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.

 

Flight 11 vs. 175 -- Impact Study & Fakery Anomalies

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
S&F for the way you put it.


Indeed. In the Towers the wings explode.

In the pentagon they fold into the cabin.

In Shanksville the do neither but instead absorb perfectly into the earth to make perfect wing imprints in the dirt.


WOW THE AMAZING WINGS... You are right...

Just look at those wings _bonez_

Look at them.. Look at how the behave differently at each incident.

think about that and get back with us...

Man I can think of many a debunker dis-info agent to use this one on to..

Great way of look at it... Look at the wings.




posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Ah yes, the CGI theory yet again. Maybe YOU can explain how the "bad guys" managed to get the images of the second jet onto all of the privately owned cameras (still/video) that recorded it then? No one else has been able to explain that.


except Simon Shack, Killtown and many others as also summarized in this post/thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The impacts are identical and only appear to be different due to the different quality of pictures/video and the different lighting.




ahh yes, the typical and only desperate flawed logic argument used to dimiss an obvious physical impossibility and violation of newtons 3rd law.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_ There is no "immediate explosion". You're seeing the dust/debris as FL.11 contacts the north tower. The dust/debris is also more clearly seen on the north side than the south side as the sun angle is shining more on the north side of the towers.


What a horrible argument and logic... what ever debunking manual you're using, i suggest you throw it away... Sounds like its the same failed one used by popular mechanics.

If what you claim were true, wheres the same "dust/debris" type dispersion upon impact when 175 hits the south tower?

ITS NOT THE SAME.

we're talking about the very INITIAL IMPACT when the nose of the object first touches the tower.

in the flight 11 impact, there's a massive explosion at this initial impact.

in flight 175s, there is a totally different DELAYED reaction of this explosion or debris/dust!

you can ignore and deny it all you want... but those who objectively and critically examine the video evidence can judge for themselves and see what i'm pointing out is true.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_

flight 175 which shows no such INITIAL CONTACT explosion until its at least half way or completely inside the tower

As I've said above, the south side of the towers didn't have the sun angle as the north side, so the dust/debris isn't as highlighted by the sun as it is on the north side.


your argument is based on the false premise that this so-called dust/debris is being KICKED UP by the explosion.

What your argument fails to examine and factor in is what i've pointed out about the INITIAL CONTACT....

FLIGHT 11 and 175 have different INITIAL CONTACT REACTIONS which show different debris/dust REACTION which have NOTHING to do with what the SUNLIGHT would highlight.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by Kailassa
Or perhaps explosives were preset on the interior walls of the towers to carve plane shapes out of the sides of the buildings to match the CGI images being added to the almost live-time videos being shown
The only problem with that "theory" is that explosives blow out, not suck things in. Large pieces of building are pushed in as well as some of the steel columns are bent in:


EXCEPT advanced military THERMATE cutter charges wouldn't necessarily BLOW ANYTHING IN OR OUT in the way you're eluding.

thermate/mite doesn't have the same properties or react as regular demolition c4 etc cutter charges do.

they MELT STEEL.

As for your argument about BENDING INWARD... its already been answered, addressed and debunked.


[edit on 23-6-2009 by Orion7911]

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 



In the pentagon they fold into the cabin.

In Shanksville the do neither but instead absorb perfectly into the earth to make perfect wing imprints in the dirt.


Well, let's examine your snide, snarky and childish comments, shall we?



The Pentagon. Why do you think the wings "folded into the cabin"?!?


Shanksville. "Absorb"?? You're joking, right? They shattered as they penetrated.

IN FACT, in each case, the wings shattered as the encountered an immoveable object, whether it be the aluminum-clad steel columns of the WTC Towers, the Concrete-reinforced columns of the Pentagon, or the soil at Shanksville.

People just don't seem to have the scientific knowledge and skill sets anymore to comprehend the massive amounts of force involved in high-speed impacts.

Ya know, I love the Loony Tunes cartoons as much as the next guy, especially Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote, but I'm afraid there's a segment of our society who actually think those were documentaries!!!


I don't know....maybe people think the wings are solid slabs of aluminum, or something.

Here, looky at this:
www.3dcadbrowser.com...

Just an example of interior of wings.

At the Towers, why all the dust? Because the outer cladding of aluminum also consisted of concrete fascia, for appearance.

Here's what happens when fast-moving aluminum and titanium hit concrete:


BTW, for nit-pickers, the narration mentions that the wingtips survive. Well, if you look closely, you'll see why. Give up? Hint: The wingspan of the F4 is wider than the test block of concrete!!! Duh!

(tags)

[edit on 6/23/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 



except Simon Shack, Killtown and many others...



Ha. HaHa. HaHaHaHaHa....sorry, when you invoke them, 'and many others', it just shows that Barnum and Bailey were correct....

Let's see....a dozen or so idiots who could barely manage to explain the principles of aerodynamics, let alone be "experts" in video analysis who likely work out of their basements (in the case of Loose Change, it was obvious) are far, far more enlightened than everyone else?

Simon Shack, in particular, has already been called out for manipulating images to suit his 'theory' and bolster his claims.

Honestly...for all who get suckered in to their twisted vision of reality, I feel for you, I really do.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr what are you smoking? the AGM-86D is a cruise missile with a 3000 pound blast,the war head packed with high explosive it would have obliterated the building on impact. The middle section of the building would have vaporized and the building wouldnt have stood even 1 second after impact. So my suggestion to you is you might want to rethink your theory and there is all kinds of websites that can show you this cruise missile impacting hardened bunkers and the resulting fireball looks like a nuclear blast.


your arguments validity is based on speculation of the type of missle used which you both have described one or two of potentially
MANY TYPES and UNKNOWN TECH not to mention DRONE DESIGNS etc.


Originally posted by dragonridr
Ps I assure you people would have noticed a cruise missile long before impact and cruise missiles are almost useless in areas with large buildings they follow the terrain and dont do well dodging building.
[edit on 5/22/09 by dragonridr]


UHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, PEOPLE *DID* NOTICE AND MENTION SEEING A CRUISE MISSLE.

perhaps you should take your own advice and do more research and get your facts straight before you criticize others.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Arsenis
 


But there are no twin engined 156ft wingspan cruise missiles in our inventory.
Nor do they paint cruise missiles like passenger planes.


oh really?








[edit on 23-6-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Arsenis
Besides all the footage shows, white, gray or black planes

That's because the second plane that hit the WTC was a United Airlines plane and the paint scheme of that airline is.......gray (and blue):





Whether the second plane was a military drone or an actual commercial aircraft, it was still painted in United Airlines colors.


or the perps hired a good military cgi expert to superimpose one.

you think they didn't have the means, tech or financing to create such fakery?

if you don't, you're either extremely naive, or in denial.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 



The "people" who mentioned a 'cruise missile' were actually ONE person. The Truther websites like to take quotes out of context in order to inflaqte their claims. A man interviewed on camera said he saw a jet moving fast, "like a cruise missile"...not that it WAS a cruise missile!!!

Here, listen to this, skip to about 11:30, then stay with it for about four minutes:

www.aal77.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 




oh really?



LOL!! Really? You fell for that? Photoshop!!!!!

edit: The obviously faked 'cruise missile'!

[edit on 6/23/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Orion7911
 


The "people" who mentioned a 'cruise missile' were actually ONE person. The Truther websites like to take quotes out of context in order to inflaqte their claims. A man interviewed on camera said he saw a jet moving fast, "like a cruise missile"...not that it WAS a cruise missile!!!


Wrong Pappy,,, the media clearly stated that there were PEOPLE who claimed to have seen a missle.

your attempt to change PEOPLE into ONE person contradicts the actual evidence from media reports and isn't true, so please retract your assertion.




[edit on 23-6-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Orion7911
 




oh really?



LOL!! Really? You fell for that? Photoshop!!!!!

edit: The obviously faked 'cruise missile'!

[edit on 6/23/0909 by weedwhacker]


easy there cowboy...

Uh, of course its fake. the purpose of posting that pic totally flew over your head didn't it. (pun intended)

it illustrates how easy it would be to fake (paint a drone) live and by cgi.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 



your attempt to change PEOPLE into ONE person contradicts the actual evidence from media reports and isn't true, so please retract your assertion.


Well, here's the real truth:

newsmine.org.../flight77-aa-pentagon

An American Airlines flight from Washington to Los Angeles crashed into the Pentagon with 64 passengers and crew aboard. The fuel-laden jet, which had just taken off from Washington's Dulles Airport...




The Pentagon suffered widespread damage on the building's fourth, fifth and sixth corridors, and the impact tore a gaping hole in one side of the building. Firefighters continued to battle the blaze on the building's west side Tuesday night, describing it as "contained" but not yet under control.


Note the part I bolded.

Continuing:


...The jet struck a section of the Pentagon that housed U.S. Army offices about 9:40 a.m. Tuesday. Among those aboard the jet was Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator who appeared frequently on CNN and the wife of U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson.


WHY would it be an intentional Government act, if it were to kill the wife of the U.S. Solicitor General???

But, here's what 'no-planers' eat up:

"It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon," Mike Walter, an eyewitness, told CNN. "Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out...*snip*


There is on-camera video of this, and even this story edited it down, which brings joy to the no-planers. There is a full video somewhere, if you just search. But, Mike walter is the sole 'cruise missile' statement -- rest is exagerrated.

Finally, another eyewitness:

...One witness told CNN she saw a commercial jet flying "too fast, too low" and then she saw an explosion at the building.


This article was written 12 September, 2001. It's sensational headline said that 800 were feared dead -- obviously now we know differently.



And also, we have this:

blogs.america.gov...

The 9/11 Cruise Missile Theory and the Evidence
— By Todd Leventhal, 30 May 2008

In July 2006, a Scripps Survey Research Center poll found that 12 percent of Americans “suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.”

This mistaken belief is largely based on the fallacy that the attack on the Pentagon created a small hole consistent with a cruise missile strike, rather than a large hole, as a commercial airliner would make. The wildly popular conspiracy theory video Loose Change made this mistake, among many others.

But the “small hole” was really a large hole, most of which was obscured by fire-fighting foam during the 19 minutes between when the airliner struck the Pentagon and when that section collapsed, forever obscuring the impact site. See this State Department photo gallery for selected photos of the Pentagon on 9/11.

Also, the remains of the 64 passengers on the plane were found at the Pentagon crash site. 184 of the 189 people who died in the attacks (64 on the plane and 125 in the Pentagon) were identified by DNA analysis. In addition, massive amounts of plane debris were found at the site. More than 100 eyewitnesses reported they saw a plane.

See the Pentagon page of Links for 9/11 Research for a wealth of information debunking this conspiracy theory.


You see, a little research blows the CT people out of the water.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weedwhacker I was not being snide. Please keep a civil tone. Lords knows I shall try too. If things get too uncivil please hit the alert button at anytime.

I shall let that last post pass but please review the terms and conditions here as politeness and civility is mandatory.

Now I do not think the wings of flight 77 folded. That is the Official story relayed to the American public via mainstream news.

Just do your own google search..here is a search term "flight 77 folded wings"

As for Flight 93. The official story there is that the plane was absorbed into the loosely packed soil. Again this is what the MSM says we should believe but not what I believe.

Bringing up loony toon cartoons in this matter is not necessary nor proper. Ad homenim attacks and personal insults are also an ATS "No-No".

Also you link leads to a cad program that asks for registration...

And your f4 Phantom video is well known to some of us and it is distracting in its irrelevance to the 911 event.

These were commercial air buses hitting steel reinforced structures and earth NOT a military fighter jets hitting concrete slabs.

In the photos of the Shanksville crash Immediately after impact the whole world can clearly see what is made out to be the imprint of wingtips, a fuselage and a tail section... At the WTC those same wings exploded.

When we apply that same force and same type of explosion to Shanksville "Loosely Packed soil" we get a neat little imprint instead of a gaping maw of a hole.

Some where between the two events either the laws of physics were broken or the government and mainstream media lied.



Now then



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 



it illustrates how easy it would be to fake (paint a drone) live and by cgi.


HUH???

Now, it's a drone? Thought you were of the cruise missile flavor?

AND....cgi 'live'? What, they had a giant green screen erected overnight, and projected images? Oh, that would explain all of the eyewitesses. People too stooopid to know the difference, eh?

But, Loose (screws) Change? Two college drop-outs in their basements, and Simon Shack (now there's something to investigate!) whoever he is, are far superior to everyone else in their analytical skills?

I am sorry, but the Conspiracy of "No Planes" is one of the shakiest out there. Even most of the folks who proclaim a Government involvement and prior knowledge aren't buying into that crackpot notion!



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I do find it interesting that no plane debris remains in either of the two WTC gashes.

Nothing.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


(This is an emotional topic for me, personally)

But, allow me to address your last post:

These were commercial air buses hitting steel reinforced structures and earth NOT a military fighter jets hitting concrete slabs.


An airplane is constructed similarly, whether it be a DcDonnell Douglas F4, or a Boeing 757/767 My point, and the reason that video is useful, is to indicate to people, as you mention below, just how physics really play a role iin the 9/11 crashes.

Particularly, as I pointed out, how the concrete reacts to the impact. The dust, as seen in the videos of WTC Towers, which had a concrete fascia.



In the photos of the Shanksville crash Immediately after impact the whole world can clearly see what is made out to be the imprint of wingtips, a fuselage and a tail section... At the WTC those same wings exploded.


Yes...and there is a good reason. Now, since this thread is focused solely on AAL 11 and UAL 175 and alleged "Fakery" I am going to comment as little as possible, after this, about Shanksville and Pentagon. However, this is important to understanding:

There was a lot of fuel on the two B767s, and when they impacted the buildings the fuel burst out into open space, where there is plenty of oxygen, and there was a source of ignition, namely the two hot engines.

THEN, there was all of the flammable material in the offices.


When we apply that same force and same type of explosion to Shanksville "Loosely Packed soil" we get a neat little imprint instead of a gaping maw of a hole.


And why not? Actually, many, many 'Truthers' and 'no-plane' theorists don't show a gallery of all the photos from Shanksville, just selected ones. SO, it helps to foster the mistaken belief that it was a "neat little imprint". In fact, the depression compared perfectly in size to the size of the airplane that impacted.

I'm sure you'll want to ask about a fire, there. Well, let's say you're out camping...what's the best way to ensure your campfire is completely out? Smother it. Jet fuel needs to A) be vaporized and B) have an ignition source in order to ignite and burn. Sand and soil burn poorly, and the engines (the heat source) were buried deeply, and snuffed out.



Some where between the two events either the laws of physics were broken or the government and mainstream media lied.


Laws of physics, you say? Nope. F=MA Kinetic energy. Very powerful.

Over a thousand people combed the Pennsylvania site, recovering a great deal of debris, to include Human remains.

Human remains at the Pentagon, too.

Now....the WTC? That's a big problem, because of all the mass from the buildings. Virtually looking for needles in haystacks, to find much there. IF they had not come down, then there's be a lot more closure for the loved ones, and fewer conspiracy theories, methinks.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



I do find it interesting that no plane debris remains in either of the two WTC gashes.

Nothing.


That assessment is based on what, exactly? I'll venture a guess: Lies from the no-plane enthusiasts.


wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

and

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

[edit on 6/23/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I understand. It is an emotional topic for many folks. The best way to talk about it for me personally is with total dispassion.

Now you say a DcDonnell Douglas F4 is constructed in the same way that a Boeing 757/767.

That is so far from the truth. One is designed to withstand 50 millimeter rounds and avoid radar detection. The other one respectively has trouble if a flock of birds get in the way. Commercial air buses are also painted with radar reflective paint to make them easier to keep track of by ground control as opposed to the F4.

Final point: Military jets and commercial air buses are constructed nothing alike beyond the concept of "lift".


THE rest has been edited as it was way too far off topic. I have U2U you with the rest weedwhacker


This is about the two towers themselves me thinks and not the event as a whole...Unless the OP has reason to say otherwise???





[edit on 23-6-2009 by titorite]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


In the photo of the Pentagon, why does the entire left side of the area of damage look like it was sliced neatly with a large knife? Is it just me or does this seem odd to anybody else?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join