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.

 

25 Intolerable Contradictions: The Final Undoing of the Official 9/11 Story

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Whodunnit
 



there's a program to replace solid light poles with ones that have breakaway bases when they're placed in a place where cars could hit them. These were like that.


Prove it.



A pole is gonna throw a 150 ton plane off course whenit's doing 500 mph? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.


Especially since it was doing 500mph.




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   

I also say the spools are too heavy to be thrown by jet wash.

You would be amazed at the thrust that comes off a jet turbine at "full" throttle no less.

I was rolling around the flight line one night in Rhein Main and nearly got flipped in a 1008.

just my .02

Fiance just mentioned seeing a "bus" get flipped by jet wash on MythBusters - FYI

you guys will love this one...



www.youtube.com...

[edit on 19-3-2008 by KMFNWO]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by KMFNWO


I also say the spools are too heavy to be thrown by jet wash.



You would be amazed at the thrust that comes off a jet turbine at "full" throttle no less.

I was rolling around the flight line one night in Rhein Main and nearly got flipped in a 1008.

just my .02

Was the plane sitting still?

Cuz under those conditions I'd say yeah, if you were to put some cable spools on the ground and hammer the throttle..... bye bye spools.

That wasn't the case here though, right? The planes were moving.

What's your view about this video? Could an A-10 push some cable spools if the A-10 was stationery, and the spools placed behind it? Cuz these crazy dudes are right under the takeoff path, when it would have BOTH turbines at max power, yeah? And they don't go flying.




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Whodunnit
 


As with most things in this argument, neither side will relent. So again, where did the two 6 ton engines impact the building? Why is this so difficult to answer? They were moving at 500mph. The damage should be quite easy to point out.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by KMFNWO
reply to post by Whodunnit
 


Alright smart guy - where did the 2 6 ton engines impact the building at 500 mph?

Inquiring minds want to know.


This is your buddy's link.

hidebehind.com...

Open it. Right in the middle, you can see where there is damage to the second story. That's where the tail hit. To the left and right, on the bottom floor, you can see where some of the support columns are missing. there's several of them. The engines, landing gear, and other heavy parts went through in that area. None remained intact.

Very simple to see when you remove that crummy drawing.....



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Whodunnit
 



there's a program to replace solid light poles with ones that have breakaway bases when they're placed in a place where cars could hit them. These were like that.


Prove it.



A pole is gonna throw a 150 ton plane off course whenit's doing 500 mph? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.


Especially since it was doing 500mph.


Prove it? Naaah, I don't play that game.

[sarcasm] But yeah you're right, a plane doing 500 mph has MUCH less KE and is easier to "throw" off course then one doing 200 mph. [sarcasm off]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Whodunnit
 


Let me try to make this as simple as possible, since you obviously never took a science class.

If you hit a pool of water at 5mph, no problem, you go for a nice swim. You hit a pool of water at 500mph, you're shark snacks. Any more questions there Mister Wizard?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Whodunnit
 


Cool video. Too bad it doesn't do anything for your case. It shows what happens when the plane flies over something. The people standing there were not in the thrust cone. Which only goes to prove that the picture posted must be accurate. The plane would have to have flown over the cable spools.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
If you hit a pool of water at 5mph, no problem, you go for a nice swim. You hit a pool of water at 500mph, you're shark snacks. Any more questions there Mister Wizard?


That's gotta be the WORST try at making a case that I've ever seen.

Let's try something a little closer, shall we?

Tap a wooden tomato stake with a baseball bat. The baseball bat will bounce off cuz its KE isn't enuf to break the stake. Take a full swing and the stake breaks, and the bat continues on its course with its path unchanged cuz its KE WAS enough.

This is like the plane. Too fast for anything to change its flight path. More KE.

Your turn Mr Magoo........



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Whodunnit
 


Cool video. Too bad it doesn't do anything for your case. It shows what happens when the plane flies over something. The people standing there were not in the thrust cone. Which only goes to prove that the picture posted must be accurate. The plane would have to have flown over the cable spools.



The people weren't in the thrust cone?


Tell you what, you've demonstrated with this post that you're not serious about anything, other than perfecting the fine art of trolling.

Have a good day.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Whodunnit
 


I'm still waiting for your proof on the the poles designed to break-away.

Your analogy is flawed. The molecular structure of the baseball bat is far stronger than tomato stake.

Either the plane would have been thrown off course by meeting with the poles, or the wings would have been ripped apart. Take your pic.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Irregardless of the engine condition, it does change the fact the government pulled 9/11. Hitler would be proud.

And stop fighting!! The wars out there man.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Oh, by the way Whodunit - welcome to ATS - I see you are new here.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by KMFNWO
reply to post by Whodunnit
 


As with most things in this argument, neither side will relent. So again, where did the two 6 ton engines impact the building? Why is this so difficult to answer? They were moving at 500mph. The damage should be quite easy to point out.



Absolutely 100% agree with you and this has been my question for awhile. I do lean toward a plane being used at the Pentagon, however I can't explain why there are no impressions of those engines and where the engines went.

Its really a simple question and to-date no-one has a good answer.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


There are arguments all around this 9/11 business, but IMHO the damage to the Pentagon is the slam dunk. It just doesn't work from any angle, and I cannot for the life of me understand why someone cannot provide an educated argument to refute the picture. It ALWAYS degenerates into name calling.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Whodunnit
 


sorry but two things are wrong with that video, one the A-10 was not at "full" power and two the engines were at the least 40 feet above the camera man.

the reason I say they were not at full power is because the A-10 was not under full combat load, it was not required for take off.

the A-10 is a sub sonic aircraft, it's designed to go slow for close air support of ground forces, ( and you can always look up the thrust ratio's, you will find the civilian aircraft engines will have a Higher thrust ratio because passenger aircraft are heavier then a fully loaded A-10 )

Oh and the water analogy is wrong too, because impacting SMOOTH water has surface tension, which makes it actually act More dense then concrete, which is why in High diving competitions you see a hose making ripples in the water, to break the surface tension.

traveling at 500MPH means that you cover 8.333 333 316 004 miles every 60 seconds, how can you connect to a cell tower going that fast?



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Cool video. Too bad it doesn't do anything for your case. It shows what happens when the plane flies over something. The people standing there were not in the thrust cone. Which only goes to prove that the picture posted must be accurate. The plane would have to have flown over the cable spools.

The people weren't in the thrust cone?


Tell you what, you've demonstrated with this post that you're not serious about anything, other than perfecting the fine art of trolling.

Have a good day.



But whodunnit, I thought you were the Troll...

[edit on 20-3-2008 by Pilot]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   
I'm sorry...is this thread about a new book that does not offer any theories, instead just points out the obvious lies and contradictions in the official story or is this thread about what hit the Pentagon? This is such a classic example of how to hijack a thread. Congrats to all who fell for it and congrats to the poster who caused it. A job well done. When will the petty bickering end?

This is actually ON TOPIC....

It's about time that someone took this approach. I have said it for 2 years now that the biggest problem with movies like Loose Change, the countless books, etc etc is that they all offer alternate theories. There is no need to do so. The "Truth" movements do not have to prove what happened, all they have to do is prove that what we are told does not add up. It is not our job to prove what actually happened when it is so much easier to prove what didn't happen. I don't care what hit the Pentagon, but I do care why this plane was not intercepted like it should have been. There are OBVIOUS problems with the official story and an OBVIOUS need to a new independent investigation. If the Official Story is the truth and nothing but the truth, then why not allow it? Does it make sense to ANYONE that more money was spent investigating the Lewinsky/Clinton scandal than what was spent investigating the largest terrorist attack in history? Does anyone wonder how Bill Clinton had to testify under oath about a blowjob, but Bush and company are not required to give public testimony, under oath, about what they did the day of 9/11? Regardless of if you believe the official story or not, these are things that should be a huge concern to anyone.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by MrWendal]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   
The more i see Bush sat in that school after being told that his country and people are under attack the more frustrated i get into why most f**kiing people are willing to turn a blind eye and not even question the whole 9/11. It was blatantly planned by the usa all to with creating more money, power and eventually bit by bit role into this new world order. Im British and have been convinced that Bush knew about this before it happend. I mean what person nevermind president would sit there in that classroom, still carrying on with the children. Who in the right mind would do that??? He should have been straight out of them doors sorting that # out. I was thinkin if it was here and London was bombed and there's Tony Blair (at the time) sat in a school not doing anything about it. People would be going mad and questioning him. But in the end WHO is going to prove that or question him? Will we ever know the truth? This all links to who controls the world, the major banks! Its all about money which i think is ridiculous, as women and child die for # all. Then why are the soldiers in Iraq if 9/11 wasnt planned by terrorists? Its all a front. If i was in the same position as Al Queda and was blamed for something we didnt do, then a foreign army comes along and tries to dictate, id do exactly the same and Fight for my country and not let any army come along and kill my people. Its a massive joke and we are powerless unless we all come together.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I at this point have no idea who exactly destroyed the WTC or the side of the Pentagon. I do Know though that the events of 9/11 lay squarely at the feet of multi antional Corps who have wrapped themselves in our Flag as Camoflague for Decades- thus endangering Our Ctiizens. Let's review the known facts- Targets hit 'World TRADE Ceneter', Thee Military Complex and although diverted the Seat of our 'leaders'...Military Industrial Complex- not the soft targets random terrorist would focus on to insite true Terror from A People they 'despise' or Loath for our Freedoms (they'd had hit an Omaha shopping Mall) . Nor ahve we had any 'soft' target attacks since- and let's not kid ourselves they could very easily if that was their goal. so Who is responsible for th eevents of 9/11 the Beast who wears a Logo.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join