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: 76
10
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Well I have to disagree. Ultima1 has never misstated ANYTHING. Whilst his/her views may not be as radical as mine -- due to a more carefully skeptic nature perhaps -- all of Ultima's posts are rock-solid. And this person is one of the most consistent posters on ATS.


I beg your pardon? You're saying that a guy who claims to work for the NSA, with top secret and codeword clearances, who claims to have access to classified documentation regarding the 9/11 disasters and UFOs has never misstated anything? I hope you're trolling in an attempt to amuse us all. The fact is that Ultima1's entire modus operandi in these forums is to make blanket, non-factual statements and use fallacial arguments to defend his points. He has been discredited and shown to be completely wrong countless times. I'm sure the only reason ATS bothers to keep him around is that everyone enjoys a clown.




posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Thats funny coming from soneone that cannot post any real evidnece to support their claims of the official story.


Why are you deflecting?

I'm asking for somekind of proof that backs up your statement that an F-4 is mostly steel. Why don't you prove your point and post some instead?

You disrespect all who have served as crew chiefs when you make statements like this in order to make a point.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

You disrespect all who have served as crew chiefs when you make statements like this in order to make a point.


Seconded. Not to mention the service men that may have been involved in his conspiracy theory.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Sadly, Ultima1 once again proves that he's simply making blanket, false statements without any sort of proof to back up his claims. The phantom design makes extensive use of titanium (read: not steel) throughout the airframe. Much of the remaining craft including the skin and control surfaces are aviation grade aluminum. I cite as my source actual documentation from boeing:

www.boeing.com...

Of course, this will be disregarded by Ultima. He'll try to attack the source of the material, or try to come up with some piddling little reason why he's right and we're all wrong. This is patented Ultima modus operandi. Between his inability to back up a point with any sort of evidence and his petty attacks against other people, its small wonder that he's been banned from so many forums. In fact, I thought he was going to file a lawsuit against the ebaums forums after they banned him. I guess nothing ever came of that.

I think I'm going to go ahead and file Ultima under "crackpot troll" and treat him accordingly, as I advise others to do the same. If you keep feeding the trolls, like stray puppies, they stick around and piddle on your shoes.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by KarmaIncarnate
 


Karma....

I think puppies are cute. Who doesn't?

Once housebroken, though, puppies are more likely to chew your shoes than piddle on them.

Perhaps an unfortunate choice of term, there...'housebroken'...implies only that small animals don't realize there is an 'indoors' and and 'outdoors' when it comes to eliminating waste...

Good reason for liking cats....they have an instinct to bury their waste, so the sandbox training is almost automatic.

Sorry for throwing off the tracks, just joined ASPCA and thinking of adopting a dog or cat....

Now....I just re-read the original post headline. It is simple: Evidence wanted to make 'believers' in a conspiracy....a little vague, since it doesn't say what kind of 'conspiracy' to which it is referring.

So far....no evidence. CLAIMS of 'evidence'....wildly off-topic ad hominems and bickering, at times. Quite a bit of solid reports from reliable sources that support the understanding that four airplanes were hi-jacked by extremists with an agenda of destruction, because of a warped religious ideology, and were willing to suicide in furtherance of that agenda. Most of the solid reports from reliable sources that I just mentioned, usually ignored by those called 'truthers' (whatever that means).

If you do not believe that a Muslim extremist will go to great lengths to inflict damage, even so far as suicide, then you haven't been watching the news for the last decade or so. The most heinous example was using the Downs-Syndrome young lady as a 'suicide' bomb some months ago, in Iraq. I use that example not to deflect, nor to demonize a faith, but to demonstrate that the depths of human depravity will sometimes know no bounds. Even well-educated people, in the grips of a Fundamentalst ideology, can be convinced to commit horrid acts....even suicide in the name of their 'cause'......

WW



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz[/i
I'm asking for somekind of proof that backs up your statement that an F-4 is mostly steel.


I have proven my point, but it true believer closed minded style you ignore it.

Also if you knew anything about an F-4s enigines, the J-79 is enclosed in a titanium heatshield. So my numbers for the F-4s steel and the titanium do come out about right when including the engines.

I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW EVIDENCE TO PROVE ME WRONG.


[edit on 13-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
The phantom design makes extensive use of titanium (read: not steel) throughout the airframe.


Gee you really do not know much. About 10% of the F-4 is tatanium including the titanium heatshield around the engines.

Also you forget the steel in the engines and following locations.

The fuselage is an all-metal semi-monocoque structure.
Keel and rear sections make use of steel and titanium.
The tail unit is a cantilever all-metal structure.
Ribs and stringers of tailplane are of steel, skin titanium and trailing-edge of steel honeycomb.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, look at the Boeing info in the post up above.

Some of the fuselage formers, titanium (remember, titanium provides better strength, less weight, as compared to steel)

the Keel, titanium....the engine access doors (guess that's what you called the 'engine shrouds'...)...the re-inforcement area for the catapult hook (for the Navy version)....

the F-4B....about 7.7% titanium. The F-4J....about 8.5% titanium.

Please! Continue your research, and be sure to provide at least some of it, to this thread. So far, we see only claims....

WW



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, we were writing at the same time. You wrote "about 10%tatanium" (think you meant titanium).....but you care to refute Boeing's own data? So be it....

Whatever....you know....or maybe not....in aircraft design it is always a balance between strength, rigidity, and weight....since, it is usually about fuel economy. YES, in the military applications, range may not matter anymore, but being light and agile do...

What I have yet to see anyone answer, yet, is the simple fact that the RB211-235 engines on a B757 are not as big as they appear, just by looking at the nacelles....they are compact, and made of many parts, and would thusly disentegrate, given the forces involved when impacting a concrete facade/structure of a building....

WW



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
the F-4B....about 7.7% titanium. The F-4J....about 8.5% titanium.


Well let me give you some actual facts and numbers, not something you can just read.

1. Yes titanium was still new when the F-4 was built only about 8% was used in the airframe.

BUT the J-79 was enclosed in a titanium heatshield, so add that to the percentage and it raises to about 10 % titanium.

2. Lets look at the steel parts shall we.
Keel and rear sections make use of steel and titanium. (Do you know how large the Keel and Rear section of an F-4 is ?) Plus add in the tail hook assembly (which is all steel)

Ribs and stringers of tailplane are of steel,skin titanium and trailing-edge of steel honeycomb.

So when you add all those parts together, and i even give you a beak on the steel the numbers come out to the following.

50% aluminum
40 % steel
10% titanium.




[edit on 13-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Gee you really do not know much. About 10% of the F-4 is tatanium including the titanium heatshield around the engines.

Also you forget the steel in the engines and following locations.

The fuselage is an all-metal semi-monocoque structure.
Keel and rear sections make use of steel and titanium.
The tail unit is a cantilever all-metal structure.
Ribs and stringers of tailplane are of steel, skin titanium and trailing-edge of steel honeycomb.


I've yet to see you cite a single source for any of your "facts". For someone who is such a stickler for such things, it's interesting that you choose not apply those same standards to yourself. Unless you can cite any legitimate source material to back up your claims, they will be discounted.

Incidentally, I would encourage you to stop the personal attacks against me. If you cannot debate like an adult, then perhaps you should take your business elsewhere.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhackerYou wrote "about 10%tatanium" (think you meant titanium).....but you care to refute Boeing's own data? So be it....


I am not refuting their data, but they are not including the engines, i am.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Still....ULTIMA, your exact words were, regarding the F-4, it was "mostly steel"....judging by your most recent post, you've modified your earlier contention by nearly 10%.....but even 40% is not 'mostly'.....

Regardless....while discussing the physical properties of the F-4 is fascinating, it still has nothing to do with this thread.

How many F-4s crashed into the Pentagon that day? Or the WTC....or....sheesh, do you wish to inflate this discussion, and possibly assert that an F-4 was what crashed at Shanksville?!?!?

NOW....there's a conspiracy theory we can start!! Why not? Who were the pilots?

WW



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
I've yet to see you cite a single source for any of your "facts".


If you want a source all you have to do is ask nicely. I can post sources, unlike others on here.

en.wikipedia.org...
The engine itself was encased in a titanium heatshield.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So when you add all those parts together, and i even give you a beak on the steel the numbers come out to the following.

50% aluminum
40 % steel
10% titanium.


Now you can't even manufacture "facts" properly. Earlier you said that the F-4 is mostly steel. And now, you provide this completely made up set of percentages (again without any sort of fact citation) and you can't even make your fake facts back up your original assertion that the F-4 Phantom is comprised primarily of steel. For your reference, 40% doesn't constitute the majority of anything. Is it so hard for you to keep your lies straight?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhackerYou wrote "about 10%tatanium" (think you meant titanium).....but you care to refute Boeing's own data? So be it....


I am not refuting their data, but they are not including the engines, i am.


You, ULTIMA, were arguing with someone about steel content (for what reason, I haven't the foggiest) but, now, you bring up titanium.

Again, deflecting from the original point of this thread, with this nosnsense about the F-4, fascinating as it may be.

I have shown you a picture of a high-bypass turbofan, albeit larger than the RB-211-535 on a B757....but the point was that it is much smaller than would appear, to an outside observer, who sees just the nacelle (which is mostly carbon composite). The core components of the engine are quite small in comparison, and fairly frangible, in a high-energy impact scenario.

THAT is the point that is continually overlooked....

WW



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
If you want a source all you have to do is ask nicely. I can post sources, unlike others on here.

en.wikipedia.org...
The engine itself was encased in a titanium heatshield.


The what you say?! First off, Wikipedia isn't a legitimate source. Secondly, even if it were a legitimate source, you provided a link to the Israeli Kfir aircraft, which is a Dassault Mirage variant, *NOT* an F-4. So, not only can you not provide source material from a legitimate source (this coming from the same guy who refused to consider Popular Mechanics as a legitimate source), but also, you can't even refer to the proper aircraft. In fact, you can't even refer to an aircraft from the same country. Seriously Roger, try harder.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by KarmaIncarnate]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Still....ULTIMA, your exact words were, regarding the F-4, it was "mostly steel"....judging by your most recent post, you've modified your earlier contention by nearly 10%.....but even 40% is not 'mostly'.....


And if you would ever read my post you would see that i stated that was giving a break on the steel so you guys wouldn't cry and whine so much.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
The what you say?! First off, Wikipedia isn't a legitimate source. Secondly, even if it were a legitimate source,


Oh i see you believers can use the sources you want but i cannot, just proves my point about you guys all the more.

Also if you would have read the site and part i quoted i was not talking about the F-4 but the J-79 engine.

Please be adult enough to read psot before responding.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
And if you would ever read my post you would see that i stated that was giving a break on the steel so you guys wouldn't cry and whine so much.


Oh, I get it. You're manufacturing "facts" to make us feel better. How does that gibe with you being the outspoken champion of facts and evidence?

Anyone else in the forum want to tell us what argumentative fallacy Roger's using here?




top topics



 
10
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join