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 jfj123
And once again, you have cited NIST reports as credible evidence.
Then would you wish me to state it this way? The KC-767 is capable of carrying missiles and operating by remote control. Which is exactly what a drone is. UAV carrying missiles. I have pictures of many style designs of drones, and learned from an military aviation expert any plane can be turned into use as drone.
Originally posted by jfj123
The more intricate you make the conspiracy, the less likely it is to be true.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
The more intricate you make the conspiracy, the less likely it is to be true.
You do know the official story is based on a conspiracy ?
Originally posted 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.
We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land. The impact of the Boeing 767s, commandeered by the terrorists, even though larger and flying much faster, was still unable to bring down the towers. The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
Originally posted by jfj123
I guess my question is what is the point? What does it matter whether a drone aircraft can carry missiles or not?
The more intricate you make the conspiracy, the less likely it is to be true. A drone plane flying into towers and right before it is destroyed, it fires missiles that nobody see's because they all hit their internal structural targets perfectly. Seems highly unlikely. Just my opinion of course.
Originally posted by jfj123
Please be specific about what conspiracy you are referring. Thanks.
Originally posted by neformore
The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
It matters. If the planes being passed off as a civilian commercial passenger jetliners, was instead military KC-767s, doesn't it?
Well, perhaps that is why the people who came up with the "official" version are having such a difficult time enticing so many people to believe it. That report is so obviously bogus, due to completely defying even the most basic laws of physics, that no logical persons can, in good conscience, accept. Defying the laws of physics is just for starters on why logical people cannot accept the "official" report at face value.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
Please be specific about what conspiracy you are referring. Thanks.
Terrorist planning and then hijacking planes is a conspiracy, look up the meaning of conspiracy sometime.
Originally posted by neformore
The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
Sorry you misunderstood my question. Why would it matter whether or not the drone could carry missiles or not? It would be really bizarre to load a drone with missiles and try and time perfect missile launches with impacts. It just doesn't make sense. This idea is an over engineering nightmare.
Actually no laws of physics are defied. If they were, the conspiracy would INSTANTLY be out and could not be covered up because with some basic physics calculations, anyone could find out the conspiracy.
on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’
Originally posted by OrionStars
Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
Sorry you misunderstood my question. Why would it matter whether or not the drone could carry missiles or not? It would be really bizarre to load a drone with missiles and try and time perfect missile launches with impacts. It just doesn't make sense. This idea is an over engineering nightmare.
Actually, I did not. What I stated was evaluation of purposes of drones is not relevant. Though it was not stated quite that way, it was obviously implied. Discussing whether or not a KC-767 done loaded with missiles flying into buildings, as opposed to civilian commercial passenger jetliner use of the 767, is relevant in investigation of all possibility and probability of exactly what happened on 9/11.
Actually no laws of physics are defied. If they were, the conspiracy would INSTANTLY be out and could not be covered up because with some basic physics calculations, anyone could find out the conspiracy.
, plus, of exactly how any plane could possibly have penetrated or completely entered either twin tower.
It defies the principles of explosion.
Then we have the problem of 159'2" of plane completely disappearing in an area of only 35' in one direction and 59' in the other,
Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Zaphod58
They may not have flown as public knowledge until the date you indicate. However, they were certainly successfully tested as far back as the 1980s and were available for use. Public knowledge of their existence or the date of that knowledge is not relevant in this case. The fact they were available for use in 2001 is.
Originally posted by jfj123
Actually it's called a terrorist attack.
Exactly how many gallons of fuel were there then? What does "a few moments" mean? How many seconds, minutes, hours, etc.. ?
Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F” (Eagar, 2002).
A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage.
Gee, you really need to look up the meaning of conspiracy. The planning and hijacking planes is a conspiracy.
Here is some information on the jet fuel, you really should learn how to do research.
Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved.
Problem with this quote is that there was not thousands of gallons of fuel
A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage.
Originally posted by neformore
Originally posted 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.
Boeing - the people who manufacture the planes - say you are lying
Boeing 767 200ER
Boeing 707
They say theres a 20mph difference between the two.