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.

 

Rare Footage -- Flight 93 Shootdown Award

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


really. are you sure about all your 'facts'? could you give more detail on the taxi being hit by a plane wheel and the who and where of the witnesses?




posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt What I did do was reach out to NASA scientist Ryan Mackey.

Here is his response:


It's a pretty basic misconception. The seismic signal from collapse doesn't really begin until the destruction wave hits the ground. This is easily seen -- there won't be a large force transmitted into the ground until an equal and opposite force is transmitted into the collapsing material, i.e. slowing it down. As the conspiracists note, the collapse doesn't slow much as it passes through the building.


bad circular logic. because, as any debunker will tell you(when discussing a different aspect of collapse), an immense amount of energy was being spent as soon as the lowest falling storey hit the highest stationary storey. you can't possibly have hundreds of tons of steel and concrete smack into hundreds of tons of steel and concrete without the shock of the impact being transfered at the speed of sound into the earth through the steel. the plane impact registered, supposedly, and that was but fraction of the energy spent in the first second of collapse, AND it was not vectored directly into the ground like the falling building's force vector was.
and, the idea that LESS energy is being spent because the collapse occurred quickly is equally laughable.




It is also no coincidence that the time for the collapse wave to reach the ground is ~ 10 seconds after initiation, ~10.5 according to BLBG. It's also preceded by large assemblies falling clear of the Tower and hitting the ground beside, which does take about 8.2 seconds -- as reported by NIST itself.

In other words, your friend on ATS has discovered nothing new, even though he thinks he has. It won't surprise me if nobody there can find his mistake.

Thanks,
Ryan Mackey


really? i say you don't even understand labtop's proof, 'gravy'.
i'd be surprised if anyone with an IQ of more than 60 is swayed by your weak arguments.
there was debris hitting the ground for far longer than eight seconds, and 'newton's cradle' illustrates how the very first shock of impact at the top of the tower would be transfered DIRECTLY into the ground.

i say the 'plane impact' siesmic spikes could have been caused by bombs in the basement as reported by emergency response radio transcripts and rodriguez et. al., and not by planes at all. that is a better explanation of the difference between the force of building destroying bombs and thousands of tons of mostly falling debris(as you DID point out correctly, ryan 'gravy' mackey, the buildings offered hardly any resistance to collapse.)

[edit on 14-7-2008 by billybob]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Another point to remember is that when the building was hit, it was hit near the top. The building would have swayed with the impact, which is a perfectly valid release of energy, without it being transferred to the ground as a shockwave and creating a seismic wave.

The sheer fact the building is swaying is releasing energy into the structure, and due to resistance etc.. the energy is dissipated throughout the building, and not straight to the ground.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


LaBTop,

This may seem off topic but it's not.....Aren't you a proponent of "no airplane" at the Pentagon?



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Of course no plane hit the Pentagon.

Senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre saw no wreckage, no fuselage, wing sections, engines, nothing:

JAMIE MCINTYRE: "From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happenm immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed."



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
If Flight 93 was shot down by the USAF with the knowledge of the SecDef, doesn't that seem to indicate that Flt 93 was a real threat. That it was under the control of someone whose intent was unknown and presumed to be malicious?


Please read the NORAD protocol for airliners not responding.

It basically states that any plane off cource and not repsonding becomes a threat. It had nothing to do with who was on Flight 93.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I am sure you are aware that back during the flight testing days of the 707, the test pilot actually did a barrel roll in the 707 without a problem.


Yes and at the Paris airshow when the Russian Concord try to do a high G move the wings were ripped off the plane.

Do you need to see the video?



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


This will be a collosal waste of my time and ATS bandwidth, but anyway....

It is obvious to any rational, honest thinker that the correspondent in question was commenting of the fact that the airplane was totally destroyed and most of the wreckage penetrated the building. He was not trying to insinuate that no airplane crashed there, merely commenting on it's total destruction.

Also by Jamie MCintyre from the very same clip....

"Which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon"

[edit on 7/14/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Russian Concorde? Are you sure about that?



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Russian Concorde? Are you sure about that?


Yes, do you need to see the Paris video? Here it is.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 14-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I kept telling every one that it was a bad mistake helping Afhganistan. I mean come on. Giving them money to rebuild their city. Bull#! We accidently attacked them and now there gonna attack us. And they know we're a powerful state. So who do you think they're gonna team back up with to help them defeat us. The strongest leader they had. Osama Binladen. We need to do something now. Get off your asses and do something.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1Yes and at the Paris airshow when the Russian Concord try to do a high G move the wings were ripped off the plane.


Well concerning the TU-144 (Concordski) they actually ran in to control problems and stalled it.

Broke her up in an attempt on recovery.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Freaky_Animal]

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Freaky_Animal]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freaky_Animal
Well concerning the TU-144 (Concorski) they actually ran in to control problems and stalled it.



I thought there were reports it was doing a high G move?

Also there are other vidoes of the plane breaking up doing high G moves.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1I thought there were reports it was doing a high G move?


They did, but that was after they lost it and tried to recover, (the reason for the nose down attitude)



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freaky_Animal
They did, but that was after they lost it and tried to recover, (the reason for the nose down attitude)


There are also reports that there were planted phoney wing blueprints for the Russians to steal so their version would not work.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I was merely commenting on your nomenclature...I'm annoying that way, I think things should be called what they are.

In this case, a Tupolev supersonic transport...not an Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde.

Saying Russian Concorde is like saying Russian 747....there is no such aircraft.

I know I'm being an ass, but I cant help it.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1There are also reports that there were planted phoney wing blueprints for the Russians to steal so their version would not work.


I have never heard about that, but i guess that's one of the problems one can run into copying other peoples work.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Saying Russian Concorde is like saying Russian 747....there is no such aircraft.


I only meant to say it was the Russian version of the Concorde.

Most people that do not know about aircraft would know it better by that name.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freaky_Animal
I have never heard about that, but i guess that's one of the problems one can run into copying other peoples work.


Well you have to be careful when doing industrial spying, specailly if its known that your spying.

But i have seen a report that we tried to steal some of the plans for the Russian sub with the silent drive (like Red October movie)



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1But i have seen a report that we tried to steal some of the plans for the Russian sub with the silent drive (like Red October movie)


Wouldn't surprise me, the ruski's made some decent hardware.







 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join