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.

 

low flyby

page: 10
1
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Apparently you have no idea how much that plane weighed.


DO not change the subject, we are talking about what the plane is made of. NOT what it weighed.

You always have to change the subject when you are proven wrong don't you ?


[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, pot calling kettle....

The question wan't about what the airplane was made of, we know that already.

The original point, if I remember, was the ability of an airplane to fly fast, close to the ground. I think that's been answered as a solid YES!

NOW, this has devolved into a 'crusade', of sorts, two sides, stomping their feet, and snorting and standng their ground, and I think we can agree which side each is on.

I should gently back out of this discussion, and I will....because, it's gone too far off the rails, I don't want to make it worse.

WW



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Apparently you have no idea how much that plane weighed.


DO not change the subject, we are talking about what the plane is made of. NOT what it weighed.

You always have to change the subject when you are proven wrong don't you ?


[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


No one is changing the subject, but you are ignoring the reality. 60 tons, even if its all aluminum has a lot of force, inertia, momentum, whatever you want to call it. You are just grasping at straws to make things up. Get a clue.

WW is right. The lines are drawn, and I restate my point that I think certain people get off on these sorts of discussions.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The question wan't about what the airplane was made of, we know that already.


Yes it was, this is the post that Disclosed made and i provided a post with facts and evidence and he changed the subject from what the plane was made of to what it weighed.


Originally posted by Disclosed
Was the entire plane made of aluminum? 100% aluminum?
Very interesting....


Funny how you overlooked it.


[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisInfo
60 tons, even if its all aluminum has a lot of force, inertia, momentum, whatever you want to call it.


So show me the tons of debris that should be left if the plane was able to pentatrate the building.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes it was, this is the post that Disclosed made and i provided a post with facts and evidence and he changed the subject from what the plane was made of to what it weighed.


My post was in direct reference to this post by you:


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you would agree that the aluminum airframe would not have penatrated all the way through the Pentagon?


60 tons of plane....that would have to be one fricking super reinforced wall. I'd like to see where you got the idea the wall would sustain a 60 ton impact at 500mph and not penetrate.

[edit on 16-4-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
My post was in direct reference to this post by you:


But my post was to your post about the plane being made of aluminum..

So everyone can see that i proved my point and proved you wrong. Then you changed the post to weight.

But speaking of how much the plane wighed, where is all the debris that would have been left from that size plane if it made it into the building?

But then agina you probably do not even know how the wall was constucted.


[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But my post was to your post about the plane being made of aluminum..

So everyone can see that i proved my point and proved you wrong. Then you changed the post to weight.


Are you saying in your original post that aluminum was weightless then?? The impact/penetration has as much to do with weight as it does the material itself.

The only way you can prove me wrong then is showing proof that the Pentagon walls can withstand a 60 ton 500mph projectile....and not allow penetration.

I think you will find your "research" on this matter is very very wrong. Basic physics prove your theory wrong. Dang that science always getting in the way of CT'ers.

Just posting the truth. Not twisting it to fit some conspiracy theory....

[edit on 16-4-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed


I refuse to answer misquotes. It shows a very immature peson.

If you want to have a discussion do not twist and misquote my post.

[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I refuse to answer misquotes. It shows a very immature peson.

If you want to have a discussion do not twist and misquote my post.


Mis-quote? People can scroll back and see exactly what you posted. I'm quoting your exact words.

A mis-quote would be like me quoting you saying "I think euro teens were responsible for 9/11 and can prove it".

However, linking your exact quote....your words....is just that.

It is not our fault that you cannot back up your posts with actual facts and data.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Mis-quote? People can scroll back and see exactly what you posted.


Yes people can see that i never posted anything about aluminum being weightless. Why must you lie and misquote?


Originally posted by Disclosed
Are you saying in your original post that aluminum was weightless then??


[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes people can see that i never posted anything about aluminum being weightless.


Apparently you must think so....since you don't think 60 tons of weight, moving at 500mph, would not be able to penetrate a wall. You keep sounding like you expected the plane to just bounce off...like a racquetball hitting a wall. This isnt fantasy....this is real world, with real world physics.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Apparently you must think so....

this is real world, with real world physics.


No i do not think so, and i have never stated it. So why lie and misquote me?

Yes this is real world physics that state composite and aluminum will not penatrate through a buidling.


[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Yes this is real world physics that state composite and aluminum will not penatrate through a buidling.


60 tons of it? 60 tons....

Please show me what physics you are using to come up with that....



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes people can see that i never posted anything about aluminum being weightless.


Apparently you must think so....since you don't think 60 tons of weight, moving at 500mph, would not be able to penetrate a wall. You keep sounding like you expected the plane to just bounce off...like a racquetball hitting a wall. This isnt fantasy....this is real world, with real world physics.


His other suggestion is that the aluminum and other parts of the plane would still be there. I know that aluminum can burn down to nothing. Take an aluminum can outside and take a blow torch to it. It will burn up into ash like substance.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisInfo
His other suggestion is that the aluminum and other parts of the plane would still be there.


Now you misquote me. Seems like an ongoing thing with people that believe the official story.

I never stated aluminum parts would survive. Please quote me stating this, becasue if you cannot it shows what a liar you are.

Why do you have to lie and misquote?



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I never stated aluminum parts would survive. Please quote me stating this, becasue if you cannot it shows what a liar you are.


Hang on a sec....you yourself stated that the plane was mostly made of aluminum. Plus you were asking for proof of aircraft debris. Now you are stating aluminum parts wouldnt survive?

if aluminum wouldnt survive...there would be no debris...thus answering your own question.

Please read the posts.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by DisInfo
60 tons, even if its all aluminum has a lot of force, inertia, momentum, whatever you want to call it.


So show me the tons of debris that should be left if the plane was able to pentatrate the building.



We are not misquoting you. You are repeating that over and over again because your claims are flimsy at best. The debris was removed to recover bodies. Before that, there was a thing called a fire that must have been a real bitch.

Just keep repeating that we are misquoting you and lying, cause it must be true, you troll.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Please just show us the 60 tons of plane debris at the pentagon. Thread derailing and personal attacks will not solve anything. We know there was no raging inferno at the pentagon like was claimed for the WTC buildings. All the aluminum, titanium etc didn't burn up, so how did 60 tons of plane turn into a few parts that a couple of guys could carry? How about the engines, only 2 internal pieces of those massive engines survived?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Hang on a sec....you yourself stated that the plane was mostly made of aluminum. Plus you were asking for proof of aircraft debris. Now you are stating aluminum parts wouldnt survive?


Are you really stating that you do not understand the difference between debris and parts?

Do i need to post the definition of debris and parts?


Originally posted by DisInfo
We are not misquoting you.


The show me where i stated aluminum parts would survive. Or just admit you misquoted me.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join