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.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Originally posted by OrionStars
Are you going to become civil with your remarks? If so, when?
Apologies for any perceived lack of civility, it's not intentional
Exact make and model numbers aside, fast moving flying objects presumably made of aluminium and associated alloys matching the size and form factor of 767's were documented and recorded puncturing the steel exterior of buildings. The issue here is whether that behaviour, however counter-intuitive it may appear at first, is possible. In my opinion it has been shown that it is possible.
It would be interesting to see how the designers of the structures intended them to cope with the possibility of a 707 impact. IE was the 707 supposed to splatter on the surface or was the building designed to absorb the impact by structural deformation and 'catch' the plane without being fatally compromised.
Originally posted by OrionStars
Without knowing the complete methodology and all specifics involved in lab tests, it is folly to take a lab test, without specifics and methodology, and judge any other incident from those.
Originally posted by jfj123
why do you have 2 member names?
Refer to the NIST reports for my evidence.
Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Heck even Ultima admitts there was a ton of Boeing 757 wreakage at the Pentagon...but now he wants to see serial numbers.. just wow.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
why do you have 2 member names?
Refer to the NIST reports for my evidence.
I do not have 2 member names
The NIST reports have been proven to be not a very good source. Do you have any other real evidence?
Originally posted by jfj123
[OK sure. Just curious, no big deal if you want 1 or 2 names.
You mean the ones you have cited as evidence to support your position in many cases in the past?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
[OK sure. Just curious, no big deal if you want 1 or 2 names.
You mean the ones you have cited as evidence to support your position in many cases in the past?
Either show me proof that i have 2 member names or be curtious (mature) enough to admit you are wrong.
As i have stated many times but it seems that you have refused to read or need help with reading comprehension, i was only using the NIST quotes to porve to others that use NIST that they were wrong.
I SUGGEST YOU PLEASE READ MY POSTS BEFORE POSTING.
[edit on 22-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by jfj123
Although I do appreciate your recommendation, I have read your posts and you have indeed used NIST reports as factual evidence in your posts many times. Thank you for your post.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
Although I do appreciate your recommendation, I have read your posts and you have indeed used NIST reports as factual evidence in your posts many times. Thank you for your post.
Yes, to prove others wrong that use NIST for thier evidence.
I noticed you did not prove i have 2 names. Can you admit you are wrong?
[edit on 22-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by Pilgrum
So if we leave the lab for a bit and take another look at the photographic & witness evidence it seems the *entire* plane did indeed go through that wall like the proverbial hot knife through butter with litle evidence of slowing down even as the tail disappeared inside so what are the possible reasons for that:
1. ALL witness testimony and video evidence faked - highly unlikely
2. Defective building design IE it wasn't really up to the event it was claimed to be capable of handling - possible (they never actually did a 'live' test on the structure for obvious reasons)
3. The actual plane was going faster than the speed the designer had in mind for a 707 lost in the fog - big possibility here (remembering that just a 41% speed increase doubles the kinetic energy)
I'm open to any other suggestions that fit the evidence but please let's not get into the collapse which happened about an hour after the event being discussed here.
I have already stated several times the 767 did not have the top speed of the 707. Therefore, the 767 could not be going faster than the designers planned with a 707 at top speed under any conditions not just fog.
Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
Maybe you already posted this but I was wondering what the exact speed the designers planned for regarding the 707?
Originally posted by OrionStars
Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
Yes, I have several times - top speed. Cruise speed in the 707 is 607 mph as opposed to cruise speed in the 767 at 530 mph.
I also know for a fact explosions send everything on and in an object in all directions, including, in this particular case of 9/11, outside the hole.
Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
Would the explosion be able to overcome the force applied to the debris? In other words, the plane was flying in 1 direction at a certain speed, some of the explosion would be going in the opposite direction the plane was flying. Which force was greater? The force from the explosion or the force from the plane?
Are you trying to justify why there was no evidence of any planes, when there was definitely an explosion, which should have sent plane parts and contents, particularly luggage, outside the building, by every known documentation concerning explosions vs implosions?
Now pure fission principle, in the A-bomb, is designed on the principle of using implosion. At the same time, A-bombs are hardly standard explosives.
Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
Not justify but mearly suggest. [qupte]
I am not one to stop hypothesis. I wants definitive answers that are logical, and based on all known scientific documentation. The "official" report does not even begin to agree with all know scientific documentation directly related to what occurred in all four cases of 9/11.
A-bombs also have radioactive fallout, EMP, etc...
I am fully aware of that. However, if no one tests measurement, how would anyone know they are sitting in the middle of high levels of radioactivity, until they become extremely ill from exposure? At which time, they will be tested for radioactivity levels in their bodies.
[edit on 22-12-2007 by OrionStars]
[edit on 22-12-2007 by OrionStars]
I am fully aware of that. However, if no one tests measurement, how would anyone know they are sitting in the middle of high levels of radioactivity, until they become extremely ill from exposure? At which time, they will be tested for radioactivity levels in their bodies.
Originally posted by OrionStars
I do know the military has the KC-767 drone. However, I cannot truthfully say the planes in the air were any 767s because I cannot tell one plane model from another up close and personal. If I wanted to know for certain, I would have to research it to know.
[edit on 22-12-2007 by OrionStars]
Originally posted by Zaphod58
KC-767 "drone"? There is no such thing as a drone of the KC-767. There are also two minor flaws in your idea here. The first being that the KC-767 didn't even make the first flight until mid 2005. The second being that the USAF doesn't have ANY KC-767s. The first KC-767 to be built went to Italy, and they and Japan are the only countries to have bought them to date. The USAF was PLANNING to lease them begining in 2003, which again puts it well AFTER 9/11, but the deal fell through when it was discovered to have many irregularities.
I CAN state without doubt that the planes that were pictured on 9/11 WERE 767s. I spent 25 years working around aircraft, and continue to study them to this date, and I saw nothing that would make me doubt that they were 767s.