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.

 

Conspirators.....Answer Me This!

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
the pilot in the smaller b-25 was pulling up and turning meaning it was loosing speed, 250 is just an estimate, because that's quite some speed to be dodging and ducking and diving and dipping and dodging those buildings at that speed in a b-25.

english is my primary language....i did better in my german classes than i did in any of my english classes....i've never been one to care on the minute english rules...i before e except after c, unless there's an a. But that's cancelled out on your cousins third wedding anniversary, etc.

i believe there was a car bomb in the wtc basement, but that was covered up with possible ties back to the government IE: 1993 WTC bombing. in which they were tied back to the fbi doing nothing...




posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

so what you're telling me, is that a B-25 whose pilot is trying everything he can to avoid the tens of skyscrapers in his way, and finnally crashing into the world trade center, will do the exact same damage as a 757 whose total intent is to put every last ounce of hisself into damaging the building ahead of him??


I present actual data, and this is what you retort with? Essentially an ad hominem attack that puts words in my mouth?

Official material puts the B-25 at about 300 km/hr when it hit the building, and again, the damage done was similar - a proportially large gash in the building, an entire floor engulfed in fire and a penetration right through the building.

You also chose to completely ignore my other two examples (apparently a tornado rated a '5' on the fujita scale physically twisting a deforming a skyscraper is not doing damage of any consequence?).


Wrong! Neither Panama nor Grenada were "U.N. sanctioned" as a matter of fact our closest ally, Great Britain, didn't even know about our plans to invade Grenada!


And so I am (not the first time, hardly likely to be the last).

Thank-you for being so courteous about it.



Do you realize that we had 28,000 US troops on the ground in Panama? ALL American troops.

In Afganistan there are 33,000 troops from a variety of different nations.

Do you realize we had 300 aircraft deployed in Pamama?

Compared to about 100 deployed in Afganistan.


...And you're using comparisons to Afghanistan, when I was talking about Iraq, why? Perhaps because otherwise your rude exclamations wouldn't have any numbers supporting them?

I might also argue that if the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are treated as a whole action (as goes the official story, in tandem with the overall, 'War on Terror'), your claim is utter bunk.


Um...yes..they all did. Where are you getting this stuff?


Panama:

en.wikipedia.org...

According to this, The U.S. went in, changed the rulership, and left (over the course of a few days). Some minor policing occured thereafter, but hardly what one could call, 'occupation'.

Grenada:

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, the attack, rulership change, immediate leave. Invasion took place over a few days, no significant U.S. presence was left in place.

Bosnia:

en.wikipedia.org...

This wasn't an invasion at all. It was strictly an air campaign and bombing raid.

Korea:

en.wikipedia.org...

'Truman's War', while on a large scale and over a long duration, did not end in occupation. A ceasefire was a agreed upon, and U.S. troops - once again - withdrew. There wasn't even a change in leadership.

Mogadishu:

en.wikipedia.org...

A very much failed attack and subsequent withdrawal. No change in leadership, no occupation force left behind.

Or, to meet you with equal candor:

Wrong! You stupid, wrong, buttface!


You don't think Korea, Vietnam, or Panama is as well known as Iraq?


Vietnam wasn't in your original list, and no, I don't think Panama or Korea are as well known or documented as Iraq. Like I've already stated.

Sure, they made news. For as long or in as much detail or the current Iraq war? Unlikely.


Try "Blackhawk Down"


I didn't see the film. And if you meant, 'Use this term to look up the conflict', I had already looked it up (as I had already stated). And, for the record, I just needed to spell the country's name correctly 'Mogadishu' rather than 'Mogidishu'.

I was going to have the courtesy to leave that one alone, but since you brought it up...



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Non-Aggressors? WTF! How can you sit there and seriously say Saddam was a "non-aggressor"


Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that he was invading a country and the U.S. was acting to stop him.

Oh, he wasn't?

Am I forgetting about all the threats he made regarding commencing an attack? Or a formal declaration of war?

Apparently not, since neither of those things occurred either.


I hated Saddam Hussein. He attempted to wipe-out an entire culture of people, lived in wealthy splendor while the country at his feet sank in squalor and otherwise lacked any ethical or moral fibre at all. His hanging, while somewhat barbaric, was a well-deserved fate for such a miserable human being.

That said, he did not bring the invasion upon his country. The U.S. arbitrarily chose Iraq for invasion, without any provocation or official declaration of war. Yes, Iraq - not even given a chance to negotiate or surrender before the bombs started falling - certainly fits under the category of 'non-aggressor'.


Ya see, it is unnecessary for our government to ransack our largest city, kill thousands of people (possibly their own grandma, or nephew) to do something they have the power to do in the first place.

They didn't "need" to sway public opinion. As it turns out opinion was swayed due to Al Queda terroists on 9/11, but our government never "needed" it to happen to carry out operations.


Actually, I still disagree, and you're still incorrect about the scale or impact of most of the conflicts you mentioned. You're also conveniently avoiding topics like WWI, WWII or Vietnam, where there certainly were catalysts required for catapulting the public opinion into support for the war.

The public was opposed to action in Iraq until 9/11 according to most polling (thus the administation's public statements at the time), irregardless of whether or not they were in favor of any prior engagement.

For that matter, this entire tangent is a strawman (as well as something of a history buff pissing contest):

What does the administration's intent have to do with the physics involved with the WTC building collapses?



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   
From my reference book the max all up weight of a B25J is 36,000 lb,
this includes crew, guns, ammo, bomb load of 3200lb, max fuel load
of 2000 gal. The B25 which hit Empire State was on short ferry hop, so
not anywhere near max in weight and fuel carried.

The 767 which hit the towers weighed in more than 10x that (est
350,000lb). assume B25 not carrying max fuel load, 767 was fueled
for transcontinent trip and carrying 10,000 gal. Biggest factor was
speed, energy released goes up by square of velocity (double speed,
energy = 4x) 767 traveling at 500mph or more, about 3 x speed of
B25, (9x energy) x weight (10x+) indicated 767 which impacted towers
had 100 times energy of B25 carrying at least 5x (probably lot more
fuel load).

Also building construction - ESB exterior is 8" quarried limestone, WTC
was 1/4 " steel panels, ESB had dense grid of columns which shredded
plane as entered building, WTC had open floors until core of building.

Fireproofing on ESB - 4" concrete around all steelwork, WTC - 1/2 - 3/4"
spray on coating of steel - much of it knocked off by impact .

Fireloads - in 1945 did not have synthethics (plastics) for interior furnishing
plastics burn with 50-100% more heat per pound

Can see WTC impact did much more structural damage, with more fuel
disbursed in building, heavier fire loads and much lighter construction
point way to disaster.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

ESB had dense grid of columns which shredded
plane as entered building


Yes, the B-25 was much smaller and slower than the Boeing. I didn't dispute this.

However:

www.tms.org...

...The plane was not 'shredded' upon impact, according to official sources. Again - the impact penetrating right through the damn building. The damage was not 'small'. A 40-minute long fire across an entire floor is not insubstantial.

And I wonder how long you'll continue dodging the rest of my examples?



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   
www.freerepublic.com...


one of its engines whizzed from the north wall, and through the south wall, ultimately landing on the roof of a nearby building

....At some point, we heard a horrendous noise and rushed to the windows. … We were horrified to see a B-25 half in and half out of the Empire State Building."....


and using metric wont confuse this guy....


www.onlineconversion.com...

300km = 186.41136 miles



the fire is also reported to have shot down the elevators causing a fire in the basement....

the only site i can find that the tornado actually hit the building is wikipedia....

lubbocktx.usachamber.com...

In 1970, a devastating tornado struck Lubbock, destroying more than $136 million in property, and several lives were lost. In the tough pioneer spirit for which West Texans are known, the citizens united, a bond package was approved, and many municipal improvements resulted. The Lubbock Memorial Civic Center, Lubbock’s Preston Smith International Airport, and the Canyon Lakes Park system were built. In 1972, the South Plains Mall was constructed, making the city a retail and wholesale trade center of a 26-county area of Texas and New Mexico.


archives.stupidquestion.net...

Also, the F-Scale is based on damage to typical well-built houses. It doesn’t cover highly engineered buildings such as skyscrapers and nuke plants, which have never been hit by an F5-class tornado.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
To put fear into americans to make it easier for gwb to take all of their rights and enforce a police nation.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
In reply to the original post

Passion drama and conviction

People are still so horrified at the tragic deaths it creates passion and an atmosphere of willingness, resolve, perhaps even revenge.

The actions of 911 led to the Afghansitan conflict and the development of a lucrative pipeline deal.

The actions of 911 led to the war on Iraq which changed the worlds 2nd largest oil resource from Euros back to dollars.

The reconstruction contracts, defence spending.

So far we are already reaching trillions upon trillions of dollar value.

How much money do you think you are worth

How much money is 3000 people worth as well as the costs of rebuilding? How much money is in the new development at the WTC site?
Its also a political flag 911 - as the elections approach both sides will reflect on 911 and tell us all why they will do better to remember it, to honor it , to ensure it doesnt happen again.

But wait ...

Personally I think it was done for a reason - its a prelude. It gauges how shocked how horrified you can make a nation. It psychologically sets our minds to this new war on terror.
And I think its the preparation for something far greater. 3000 people is nothing - im sorry if that sounds cold of course individually to those that have lost it means something.

But as collateral damage-its hardly a blip. In comparrison to conflict that has taken more than half a million lives - its hardly a blip.

But if 911 is a marker of what we describe as a horrifying act of terror, a needless loss of life, a tragedy, a pearl harbour, an act of callous cold unforgiving terror.....

Then how will we feel when 150 000 or more innocent poor civillians are wiped off the face of the city street in a flash....

I think that will create enough feeling to be able to tackle the more difficult objectives that lie ahead. Such as the worlds 4th largest oil reserve. Khuzestan.

In military strategies you use your resources to meet your objective. One of those resources is the deaths of your assets. D Day was planned with the deaths of troops in mind. Placing a nuclear power plant is planned with a chernobyl accident in mind. Acceptable losses are calculated.

Are we so naive to think that certain objectives would be placed aside should they need the casualities of our own people?

We are a renewable resource - we breed while others bleed.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinningMoon

Wrong! You stupid, wrong, buttface!


I suggest you use more caution while posting in this forum.

I was banned for less.



[edit on 10-8-2007 by Taxi-Driver]




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join