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.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 49
10
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
These frames show no nose, wings or tail coming through the outter wall.

Come on, ULTIMA1, adding wings and a tail is only a minor detail - right? Of course we can omit the wings, planes still fly and crash without any wings - right?

Seriously though, those images are not worth the time taken to create them. Without wings, they're uselsss.




posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
These frames show no nose, wings or tail coming through the outter wall.

Come on, ULTIMA1, adding wings and a tail is only a minor detail - right? Of course we can omit the wings, planes still fly and crash without any wings - right?

Seriously though, those images are not worth the time taken to create them. Without wings, they're uselsss.


Those images were from an advanced physics model created at Purdue University. Can you disprove the model? Please post your equations that disqualify the video. I await with bated breath



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Those images were from an advanced physics model created at Purdue University. Can you disprove the model?


1. Its an animation.

2. Why would i want to disprove something the supports what i have been stating.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Those images were from an advanced physics model created at Purdue University. Can you disprove the model?


1. Its an animation.

Yes. It can also be called a model. So what???



2. Why would i want to disprove something the supports what i have been stating.


I wasn't talking to you about the above statement.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I wasn't talking to you about the above statement.


But it does prove my statement that the nose, wings and tail along with most of the major airframe did not make it into the building.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



But it does prove my statement that the nose, wings and tail along with most of the major airframe did not make it into the building.


Erm no it doesn't.

I have already shown you pictures of the plane's BODY IN THE BUILDING!!!! From that video.

Or do you think the building's wall is transparent in that particular shot of the video.

I mean come on Ultima. Your hardheaded refusal to accept what is obvious about that video and mental editing is staggering.


[edit on 18-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I wasn't talking to you about the above statement.


But it does prove my statement that the nose, wings and tail along with most of the major airframe did not make it into the building.


But your own pictures show the body made it into the building???? So you obviously agree with us.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Those images were from an advanced physics model created at Purdue University. Can you disprove the model? Please post your equations that disqualify the video. I await with bated breath

Please show how the model is valid, if there are no wings or engines pictured?

The model did not use any advanced physics at all. If so, it would have included wings and engines, etc for the plane. Without wings and engines, basic physics dictates that the plane won't even leave the runway.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
It appears to have everything required of a plane like wings and engines, and I note missing are the windows which would hardly be critical in this application.



I also note that it seems to break up after penetrating the outer wall, not before as suggested.

Simulation of core column damage:




[edit on 18/4/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I have already shown you pictures of the plane's BODY IN THE BUILDING


But the nose, wings and tail did not make it into the building as shown in the photos you posted.


Originally posted by jfj123]
But your own pictures show the body made it into the building???? So you obviously agree with us.


No, it shows the hole left by the plane and that the wings barley made it into the building. The steel where the wings went in are barely damaged, the wings would have been sheared by the steel beams as stated dozens of times.

Also f you look at the actual photos of the hole i posted you will see the wing tips did not even penatrate the outter steel beams of the building.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Those images were from an advanced physics model created at Purdue University. Can you disprove the model? Please post your equations that disqualify the video. I await with bated breath

Please show how the model is valid, if there are no wings or engines pictured?

The model did not use any advanced physics at all. If so, it would have included wings and engines, etc for the plane. Without wings and engines, basic physics dictates that the plane won't even leave the runway.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by tezzajw]


Prove it's not valid using your own physics modeling. Please post the model here for review. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Digging hard there budro..........


Let me guess next we will hear that because there are no birds shown it can't be accurate???



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I have already shown you pictures of the plane's BODY IN THE BUILDING




No, it shows the hole left by the plane and that the wings barley made it into the building.

We're not watching the same video because the video I watched shows the plane body inside the building.


[edit on 18-4-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Digging hard there budro..........


Let me guess next we will hear that because there are no birds shown it can't be accurate???


How much do you want to bet that at some point he'll claim that the planes didn't even exist so the model can't be accurate.....is the holonut idea about to pop up again?????



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
We're not watching the same video because the video I watched shows the plane body


No it just shows a piece of the body that just barely made it into the building and as supported by almost all reports the buildings withstood the planes imapcts.

(ALSO ITS JUST A PIECE OF THE BODY WITHOUT NOSE, WINGS AND TAIL THAT DID NOT MAKE IT INTO THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE THIN ALUMINUM WAS SHREDDED BY THE STEEL BEAMS AS STATED MANY, MANY TIMES AND PROVEN BY THE VIDEO AND THE ACTAUL PHOTOS OF THE HOLES IN THE TOWERS.)


[edit on 18-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Here we go again. Hop scotching back to a debate you already lost that led to this one in the first place......................................
Heard of circular logic but circular argumenting?

Yes it withstood the impacts for the gazillionith time.
But the structural damage from the impacts were aggraviated by the fire.

Cumulative damage seeing as to how the building couldn't auto-heal itself after a impact.

And off we go again. Or should I just cut and paste the back and forth fromt he history of this debate? So you can spew the same falsities you spewed before we moved to this point. And as we have shown you BLATANTLY doing, particularly in the case of this perdue video.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Complete counter-debunking of every single debunked hypothesis that the "Truthers" have put forth over the years. I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor--and as ashamed of my country as it makes me to admit it, the idea that they screwed up just makes more sense to me than the idea that the whole thing was some elaborately staged drama.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
I'm beginning to think there might be something to this conspiracy business. Here's why:

Noone could possibly be as obtuse as the most vocal of proponents pretend to be. Ergo, they are pretending to be obtuse. So it's either for personal financial gain (like they are selling a product), blinding ego (they are the keepers of the hidden knowledge -- smarter than all before them), or -- and here's where it gets spooky -- they are paid by the government to be soooo obnoxious that a real conspiracy would never be noticed because most people with common sense won't take more than a peak at the "evidence" presented before recoiling.

So take heart, you few, proud, and vocal -- I don't think you're as dumb as you're acting!



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
I think you misunderestimate human stupidity.
EDIT: And also human egotism. I used to be one of those folks--self-absorbed, whiny teenagers who can't get over how they're Rebels Who Will Not Stay Silent. Now, I'm twenty, and I finally understand why teenagers can't do certain things--they're freaking morons.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by Makoto]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   
I think it is the combination of all of those things you two listed.
I agree whole heartedly.

There is a quote I love to use about people from Shakespear.
"My what fools these mortals be."



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join