i said that the weight of the towers above the impact zones was a significant factor. the plane did a lot of damage, and the fires weakened the building. but the weight of the tower on top of the impact zones was also weakening it even more. if the planes had hit the very very top of the buildings, they wouldn't have collapsed. this is also why the south tower falls first, because it was hit much closer to the middle, meaning there was more tower above to push down on the impact zone.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

Any coastguard helicopter has hoists. Where were they? That it was not even attempted is a bit strange to say the least. It probably was not even malicious intent but, more than likely, due to flapping around in panic by some people who were in charge.

That whole dreadful day seems to be one great big Murphy's Law.


[edit on 20/9/08 by Lebowski achiever]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



You do know the difference between a report and an article, correct? The link you provided was from an ARTICLE in the JOM. It was not a report.

Please do some research before posting things you dont know anything about.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Not all the fighters sent to intercept the airliners were carrying missiles.

How do you know?


Try reading the source i posted or doing some research and you will find the answer. Really simple.


I didn't see you post any source in this thread. Please point me to it. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
The link you provided was from an ARTICLE in the JOM. It was not a report.


It states that the fire was the primary cause of the collapse, YES or NO?



Originally posted by jfj123
I didn't see you post any source in this thread. Please point me to it. Thanks.


Go back a couple pages, you will find this.


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 20-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I didn't see you post any source in this thread. Please point me to it. Thanks.


Go back a couple pages, you will find this.


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 20-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]


excellent now how can I know that this article is accurate?



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
excellent now how can I know that this article is accurate?


Maybe try doing some research, or do you need me to do all that for you?



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
excellent now how can I know that this article is accurate?


Maybe try doing some research, or do you need me to do all that for you?



No, you brought up the article. Now support it. Prove it's accurate. You keep telling everyone else to do research. Put your money where your mouth is prove you've done your research



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join