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.

 

The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

page: 53
207
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


I agree Tide but if he does work at NSA he holds one of the following jobs:

In the mail room

The employee cafeteria

Janitorial Services

Maintenance

Landscaper

(nothing against ANY of these job)

The reason why I say this is the documentation he presents includes his name and date of birth and place of employment. If it weren't true, this person at the NSA with these credentials would be pretty upset that someone is impersonating him, thus creating a world of trouble for Ultima.

Does Ultima work at the NSA? I believe so.

Does his job require a security clearance? Not a chance in hell.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
the majority of 'famous' witnesses either worked for 'USA today' or the military.
dubious at best.


Says who? Why? With what evidence to support this sub-conspiracy? You're claiming "they are in on it", no?


i'm not 'assuming' the poles were violently knocked down. it is simple physics.


Please explain the forces involved. Do you have a working knowledge in physics? Have you developed a mathematical model that backs up your assertions? Please share it with us.


plant a pole in the ground, and hit it hard and fast enough sideways with a big hammer that it is either sheared at the base, or uprooted.


Again, do you have a math based model to explain this using the objects in question? What are the poles made of? When subjected to the stresses you will outline with your math, how should they perform?


you cannot possibly hit a pole with a 120 ton hammer traveling at several hundred miles an hour, and have the poles fall over gently.


Says who? Who says they “fell over gently”? What physics are you basing this on? Again, what are the poles made of? How should these poles perform? What do you base your assertion on?

I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, truly. There is a difference between beliefs and facts. This is why science exists in the first place. You’re asserting several beliefs as facts. If you’re truly after an understanding based on the truth, then you owe it to yourself to examine the reality of your beliefs.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

If your 100 ton HAMMER struck the light poles at 535 mph, broke several heavy 247 lb poles in two. then how could they stand there and fall over later? Do you realize how ridiculous that concept is?


I didn't bring up the hammer analogy, I was making fun of it. In this case, the fact that they were cut in two suggests a slicing and not a hammering. You do understand that the bases of the poles are very strong, no? They aren't made out of Jell-O.

Why anyone would think they should go flying through the air at 500 MPH after being sliced in two is beyond me, it certainly makes no logical sense.



Your brand of pseudoskeptic physics sucks.


Man, it must be tough for you here. I mean coming from LCF (you know that place where everyone agrees with each other, and if you don't you're banned, all in the quest for the "truth" of course) to answer the call for help from Aldo. To have people from the other side actually able to disagree with you must be rather frustrating.



If the poles were just knocked over by the wind of the alleged 757 flying over them, then how were some torn in two without tearing up the ground, and why weren't the cars allegedly below the 757 also rolled over? If the aircraft wake turbulence could tear down the light poles, then why didn't it tear down the trees or branches?


Wind? What? Where did you get that one from??? Once again you mention them being torn in two, which *SHOULD" tell you all you need to know, but I wouldn't count on it making much difference.



Do you see why your pseudoskeptic physics is so stupid and illogical?


Oh yes, because Jell-O lightpole bases and gale force winds combined with a 100 ton hammer make so much sense now.




posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist


Man, it must be tough for you here. I mean coming from LCF (you know that place where everyone agrees with each other, and if you don't you're banned, all in the quest for the "truth" of course) to answer the call for help from Aldo. To have people from the other side actually able to disagree with you must be rather frustrating.



This statement is DEAD ON. I was banned from LCF after ONE post. I simply asked about the time line of one of their key witnesses (Barry Jennings) and I was banned by the time I refreshed my browser.

Welcome to ATS SPreston.... where we deny ignorance, not embrace it.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


yes, i have a working knowledge of physics. that's why i can assert with authority what can and cannot happen with a collision between ANY two objects.

the law of the conservation of momentum is basically another form of the conservation of energy, namely that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

i'm not doing any math, as it is COMPLETELY unnecessary.

here is what happens in a collision. there are two types, elastic, and inelastic. a collision can be partially elastic, and partially inelastic.

in a 100% elastic collision, 100% of the energy is bounced back from the elastic material, and the kinetic energy is retained in the colliding objects(which retain their original shape).
examples of elastic collisions are billiard balls, or bouncing steel ball bearings on a steel surface. (none of these collisions are 100% elastic, because heat is released and the objects slightly deform from compression, and tension, but are not permanently deformed. they are however, the best example of 100% elasticity) "newton's cradle" also displays how momentum can be transfered through unmoving objects. (useful in analysing the tower demolitions)

in a 100% inelastic collision, all of the kinetic energy is used up in the deformation of the colliding objects.
an example of this would be meteor hitting the moon, or a bullet fired into thick wood.

so, when plane strikes pole, there are two extremes of possibility that can happen.
one, is the plane bounces back from the indestructium pole at the same speed it hit.
the other, is the plane stops, and the plane and the pole are a lump of conjoined material.

IF the plane is not slowed by the collision, and it is not significantly deformed, then it has transfered it's momentum into the pole, and the pole speeds away at around the same speed as the plane, minus a little energy spent in deformation.
as the poles are broken off at the base(they are breakaway poles), then little energy is spent in deformation, and most is translated into kinetic energy.


those extremes represent what would happen if 100% of the energy was used for the collision.
however, of course, the energy of the plane FAR outweighs the energy of the pole.

here's and example of how the energy could be broken down.

100% precollision energy = 99.9% retained in plane's forward motion + .07 % used in deforming the wing and pole + .01% percent released as heat and sound +.01% transfered as momentum into the pole + .01% spent in slowing the plane.

however, the important thing to recognise, is that if the plane is not slowed, nor it's path altered, and the wing is not ripped off(which is the official line), then, the pole MUST be going nearly as fast as the plane after the collision, and anything the flying pole then strikes is subject to the same laws of conservation of energy.

things like, the lawn, and lloyd's taxi would be seriously deformed absorbing the tremendous energy of a 250 pound metal object travelling at speeds of say, 200 to three hundred miles an hour, and the poles themselves would be nowhere near their bases.

there is not a scratch on lloyd's hood. and there are no indications that the lawn has been ripped up by these alleged missiles.

this has been discussed extensively on this thread:

the mystery of the moved taxi



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


The poles had break away bases. it's a safety thing. Look at the pics of the 5 poles again. They're all broken at the bases. There's my proof.

The poles for the most part were cut in half. Therefore, the full amount of energy from the momentum from the plane was not transferred to the poles. Only the amount of energy needed to cut the poles was transferred.

So given the breakaway base, the only way to impart a lot of horizontal movement would be if they were hit somewhere around the middle/ center of gravity.

Think of it this way - put a stick in the ground and swing away with a baseball bat, hitting it near the top. The stick will travel a little bit, but not very far. Now hit it near the center, and it WILL go flying, as you say.

Unfortunately for you, the poles were hit near the top.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by discombobulator
 

...
Here is a VERY crude flight path estimate taking all of them into account starting with Steve Chaconas and his east of the river claim:
...

Get it now?
Posting another impossible path! Gee, it takes over 3.6 Gs and 74 degrees of bank, a bank angle not seen by anyone on 9/11, not your witnesses, or anyone! Fake path again!?




Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "… I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

Get it Now? "hit the building"! One of your witnesses!



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
An internal FOIA request? No request number?

I'm pretty sure I could go back and dig out a post where you claim to have gone through the FOIA process a few times before.


Well since i work at NSA the request was made internally, was it really that hard to figure out?

Please be mature enonugh to find out about things before posting. I have done many FOIA requests and have never had a request number.

I can scan a letter from the FOIA request i have done.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
An internal FOIA request? No request number?

I'm pretty sure I could go back and dig out a post where you claim to have gone through the FOIA process a few times before.


Well since i work at NSA the request was made internally, was it really that hard to figure out?

Please be mature enonugh to find out about things before posting. I have done many FOIA requests and have never had a request number.

I can scan a letter from the FOIA request i have done.


Uhuh.

Sure, show us this FOIA request letter.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Since I have been banned at P4T for educating Rob Balsamo that GIS software is not "subjective", as he claimed, I have given him and CIT until this Thursday, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:00pm to provide the flight path of the so-called "flyover" plane as it flew away from the Pentagon or my deal with Balsamo is off.

We have all given these two groups plenty of time to provide the required flight path away from the Pentagon and they are finding every excuse known to man to avoid providing that essential data.

The CIT groupies can pass this notice on to P4T and CIT. We'll be awaiting for them to post the required flight path here by the deadline.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


You say you have a working knowledge of physics, and in one post prove you know nothing about it! My advice, as an engineer with 34 years experience, go to the nearest physics teacher and review your post with her/him. You were nailed by Einstein!

Your post is extremely funny to those who do understand physics; I am laughing with you, please go see a physics teacher soon.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut


Get it now?
Posting another impossible path! Gee, it takes over 3.6 Gs and 74 degrees of bank, a bank angle not seen by anyone on 9/11, not your witnesses, or anyone! Fake path again!?




Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "… I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."


Get it Now? "hit the building"! One of your witnesses!


And another flight path that ends at the Pentagon....

Whaddya know about that.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
Uhuh.

Sure, show us this FOIA request letter.


Now there is a FOIA number on the letter that i have recieved from outside source (NTSB).

NTSB letter dated June 07, 2007

FOIA number 20070291.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
People need to keep in mind something then they try to claim coverup and conspiracy. They use physical proof as a means to try to prove a point, yet they are dealing with things of a magnitude that has never been seen before. When is the last time we've seen a building of that magnitude collapse (WTC buildings)? How about never. When is the last time we've flown a 757 into a reinforced building? Again, never. Time and again, I hear "this can't have happened this way," and yet you are merely guessing. You are going on what you know of science, which may well apply different with the magnitude of things that occured. The speed and size of th planes, the size of the buildings: We really do NOT know exactly how they would react. We can assume based on their materials, and our understanding of science, but I've seen time and again with planned tests, with assumed results, that things end up different than they thought they might. Saying that you have irrefutable proof is laughable. You are guessing.

Just like how the crashes were dealt with the day of the event. Again, people NOW say "why did they do that? Why didn't they do this?!" And assume because things were not done by the book, that there is a coverup. However, this shocked folks. Including emergency workers. I doubt they were worried that day about trying to make sure they wouldn't be blamed for a coverup later. They were trying to save people, and figure out what happened. I doubt they were worried about making sure all the bodies, wreckage, and everything else, was clearly visible, so some rather off in left field group later on, can't accuse them of murder.

Ah well... until you can submit some sort of proof that eyewitnesses that watched the jet crash into the Pentagon were ALL mistaken, yet your own little group of witnesses were the only ones that really knew what they saw, I'll just regard this as a very biased attack on our government. That alone imo, destroys your entire premise. It's ironic that your witnesses are all lucid and correct, while all the witnesses that oppose your view were either crackpots, lying, or duped by our government.

Hmm... maybe your witnesses were duped by some agency that wants to see us attack our own government. Ever think of that?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Now there is a FOIA number on the letter that i have recieved from outside source (NTSB).

NTSB letter dated June 07, 2007

FOIA number 20070291.

That's odd. A quick Google search turns up this information:
20070291
Origonally requested on: 5/8/2007
Other dates: 5/8/2007 61512007 7/30/2007

REQUESTOR: News Media BEN WELSH

SUBJECT of REQUEST: Requesting a duplicate copy of the FOIA PERM 08/17/2007

FEES: $194.71 YES
CENTER PUBLIC INTEGRITY database.
NOTES: Requester agreed to extension to address questions
raised. Awaiting permission to proceed from requester.
Bill send to Finance 08t17/07. Payment received.


At least on the surface, this doesn't appear to be from you, or about 9-11.

[edit on 18-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
They use physical proof as a means to try to prove a point, yet they are dealing with things of a magnitude that has never been seen before. When is the last time we've seen a building of that magnitude collapse (WTC buildings)?


Yes that is a good point. Never in the US in the last 30 years has a steel building collpased due to fire no matter how severe.

So how did 3 steel buildings collapse from fire in 1 day?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
An internal FOIA request? No request number?

I'm pretty sure I could go back and dig out a post where you claim to have gone through the FOIA process a few times before.


Well since i work at NSA the request was made internally, was it really that hard to figure out?

Please be mature enonugh to find out about things before posting. I have done many FOIA requests and have never had a request number.

I can scan a letter from the FOIA request i have done.
You work for the NSA in their core services, and support the ideas of the opening post?

The NSA knows you support lies and false information about 9/11, and post during duty hours?

The National Security Agency an intelligence agency of the United States government, administered as part of the United States Department of Defense, lets you have a job and you can't take evidence and form a rational conclusion on the attacks of 9/11?

Which made up path do you support from CIT?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So how did 3 steel buildings collapse from fire in 1 day?


Damage doesn't count?

The inability to fight the fires doesn't count?

The effects of heat don't count?

You sure like to leave out evidence every time, Ultima1.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Damage doesn't count?


Let me repeat. NO steel building has ever collapsed from fire (or strutural damage) no matter how severe.


The inability to fight the fires doesn't count?


Please see above answer.


The effects of heat don't count?


Please see above answer.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
The NSA knows you support lies and false information about 9/11, and post during duty hours?


Well see there where you are wrong yet again. I do not post during duty hours. I cannot post during duty hours becasue i work on a secure intranet and cannot get on the internet.

How many times can i person be wrong? And show how they know nothing about what goes on in the world.




top topics



 
207
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join