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.

 

How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

page: 49
13
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
And once again, you have cited NIST reports as credible evidence.


And as stated again i post NIST to prove to others that NIST contridicts itself and made errors.

This is the last time i state this so please move on.




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


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.

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.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

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 ?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

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 ?


Please be specific about what conspiracy you are referring. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

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.

Leslie E Robertson, who directed the design of the towers had this to say (emphasis mine)



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.

Leslie E Robertson Associates

Now all of that is straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. Can we stick to facts from now on?



[edit on 22/1207/07 by neformore]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

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?


It matters. If the planes being passed off as a civilian commercial passenger jetliners, was instead military KC-767s, doesn't it?



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.


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.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

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.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


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.


Problem with this quote is that there was not thousands of gallons of fuel, all reports state most of the fuel was burned off in the intial explosion and what was left burned off in a few moments.



[edit on 22-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Then Lucy aka Les Robertson gotta lotta 'splainin' to do on this major discrepancy:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

“The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability…”O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”[7]"



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



It matters. If the planes being passed off as a civilian commercial passenger jetliners, was instead military KC-767s, doesn't it?


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.


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.

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.

I think the problem starts when people who are not familiar with building, engineering, etc. try to interpret what happened and they see some things that look weird on the surface but upon closer inspection by qualified individuals, you find there is no conspiracy, just a bunch of islamic extremists.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Have you even looked at the KC-767? Besides the fact that they didn't even FLY until 2005, and NOT ONE plane watcher ANYWHERE, or one airshow ANYWHERE, including Riat, Dubai, and Farnsborough have seen one, there are some SERIOUSLY obvious differences between a 767 and a KC-767. Like the boom under the tail.



There are extra antennas, the boom mount, and marker lights for the receiver to use to tell where he needs to move to to contact the boom. All fo those are missing from the shot of the second impact. All of those are rather obvious if you know what you're looking at.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

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.

Actually it's called a terrorist attack. The conspiracy would involve covering it up. But this is semantics. I was simply asking you to clarify your post. I wouldn't have had I known that you would respond like a 12 year old instead of a well trained US soldier



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.


Problem with this quote is that there was not thousands of gallons of fuel, all reports state most of the fuel was burned off in the intial explosion and what was left burned off in a few moments.
[edit on 22-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Exactly how many gallons of fuel were there then? What does "a few moments" mean? How many seconds, minutes, hours, etc.. ?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

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.


They most certainly were. Particularly, with all that orange fireball and dense carbon smoke blocking any view of impact, 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, when it had not choice but to meet the center core supports. That is just for starters.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’

Good info. Notice where it says, "SLOW-MOVING AIRPLANE" ???



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

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.

Yes you did misunderstand my question. Please re-read it and respond if you like. Thanks




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.


They most certainly were. Particularly, with all that orange fireball and dense carbon smoke blocking any view of impact
Just curious but how does a lack of visibility defy physics?


, plus, of exactly how any plane could possibly have penetrated or completely entered either twin tower.

They were going really, really fast.


It defies the principles of explosion.

How? please be specific and cite examples.


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,

Are you saying the plane compressed into a 35 ft. x 59 ft sqr. ft. area inside the building and the debris didn't continue any further?


[edit on 22-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

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.


Please show proof they existed and were in use prior to and during 2001 and it will end this portion of the debate. Thank you.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Uh, NO they weren't. Please explain to me the POSSIBLE purpose of keeping a TANKER secret? They don't have stealth, they don't have ANYTHING classified on them. There is NO reason to have a top secret tanker program. And WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN for the last 20 years???? Do you have ANY idea of the HUGE tanker shortage that the USAF has had for the last 15-20 years??? I have seen fighters sit parked for WEEKS because they couldn't get tankers to move them to where they were going. If you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that they have had KC-767s and have kept them hidden for 20 years, then it's obvious you have NO CLUE as to how things work. The 767 ITSELF didn't even FLY until 1981, and wasn't even delivered until Sept of 1982. According to you they would have IMMEDIATELY built KC-767s at the same time they were building the passenger versions.

That didn't happen. Even the F-117 had rumors of it's existance out there until the military announced it existed. There have been NO rumors of a KC-767 until they offered them to the military in the late 1990s. You're telling me that STEALTH, which was the most classified project by the military for years, had rumors of its existance, but a TANKER project had nothing until they announced the military was leasing 100 of them?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

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.. ?


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.

www.globalresearch.ca...

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).


www.firehouse.com...

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.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



Gee, you really need to look up the meaning of conspiracy. The planning and hijacking planes is a conspiracy.

Gee I said it was just semantics.


Here is some information on the jet fuel, you really should learn how to do research.

I'm sorry that being asked questions about YOUR statements is an inconvenience. If it's too much of a problem, maybe you shouldn't post here.


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.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This is a far cry from "most of the fuel was burned off in the intial explosion and what was left burned off in a few moments."
A few moments is not 10-12 minutes. Thats why I was asking for clarification.


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.

Black smoke does not necessarily mean oxygen starved. A lot of plastics release black smoke when burning nice and hot.

This is why I ask a lot of questions.
Ultima, here is an excerpt of your previous post:

Problem with this quote is that there was not thousands of gallons of fuel


Here is an excerpt of your newest post.

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.


So I guess there indeed was "thousands of gallons of fuel".

The second post completely contradicts the first post.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

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.


Are you certain you are not reading knots as mph? Because I also found this on the 707:

www.globalaircraft.org...

Speed: 1010 km/h (545 kt / 627 mph)

And the 767:

Speed: Mach 0.80 (530 mph / 850 km/h) -- cruise

That looks like a 97 mph difference to me.

I do not lie. Never again deliberately attempt to impugn my intergrity by calling me a liar.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join