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.

 

FOUR Napalm bombs were attached to the fuselage

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
You do realize that aircraft build up huge static charges in flight right? When they land they are dissipated into the ground. The towers were huge lightning rods, causing the charge to jump from the nose of the plane to the buildings.




posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeaceUk
I still don't believe the government would do this to it's own citizens.


Why not? It's only about 3000 people. More people die every year in car accidents. How many millions of their own people did the Germans kill, or the Russians, for reasons that seem much more enigmatic?


Not to mention, we aren't exactly known to be the most thoughtful or compassionate country anymore. And that's me being facetious.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


Just because it´s banned doesn´t mean it isn´t used.
Napalm is little more than gasoline mixed with polystyrene, I have made it myself in my youthful indescretion.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
So that implies that the govt did the 9/11 attacks.

Where is your proof that the govt performed these attacks?


Are for real? How old are you, for real?

I never stated the government performed the attacks, there is not enough evidnece of that. BUT there is enough evidence that the governemnt had plenty of warnings about the attacks.

Just like the government had warnings of the attack on Pearl Harbor.



No Ultima, you have never stated the government performed the attacks, but you often state that anyone who believes the official story (i.e. government story) is gullible, and just believes whatever is fed to them
by the media.

So if those who believe the official story are being misled by the government , and if the government did not perform the attacks, who did?

And why?

I appreciate your efforts in this search for the truth, so please answer my questions...

1) Who was behind the attacks?
2) What were the goals of the attacks?



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You do realize that aircraft build up huge static charges in flight right?


Well i do not know about airliners but the military planes i worked on had static dischargers so they did not build up static charges in flight.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
1) Who was behind the attacks?
2) What were the goals of the attacks?


1. We do not know who was behind the attacks because most of the evidence has not been released. Anyone who says they do know who was behind them and what happend that day are just using opinions and not facts.

2. We all pretty much know terrorism was the goal of the attacks, now if it was foreign or domestic terrorism is the question.



[edit on 30-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Static dischargers limit the charge, they don't completely eliminate it. There is still SOME static charge being built up, and the towers were wonderful lightning rods for that left over charge.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You do realize that aircraft build up huge static charges in flight right?


Well i do not know about airliners but the military planes i worked on had static dischargers so they did not build up static charges in flight.



Well I tend to go with the theory of it being the aluminum particles that are bursting into a flash of fiery light. My own reasoning for this is the video of the F4 crashing into the cement barrier(Im sure we have all seen before). If you watch this video again you see these same exact very fast explosions. I would encourage anyone bothered by that anomaly to research that hypothesis.

911review.com... 9-11 Review explains it well with links to technical sites.

www.jokeroo.com... -Link to video of F4 vs wall video (first impact sequence (rt to lt impact) shows the best imo)



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432
reply to post by PeaceUk
 

your sure the government wouldn`t do this to their own people...huh?

there is something mounted on the bottom of the plane....
and in both planes hits you can see a flash comming from
the front of the object just before impact.....what is it???




I'm not 100% sure that what the flash is, but I have something that might explain it. The 767's on 9/11 were traveling roughly the speed of a .45 cal bullet when they impacted. When two rigid bodies come into contact at these speeds there is an instant transfer of kinetic energy into heat energy. Watch any video of a high speed balistics test and you will see these same flashes. I personally think that this is much more beleivable than the missle/pods theory. I just don't think the benifits of using extra munitions outweigh the risk of getting caught. The 767's hitting the towers caused enough damage on their own, why risk using missles and getting caught?



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shotabel

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You do realize that aircraft build up huge static charges in flight right?


Well i do not know about airliners but the military planes i worked on had static dischargers so they did not build up static charges in flight.



Well I tend to go with the theory of it being the aluminum particles that are bursting into a flash of fiery light. My own reasoning for this is the video of the F4 crashing into the cement barrier(Im sure we have all seen before). If you watch this video again you see these same exact very fast explosions. I would encourage anyone bothered by that anomaly to research that hypothesis.

911review.com... 9-11 Review explains it well with links to technical sites.

www.jokeroo.com... -Link to video of F4 vs wall video (first impact sequence (rt to lt impact) shows the best imo)


That second video shows it very clearly. Evidently there were no explosives involved in that video, plus it looked exactly like the flash from the second tower impact. Also, did no one notice that that flash did not look like the other "explosions" that occured during the collapse, and unlike the other ones it was the only one that occured at that moment on that level, no more were to be seem until the collapse. There is no doubt in my mind that the towers were brought down only by planes, whether the US government let it happen is still up for debate but I don't believ that either. Yet.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by W35M4N
There is no doubt in my mind that the towers were brought down only by planes, whether the US government let it happen is still up for debate but I don't believ that either. Yet.


Well why do so many reports state that the towers withstood the plane impacts and only the fires brought down the towers?

But then as other reports state no steel buidling has ever collapsed from fire no matter how severe.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



Well why do so many reports state that the towers withstood the plane impacts and only the fires brought down the towers?

But then as other reports state no steel buidling has ever collapsed from fire no matter how severe.


Which reports state only the fires brought the towers down? None of the reports state that. You are making it sound like the planes themselves did not play a factor in the collapse at all, when in reality they did. They did structural damage, and loosened crucial fireproofing on steel beams. True, the impacts alone did not cause the collapse. But the reports also state the fires ALONE did not cause the collapse.

Did the other buildings in your other reports also have jetliners crash into them at high speeds? if not, then you are comparing apples to oranges.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Which reports state only the fires brought the towers down? None of the reports state that. .


Several reports i have shown state that the buildings withstood the plane impacts and only the fires caused the collapse. In fact the NIST report is the only report that states it was combination of plane impacts and fire.

I have also shown several steel buildings that had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the towers and building 7 and did not collapse.



[edit on 2-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
very interesting.
when you zoom in on the plane just before it hits, You can
really see the objects mounted to the bottom of the plane..

I always thought they were missiles ... but now that you say napalm..
wow...that makes a lot of sense.

theres no way that its a regular american airlines plane.
and theres no way that its a normal 767.. it is outfitted with
objects attached to the bottom...you can see them with your own
eyes..





thats what the flash is...not a static discharge...
and also what gets me to is take a look at the tail fin..
why is it shadowed ?...it should be lit by the sun
and even more strange is that whats that white circle where
the AA(american airlines) logo is supposed to be....????

COVER UP ... thats what

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB...
give it up. WE KNOW......... TELL THE TRUTH



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



Several reports i have shown state that the buildings withstood the plane impacts and only the fires caused the collapse. In fact the NIST report is the only report that states it was combination of plane impacts and fire.


Incorrect. the FEMA report, and 911 commission report also state it was not "just the fire" that brought the buildings down. The plane impacts were also a key component in the collapses.



I have also shown several steel buildings that had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the towers and building 7 and did not collapse.


Can you tell us the model of airliners that flew into those buildings? Were they 757 or 767s? Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges again.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Maya432
 


Uhm...... That's United 175 thanks. There are no pictures of AA 11 impacting the tower. The only video of it is the Naudet brothers. The tail isn't in shadow, it's painted blue because that's the color of United.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Maya432
 


Uhm...... That's United 175 thanks. There are no pictures of AA 11 impacting the tower. The only video of it is the Naudet brothers. The tail isn't in shadow, it's painted blue because that's the color of United.


.... thats not a united airlines logo either..its a White circle.
why.? its so we all can`t see the NON-existent logo......
its not blue its shadowed..........clearly
and if it was the ual plane ,then why can`t we see the logo?
AND...we can ALL see the objects mounted to the bottom.
and see them go off just before impact...

TRUTHERS SCORE 100
Shills score 0



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
It's not a white circle. It's the curved United logo seen from an odd angle that makes it look like a white circle. I've seen many other pictures of this plane hitting where you can see that it IS the United logo. One grainy poor quality picture isn't going to prove anything.

As for the "objects" they are the bulge where the wingbox meets the fuselage. ALL 767s have that.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Incorrect. the FEMA report, and 911 commission report also state it was not "just the fire" that brought the buildings down. The plane impacts were also a key component in the collapses.


Wrong, i have already shown the FEMA report that states the building withstood the plane impacts and only the fire caused the collapse.

Please show me where in the 9/11 commission reports it states that it was a combination of plane impact and fire.

Also the Homeland Security report also states the buidlings withstood the plane impacts and only the fire casued the collapse.


Can you tell us the model of airliners that flew into those buildings? Were they 757 or 767s? Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges again.


I will repeat it again since you seem to have a hard time reading my post.

I have posted several steel buildings that had longer lasting fires AND MORE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE THEN THE TOWERS OR BUIDLING 7 AND STILL DID NOT COLLAPSE.



[edit on 3-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 3-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 




Wrong, i have already shown the FEMA report that states the building withstood the plane impacts and only the fire caused the collapse.


Wrong. If you did any research and examined the FEMA reports you would have found this:

www.fema.gov...

The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building.


That statement seems to prove you were incorrect when you said "only the fires caused the collapse". The FEMA report speaks for itself.



I will repeat it again since you seem to have a hard time reading my post.

I have posted several steel buildings that had longer lasting fires AND MORE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE THEN THE TOWERS OR BUIDLING 7 AND STILL DID NOT COLLAPSE.


I will repeat it again since you seem to have a hard time understanding my post.

APPLES AND ORANGES.

What airliners flew into those several steel buildings? If your answer is none, then you are comparing apples and oranges. Its like trying to analyze a bus crash by looking at sub-compact car crash data. Unless you had airliners fly into those buildings, any data from them is irrelevant.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join