Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

page: 55
1
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
1. You have not.

2. You have not chosen to acknowledge the evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.


Gee it so fun and easy to prove you wrong.

1. Just a few sources i have posted that show the MAJORITY of fuel was burned off.

911research.wtc7.net...

Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the Tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.


www.firehouse.com...

A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage. But the rest of the fuel quickly snaked across floors and down elevator shafts, setting ablaze furniture, computers, paper files and the planes' cargo.


jnocook.net...

I believe the intensity of the fire (as it relates to building collapse) was comparable to a heavy ordinary combustible fire after the explosion dissipated much of the jet fuel.



2. What evidence? As stated much of the evidence has not been released, so no actual evidence has been shown.



[edit on 4-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Again, none of your citations support the following statements you've made (I pulled only from the "9/11: What Evidence..." thread for this example; I know there were more)


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Reports state the majority of the fuel was burned off OUTSIDE the buildings.

Also rpeorts that state the majority of the fuel burned off OUTSIDE the buildings causing no structuiral damage

Also i have many other facts and evidence from reports that state that the majority of jet fuel was burned off outside the buildings


I'm forced to think that you don't actually know what the word "majority" means, or that it means something different to you than most students of the english language.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well then why can't you agree that if the plane was low enough to hit an antenna it would rock the cars on the highway?


What's the problem then?
The witnesses decribed the effect of the aircraft flying over them with a -ve pitch which places the worst of the blast in the air above them, not directed straight at them. Also the speed of the aircraft was about 700'/second.



There is no actual evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.


Well actually there is. It's the flight data recorder which has been officially certified as the genuine article found in the wreckage at the Pentagon. Now I can understand desperate attempts to deny or discredit it if there's an agenda at stake but still it exists.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I'm forced to think that you don't actually know what the word "majority" means, or that it means something different to you than most students of the english language.


Why do you ignore the facts and evidence posted?

What evidence will it take for you to be man enough to admit i have posted evidnece to support the statement that the majority of fuel was burned off outside the buildings?

Please read the following quote as long as it takes for you to understand or
get someone to help you understand it.


A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage.






[edit on 6-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Well actually there is. It's the flight data recorder which has been officially certified as the genuine article found in the wreckage at the Pentagon.


You mean the FDR that questions the official stories flight path and alitude ?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Why do you ignore the facts and evidence posted?

What evidence will it take for you to be man enough to admit i have posted evidnece to support the statement that the majority of fuel was burned off outside the buildings?

Please read the following quote as long as it takes for you to understand or
get someone to help you understand it.



A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage.



It's clear you have no idea what "majority" or "most" means or that you are trolling. Please stop. We've already danced this dance. Nowhere can you find a source saying the majority was burned in the initial fire ball outside the building. Several sources have said "a large portion" or "a third". Neither of those indicate a "majority." This consumed several pages on atleast one thread. Enough.
Thanks for the personal attack though. I wouldn't expect less. I'm sure the latest round of moderation has emboldened you.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

You mean the FDR that questions the official stories flight path and alitude ?



You once said, when I asked recently, that you would accept reports from official sources. Does this still hold true?

Because the presence of the FDR, found by official sources, and reported by official sources, confirm it was 77.

The only thing that is questionable is the dubious ability to correctly interpret the data on the FDR, by those that will never accept official reports, regardless of their statements to the contrary.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
It's clear you have no idea what "majority" or "most" means or that you are trolling. Please stop.


Its clear you have no idea what LARGE QUANITY means. Please stop ignoring all the facts and evidence that states that the MAJORITY of the fuel was burned off in the intial explosion and caused no structural damage.

I have and can post severasl sources that state the majority of fuel was burned off and you cannot deabte it.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Because the presence of the FDR, found by official sources, and reported by official sources, confirm it was 77.


Funny though how the FDR is the only part that has been identified as being from AA77 but the data does not match the official story.

Why can't they match all the other parts and debris that supposidly was found at the Pentagon to AA77 ?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


"A lot", "Much of" or "a third" do not mean "most" or a "majority." Why are you even arguing this?




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
"A lot", "Much of" or "a third" do not mean "most" or a "majority." Why are you even arguing this?


Why are you arguing against all the facts and evidence that you cannot debate?

Whats it take to get through your closed mind?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Funny though how the FDR is the only part that has been identified as being from AA77 but the data does not match the official story.

Why can't they match all the other parts and debris that supposidly was found at the Pentagon to AA77 ?



1- sez you. NTSB says the data is fine and that there is no contradiction. They are the official source that you said you would accept. They are qualified to make this decision. You are not.

2- Why should they? The serial numbers match. The NTSB says so. They are the official source and it's in their report. You said that you would accept official reports as true. You're asking for multiple sources of confirmation, when that isn't necessary. Basically, what you're asking for is ridiculous. It's like having a wife id her husbands body at the morgue. Then, to be really sure, you want the mom and dad to id the body. Then to be really, REALLY sure, you want friends to id the body. Then, to be really, really, REALLY sure, you want the body fingerprinted. Then, to be really, really, really, REALLY sure, you want a DNA match. One confirmation is enough.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
"A lot", "Much of" or "a third" do not mean "most" or a "majority." Why are you even arguing this?

Whats it take to get through your closed mind?


It would take evidence that "majority" means less than half the total, I guess...

It's mind boggling.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2- Why should they? The serial numbers match. The NTSB says so.


Please show me 1 report from the NTSB that matches the parts found at the Pentagon to AA77.

I will be waiting.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
It would take evidence that "majority" means less than half the total, I guess...


When does a large quanity mean less then half ????????????

Large Quanity = majority.

Please explain what this means.


Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash,


[edit on 6-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, I am going to take a big swallow of courage juice, and try to pose a question that I hope you can answer.

If American Airlines flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, what actually caused the damage?

That's the question. Perhaps I should have posed it on another thread, but it seems appropriate here, too.

There has been so much dancing around the issue, "Is There a Jet Blast?" or "Isn't There?".....blah, blah... Let's get back to brass tacks. Did a Boeing 757-200 crash, while being intentionally flown by suicidal hijackers/terrorists, into the Pentagon on 11 September 2001??

If there was no Boeing 757-200, then what caused the damage? AND, where is the airplane, crew and passengers now?

May we please answer these questions?

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Please show me 1 report from the NTSB that matches the parts found at the Pentagon to AA77.

I will be waiting.




The serial number for the FDR matches. It's in the official report. You said you would accept official reports as being true. They are qualified to make these decisions. You are not.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The serial number for the FDR matches. It's in the official report.


I did not ask for the FDR. I asked for matches for the parts found at the Pentagon.

If they matched the FDR then they should be able to match the rest of the parts found, CORRECT? Why would the FDR be the only part matached?

Still waiting for a report that matches PARTS found to AA77.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
If American Airlines flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, what actually caused the damage.


As i have stated numerous times, we do not know what hit the Pentagon because most of the evidence has not been released.

FAA records show the plane was destoyed but not how, when or where.

DNA records show passengers are dead but no evindece that they were in the building.









[edit on 6-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Why would the FDR be the only part matached?



Why would they need to match more?

What you're asking for is a ridiculous level of confirmation. See my previous post for an example.

One confirmation of plane parts is enough, when you pair that with confirmation of DNA id. Which, BTW, is from another official report - a report that you said would accept as true.

So now there's 2 levels of scientifically proof, from official sources that you said you would accept as true. That's enough confirmation that it definitely was 77.






top topics



 
1
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join