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: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Common sense says otherwise.


Common sense states that if the plane hit the generator it would have at least casued the wing to hit the ground before hitting the building.

So we should see more debris around the generator.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND, once you aim a Boeing 757 at a target on the ground, if you are so inclined, then a silly light pole or two ain't gonna make much difference, given that said light pole(s) were clipped about less than a second before the real impact!!!


But hitting the poles and generator make the plane miss the building and hit the ground not casing the damage wanted.


Hey, Stephen Hawking, look up inertia sometime. Striking almost anything with any part of the plane at that speed ultimately doesnt and didnt matter. The only way that plane would have stopped is if it hit a solid wall....oh yeah, it did. Your trying to use Arlen Specter/Warren Commission physics here.

[edit on 4/15/2008 by DisInfo]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisInfo The only way that plane would have stopped is if it hit a solid wall....


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



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by DisInfo The only way that plane would have stopped is if it hit a solid wall....


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



I say again, INERTIA. When that plane hit, it didnt have to go all the way through. It created missiles out of concrete and other solid objects. After all, you say it was going 500MPH. An empty 757 weighs 127520 pounds, or about 63 tons, a fully loaded on about twice that. I dont know the calculations, but it seems to me that thats an awful lot of mass to just fold up like the French army and do nothing.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Common sense says otherwise.


Common sense states that if the plane hit the generator it would have at least casued the wing to hit the ground before hitting the building.

So we should see more debris around the generator.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Show us a picture of the generator, after it got hit.

show us the pictures of the frangible light poles.

Or, just keep showing the same old pics, and forget to show us the facade of the ring that got hit. Try showing those pics, please.

WW



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Or, just keep showing the same old pics, and forget to show us the facade of the ring that got hit.


I am still waiting for people that keep on stating that Flight 77 hit the Petnagon to show real pics and real evidence.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisInfo
When that plane hit, it didnt have to go all the way through. It created missiles out of concrete and other solid objects. .


Please show me these missiles. What happened to them?



[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by DisInfo
When that plane hit, it didnt have to go all the way through. It created missiles out of concrete and other solid objects. .


Please show me these missiles. What happened to them?



[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


I used missiles as a play on words. A missile doesnt have to be something with a warhead. Missiles can really be anything that are hurled or thrown. The concrete became missiles. As to what happened to them, use your imagination, you have for this entire thread.
Missile

[edit on 4/15/2008 by DisInfo]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisInfo
I used missiles as a play on words. A missile doesnt have to be something with a warhead.


Yes i know.

But show me these things you were talking about.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by DisInfo
I used missiles as a play on words. A missile doesnt have to be something with a warhead.


Yes i know.

But show me these things you were talking about.


They probably look a lot like this:




[edit on 4/15/2008 by DisInfo]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

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


Was the entire plane made of aluminum? 100% aluminum?

Very interesting....



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   

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


Oh, i keep forgetting you know nothing about planes..In fact you do not know much about what happened on 9/11.

Please do research before posting. The plane is MOSTLY made of aluminum.

www.janes.com...

Structure
Aluminium alloy two-spar fail-safe wing box; centre-section continuous through fuselage; ailerons, flaps and spoilers extensively of honeycomb, graphite composites and laminates; tailplane has full-span light alloy torque boxes; fin has three-spar, dual-cell light alloy torque box; elevators and rudder have graphite/epoxy honeycomb skins supported by honeycomb and laminated spar and rib assemblies; CFRP wing/fuselage and flap track fairings. All landing gear doors of CFRP/Kevlar.




[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Yeah a bunch of aluminum that has anywhere from 60 to 90 tons of force.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisInfo
Yeah a bunch of aluminum that has anywhere from 60 to 90 tons of force.


That would be shredded on impact as shown many, many times.

Please show me any photos, videos that show an aluminum airframe would make it through the amount of material it was supposed to have gone through at the Pentagon. Do you know the construction of the walls ?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Short of getting my own 757 and crashing it into the Pentagon, your right. However, since I wouldnt do that, the onus is on you to prove that it was a conspiracy, or contrary to the official report.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisInfo
However, since I wouldnt do that, the onus is on you to prove that it was a conspiracy, or contrary to the official report.



Oh i thought you had all the math and physics to figure it out,, at least you always talk like it. If you state that it was a 757 then the onus is on you to prove it.

Why would i need to prove a conspiracy when i am looking for the truth not a conspiracy?



[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by DisInfo
However, since I wouldnt do that, the onus is on you to prove that it was a conspiracy, or contrary to the official report.



Oh i thought you had all the math and physics to figure it out,, at least you always talk like it. If you state that it was a 757 then the onus is on you to prove it.

Why would i need to prove a conspiracy when i am looking for the truth not a conspiracy?
[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


I never said I had the formulas to figure it out, I just present the numbers like you try to do, only with actual numbers.

In any case, your getting your rocks off doing this on two different threads. I understand defending your territory since you did come up with the lame sim in the first place.

LIke I said, I dont have a spare 757 parked out back to prove it, so I guess your top hat here.

[edit on 4/15/2008 by DisInfo]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisInfo
I never said I had the formulas to figure it out, I just present the numbers like you try to do, only with actual numbers.


So where are these actual numbers you have? Can't you use them to figure it out ?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The plane is MOSTLY made of aluminum.


Apparently you have no idea how much that plane weighed. Perhaps you would be interested in knowing that EMPTY, the plane weighs around 127,000 pounds. Not including fuel, passengers, luggage, etc.

Was the Pentagon wall designed to absorb 127,000+ pounds, travelling at 500mph?

Common sense tells the world....no. Conspiracy theorist such as yourself feel the need to avoid such logic.

Research...try it.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Which produces 1455104000 joules of energy. Not really sure what thats equal to, but there are the numbers you keep crying about ULTIMA.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join