Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes, page 56
Pages: <<  53    54    55    56    57    58    59  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 01:57 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA, thank you (?) I think, for answering???

You snipped a piece out of my question, yet failed to thoroughly respond to my entire question.

Oh, wait! Your answer was "We don't know" the answer.

Did I get that correctly??

Here's what I think you said, as an 'answer'. "We don't know" what hit the Pentagon. This is the basis for your debates, here on ATS. If you are finding true, verifiable 'cracks in the armor' of the 'official' story, then please provide solid, verifiable evidence....not just guesses and innuendo.

You have an audience, here, who are looking for solid, solid stuff to bite into. We are ready, willing, and able to jump onboard, if it is undeniable. In the meantime....it is all whitewash, IMO.


reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 02:12 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by ULTIMA1


Again, what a beautiful dodge and weave maneuver!!! Answer the darn question, please!



reply posted on 9-6-2008 @ 08:31 AM by Pilgrum
reply to post by ULTIMA1


My sources are your linked jet engine simulator, your estimate of the spread of high turbulence behind a jet engine, witness statements about the degree of blast they felt in their cars, height of the plane above the carriageway as evidenced by the damaged light poles and the negative pitch as described by witnesses + recorded by the DFDR although, as I showed earlier, that part of the flight was not actually recorded and the last readable frame of recorded data was from over 2000' prior to it crossing the road.

That's why I ask if you have any better figures I could use particularly in relation to AA77's RB211 turbines.

You must have better data to come to a different conclusion than I have unless you're agreeing that the degree of turbulence witnesses felt fits the low altitude crossing of a descending aircraft at high speed.

In fact it's still unclear what you're trying to show in this thread but it's looking like a pretty good case for an aircraft hitting the Pentagon so far.


reply posted on 9-6-2008 @ 11:42 AM by HLR53K
reply to post by Pilgrum


I can see Ultima's answer being:

"We don't know what hit the Pentagon because the FBI hasn't released all the information yet"

and

"It's not [AA Flight 77] because we don't have any serial numbers"

It's nice that he's asking questions, but I'm kind of getting tired of seeing the same canned response to the specific questions we ask him. No real response to address our questions to him, just a blanket statement that doesn't really solve anything.

Though I am curious as to why he's arguing so passionately in this thread that a large aircraft passed over the witnesses he says, but then says that no large aircraft could have been involved at the Pentagon.

I mean all this in no ill-terms. I just want to see some progressive reasoning instead of the same stuff over and over.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by HLR53K]


reply posted on 9-6-2008 @ 12:08 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by HLR53K


HLR....you've asked a good question there. I am hoping to draw out more specific info from ULTIMA as well. 'canned responses'.....perfect description.

This concept of 'Serial Numbers' seems to be a red herring, IMO. The DFDR and CVR have already been identified as belonging to the correct airframe, the airframe that was AAL 77.

I, and others, have noted that as to landing gear wheels, there are no specific SNs assigned to them, just Part Numbers. There would be SNs on the instruments, the electronics in the E&E compartment, etc. Doubt very much those small labels, one or two inches in length, would have survived the impact and fires. The major airframe components, aluminum fuselage sections, etc, would not be labeled with a SN. Other components .... hydraulic pumps, actuators....fuel pumps, accumulators....possibly, but again, how would those placards still be readable?

BTW...had a thought, not for this particular thread, but food for the mind to chew on...at the WTC a huge debunking claim is the 'wrong' engine was found. Not sure I've EVER SEEN anyone mention the APU in the B767. It is very, very similar in size to the B737 core SNEMCA engine....could this be the source of this 'conspiracy theory', as relates to the WTC??
Pages: <<  53    54    55    56    57    58    59  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags