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.

 

Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

page: 16
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, most of the 'official' story has nothing to do with 'eyewitnesses'....


Most of the official story of what happened at the Pentagon is based on eywitness testimony.

I have seen no official reports and physical evidence, mostly only witness testimony.

ULTIMA....I've made it clear, before, that I acknowledge your service in the USAF

But, just being a 'crew dog' doesn't mean you have the full knowledge of a pilot, or a fire fighter, nor do you have the full view of the area of impact...

I am not a fire fighter, but I am a pilot...and I saw the area of impact, for months after September 11, 2001....until they tarped it over, and that only happened during the re-construction....no money was spared to re-build within one year....'course, money wan't being diverted to Iraq then....

BUT, even undr the tarp, they were re-building, feverishly.




posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
The other thing I've noticed about Ultima is that he says:

"I've not seen any evidence..."

Just because you don't believe it's evidence and quickly dismiss it doesn't mean that it isn't.

If it is indeed complete BS as you say it is, then how come there still are people that even at your bidding to "do research", "file FOIA forms", and "dig deeper for the truth" still come to the conclusion that the official evidence is still plausible?

Just to make sure, I'm not talking about the people who blindly go with the media, as you like to say. I'm talking about the ones who have personal experience to compare to or have done the same research as you have.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
If it is indeed complete BS as you say it is, then how come there still are people that even at your bidding to "do research", "file FOIA forms", and "dig deeper for the truth" still come to the conclusion that the official evidence is still plausible?


If people are fileing FOIA request and digging deeper then why aren't the showing the evidence of this?

Are they afraid it does not support ther official story?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
[ULTIMA....I've made it clear, before, that I acknowledge your service in the USAF.


Whats that got to do with the fact of the offiicial story at the pentagon being based on witness testimony?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

If people are fileing FOIA request and digging deeper then why aren't the showing the evidence of this?

Are they afraid it does not support ther official story?


Obviously there's red tape in the way, that's aways a given. But the other thought is that for some parts, maybe there isn't anything new to find aside from the official story?

Sure there are holes and gaps, but I don't believe every last bit of it is complete BS. And if we as regular citizens with no ties to the government find something new, we'll post it. We have nothing to fear (no job security, etc.).

Hey, if we are digging and find something that goes against the official story, we're not afraid of posting it just because it goes against it. But we have to question it just as much as we question the official story. Just because it goes against it doesn't automatically put it in the "truth" column.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
But we have to question it just as much as we question the official story.


But i do not see many people questioning the official story, people are too busy questioning anything that goes against the official story then questioning the official story.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But i do not see many people questioning the official story, people are too busy questioning anything that goes against the official story then questioning the official story.


Wow this has gotten way off topic. Oh well, it's your thread.

Aside from what I think is a majority of the population who has the "it happened, lets move on" mentality, people like to side with the official story because well, they have an explanation for almost everything. And on the first glance, everything seems well and in order.

The far side guys that think things like holograms and drones being used, while the real airplanes were sunk off the coast (sounds like Lost doesn't it?) don't really help the image of the Truthers.

It's not as much people feverishly defending the official story (there are people on that side), it's society as a whole stereotyping the Conspiracy Theorists as wacked out nutjobs, that make us want to dismiss the things they say.

The one thing I don't like are the people that find "evidence" from someone else's simple-host site (like those that switch to ads randomly) and claim it's the end-all to the debate at hand. These are mostly like also the ones that won't budge an inch even if faced with overwhelming opposing reason or other facts. Both sides are guilty of this.

In the end, it doesn't matter how much "research" and "non-media believing" you do and tell everyone to do, Ultima. You and all of us are still getting the information second-hand (and ironically, through a forms of media). The only way a vast majority of what happened can be proved is if someone invests the money and sets up a scaled experiment. And we all know the likelyhood of that happening...



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 


HLR, since you mentioned 'Lost'....

Was it last season, they tried to show the jet 'breaking-up' in flight?

Complete BS, since if the airplane broke apart as depicted, the tail section would not just continue on, as depicted.

In a normal flight dynamic, there are two forces acting vertically on an airplane. One, obviously is gravity, and it is considered to act through the C/G, or Center of Gravity. Then, we have Lift, of course....and it is considered to act through a theoritical C/L, or center of lift.

To remqain stable, an airplane must have the C/G forward of the C/L....hence, the horizontal stabilizer, the purpose of which, besides using the elevators for changing pitch, also provides a continuous 'downward' force....remember, the C/G is forward of the C/L, so the HZ balances.

Hence, if the airplane in 'Lost' broke apart where it did, the previously downward force of the HZ would cause the tail section to veer up wildly, and it would then tumble to the ground...or ocean...as the case may be.

WW



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Haha! Very nice!

I was more referring to when they revealed that the airline crash was entirely staged for the "outsiders". A plane was bought, hundreds of bodies dug up and the whole thing sunk into an unsalvagable trench in the ocean.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
people like to side with the official story because well, they have an explanation for almost everything.


NO, thats the problem. There is no explanation for almost everything.

I have stated this many times. Their are no official reports, real facts or evidence that supports the official story.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 


NO....HLR....that is what the writers of 'Lost' came up with.

We call it 'fiction'....

As I recall, though....the writers had to deal with the 'survivors', even though the 'official' story had been planted....hmmmmm

It's been almost seven years, IvanZana....and no 'survivors' from UAL93, nor UAL175, nor AAL 11, Nor AAL 77 have turned up? Hmmmmmmm....

Hmmmmmmm............................

Well, consider.....



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by HLR53K
 


NO....HLR....that is what the writers of 'Lost' came up with.

We call it 'fiction'....

As I recall, though....the writers had to deal with the 'survivors', even though the 'official' story had been planted....hmmmmm

It's been almost seven years, IvanZana....and no 'survivors' from UAL93, nor UAL175, nor AAL 11, Nor AAL 77 have turned up? Hmmmmmmm....

Hmmmmmmm............................

Well, consider.....


Whoa, whoa, whoa! Friendly fire! All I was trying to do was make a little joke.

I know Lost is completely fiction. I remember watching that episode and drew the parallel to how far-fetched the whole "drones and holograms" theory was. Just like how on Lost they went to great lengths to fake that plane crash.

I know what's real life and what's fiction.

I'll state for the record that I personally don't believe in the "drones and holograms" theory.



Originally posted by ULTIMA1

NO, thats the problem. There is no explanation for almost everything.

I have stated this many times. Their are no official reports, real facts or evidence that supports the official story.



Once again, you miss my point. An explanation is an explanation. Whether it's the truth or not, is completely different and what everyone's trying to find out.

What you're saying is that their explanation is false. Regardless of what you believe, the official story is still an explanation. It's one of many explanations of what happened that day.

To be honest, it's biased people like you, Ultima, that leads me to believe that it's no wonder why there's this big divide. For someone that's advocating digging for the truth, it seems like you've already decided what's "true" and what's not.

I'm sorry, Ultima, but no one made you judge, jury, and executioner.

[edit on 22-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
To be honest, it's biased people like you,


How is looking for the truth biased ?

The only biased people are the people that only believe what they have been told and will not accept facts and evindece that is presented to them.

I have shown lots of facts and evidence that questions the official story yet some people will not accept it, they want to live in a safe fantasy world.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

How is looking for the truth biased ?

The only biased people are the people that only believe what they have been told and will not accept facts and evindece that is presented to them.

I have shown lots of facts and evidence that questions the official story yet some people will not accept it, they want to live in a safe fantasy world.





Then they are problematic too. But like I said, both sides should be questioned equally.

Just because it's something other than the official story doesn't mean that it's automatically correct and should just be accepted without question. Why can't you accept people questioning your "facts and evidence"?

It's phrases you call the official story like "safe fantasy world" that lead me to believe that your mind's already made up about the whole thing. Hence, you're biased. It seems like you're not as much digging for the truth as you are digging for any and everything that can refute the official story.

Take this thread for example. You're asking questions about the possibility of the engines overheating and jet blast which do nothing to prove or disprove that an airplane hit the Pentagon. Yet you use it as "evidence" that one didn't?

[edit on 23-4-2008 by HLR53K]

[edit on 23-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Why can't you accept people questioning your "facts and evidence"?


I do not have a problem with people questioning my facts and evidence, its only when they question my facts and evidence with no facts and evidence to debate mine and do not question the official stories facts and evidence.



[edit on 23-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
We're running in useless circles here. But I will end with this.

I've seen plenty of people debate you using the same FAA, NIST, etc. reports that you use as a basis for your argument. If you call that "no real facts or evidence", does that not equally apply to you if you cite those sources?


I think whatever vague questions this thread asked has been answered, even though you never told use specifically which part of the Pentagon official story you're debating.

Could a CF6 turbofan engine overheat past 480 mph at an altitude of 60 feet? Maybe.

Does any of all this prove or disprove that the Pentagon was hit by a passenger airliner? No, it does neither. Unless the official story was that the airliner was flying at 60 feet for an extended amount of time, it's irrelevant to the matter.

Though I do thank you for showing me this applet. It could make my life easier when I do some propulsion calculations in the future!

[edit on 23-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 



Star for you, HLR!!

ULTIMA is on a crusade, of sorts, it seems....

Every piece of evidence shows that AAL77 could hit the Pentagon.

The DFDR shows the data....I have it in front of me as I type this....

I was a freakin' suicide mission!!!

I cry for the children, and their families. I cry for the F/O, since I knew him, and went to his Funeral Service, in DC.

To ULTIMA....phhhffft!

You are a sick, sick person to not understand that people died!

You, who think you know so much! Come out to DC, go meet the families that lost loved ones!!!

ULTIMA, come on out to DC. Meet the families. Tell them, the ones who lost their CHILDREN how you can prove to them it was faked!!!

Look them in the eyes, and tell them.

Then, come back to ATS and tell us about your experience.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I've seen plenty of people debate you using the same FAA, NIST, etc. reports that you use as a basis for your argument.


I only use the FAA, NIST and other reports that the people that beleive the official story use, but i use them to question the official story.

Funny how the same reports that they use to support the official story i can use to question the official story.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I only use the FAA, NIST and other reports that the people that beleive the official story use, but i use them to question the official story.

Funny how the same reports that they use to support the official story i can use to question the official story.


But yet you still cite them as a source to further your theories. If you can use them, why can't the other side?

Funny how the same reports and sites you use to support your theory are the same reports and sites they use to question your theory.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
If you can use them, why can't the other side.



The fact is i mainly use professional and government research sites to get my facts and information.

But agencies like NIST have been proven to question the official story, not to mention that NIST has been proven to have made mistakes.

Nist failed to do any testing for explosives or chemicals, they also failed to recover any steel from building 7.




[edit on 24-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join