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.

 

What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

page: 13
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
OK...FIRST, show us where the NTSB determined the speed of UA 175. OK? BECAUSE, as you know...the SSFDR data was NOT recovered on UA 175, at the Towers.


How about the NTSB FOIA report:

United Airlines Flight 175 N612UA; NTSB# DCA-01-MA-063
Signed Doug Brazy, and Dennis Crider Office of Research and Engineering.


Page 7, "Using Distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeeds at impact of 504 and 507 knots were calculated. This corresponds to an
impact speed of 510 knots calculated from RADAR Data Impact
Speed Study (AA11 & UA175)."



ANY estimated speed of UA 175 is based on observations of the video evidence --- POST impact. YOU KNEW THIS, correct??? (because....there is no recoverable SSFDR data...from EITHER UA 175 OR AA 11...)


See the NTSB study for more information.



Because, once again....510 Kts....EVEN IF that was ever indicated, on the airspeed indicator onboard UA 175.....AND....it was NEVER on the Airspeed Indicator since the instrument doen't go that high...so do NOT try to "catch" me on that...way ahead of you.....


So? Doesn't that raise even more questions? The SPEED from RADAR data
and video analysis EXCEEDS the guage limit!



551 Kts is STILL barely Mach 0.83!!!!! (It is accurately...Mach 0.826)


Try again. Make sure you're inputting the correct values for STD atmosphere.

Again the value is over mach 1. This has been checked by registered
pilots and aero engineers. Also shown using an online EAS calculator.

Please verify your values and let me know what you come up with.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by turbofan]




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to Lillydale's post #280, part 1
 



Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x
You lost me here. What' s this about planes? Even the official story only believes that 1 plane hit the pentagon. Personally, I still think the best argument against this is Rob Balsamo's point regarding the 10g dive. The problem is that some people here, including a pilot (weedwacker) thinks it's no good. I've asked them why they think Rob's calculations aren't good, but to date I don't believe I've gotten a response to this yet.


Now I understand why you are trying so hard to defend this complete waste of bandwidth. At first I thought you were joking. Now I think it is because you are lacking a little of the common sense Jthomas seems to be missing.

The reason it says planes instead of plane is because in order for a plane crash to be status quo, there are going to need to be constant plane crashes which I am pretty sure would require more than one plane. A plane crashing is a single time event. It cannot be the status quo. If that is where Jthomas wants to go, fine but then he has to admit that means that a plane must be crashing into the pentagon over and over and over and over and over - thus the more than one plane sentence.


This isn't what I meant by status quo; I had meant that the status quo as in the official story is the status quo. I assume that this is what jthomas meant as well.


Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x
It would seem that here we do indeed disagree. It seems clear to me that he thinks. Honestly, you wouldn't even be able to read, let alone write, without the ability to think.


OK, his not unconscious or in a coma, you got me there.


Come Lillydale, he can read, he can write, he can respond to points. Anyone who can read, write and respond to points is clearly far from being unconscious or in a coma...


Are you seriously trying to have this debate in here? If you think Jthomas has made any good points at all, please feel free to quote them. Please post any good points or at least good responses you have read from him.


The fact that he's making points at all makes it clear that he's nowhere near unconscious or comatose. But in terms of good points, I think it's more what he doesn't do then what he does do; I think he's been wise enough to refrain from saying he has proof that the official story is true. And he's refrained from becoming fairly uncivil, something I've known many OSers (and, to be fair, some truthers as well) to be virtually incapable of. Ofcourse, if he did, I doubt he'd be able to stay here long because of the moderation.



Originally posted by Lillydale
Jthomas is either a liar or incredibly deficient in mental capacity.


I haven't seen any evidence of either. I do believe that he shies away from closely examining the OS, though, in favour of looking for flaws in truther theories. Honestly, this can actually help the truth movement; he brings up points that we then have work to counter. However, it also suggests that deep down inside, he knows that the OS is hard to defend.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to Lillydale's post #280, part 2 (last part)
 



Originally posted by Lillydale
There is no other way to read his incessant and blatant attempts to pretend he says things he does not and pretend he has proof he does not


Please, can you cite one time where he claims to have proof for any of his claims? I really would like to see it, as I haven't yet.


Originally posted by Lillydale
and pretends that logic need not apply in his world but he can certainly take it, twist it, make it null and void and then pretend it now somehow fits on the other side.


I just don't see it this way. As I've mentioned before, I think his problem is not a complete lack of logic, but rather flawed logic; as in, some of his propositions are quite logical, but he's making certain false assumptions that are messing up the overall logic. Going back to an argument I alluded to earlier, when dealing with complex problems, it's not as simple as realizing that someone failed to carry over a 1; it's more like trying to debug a computer program; it can frequently take quite a long time indeed.



Originally posted by Lillydale
There is no logic, there are no good points, there is nothing but childish drive by attacks, lies, information that is horribly incorrect.


I've covered the logic bit; as to the rest, I would prefer the word 'untruths' to 'lies'. Lies can be implied as him intentionally lying, whereas untruths simply means that he's stating things that are false but that he may not be aware are false. Along the same lines, I go for your "information that is horribly incorrect" ;-).



Originally posted by Lillydale
If you honestly think that he has made any really logical statements, I would love to see them.

I would rather this thread be on topic for at least a little while but hey...I know that with the OS so hard to back up, distraction is a far better route to take.


I don't think it's a distraction to deal with the personalities involved on a given subject, especially if certain false assumptions are being made regarding one or more of these personalities. For if one responds to people while maintaining false assumptions about them or the meanings of things they said, it can lead to what I would consider to be much longer detours (whether or not you had claimed that there was proof that no passenger bodies were found at the pentagon was one such detour, I believe).

[edit on 25-9-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to Lillydale's post #280, part 2 (last part)
 



Originally posted by Lillydale
There is no other way to read his incessant and blatant attempts to pretend he says things he does not and pretend he has proof he does not


Please, can you cite one time where he claims to have proof for any of his claims? I really would like to see it, as I haven't yet.


Honestly, why are you sticking up for this shmo? Lillydale is a complete jerk most of the time but still I do not see anyone agreeing with you instead of her on this.

You should really ACTUALLY read thommy's posts. When you get to one where he posts the bodies of dead pentagon employees as proof that passenger bodies were found, you will have an answer to your question. I would say that claiming to have proof, presenting it and calling it proof would qualify as one time he claimed to have proof.

You do also realize that he is asking that a negative be proven? That is logical to you? Really???



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Wow fella. I have to be honest. I am not even going to peruse both those lengthy posts. If you want to romance thomas, do not let me get in the way. You do not need to bounce off of me to kiss his behind. It is simple, can you point out just one good logical point he has made? I doubt it. This thread is not about me, you, or that mental defective. This thread has a title. You and I have spent more than enough time discussing someone that is not only not worth discussing, but cannot even be bothered to defend himself. Get over it or start some special thread you two can enjoy together or whatever your obsession is. I refuse to back away from anything I said unless that is the only way to get back on topic. I could really care less to debate you on whether or not that person is logical. I know he is not. Apparently most people who read threads he posts on know he is not. You think whatever you like but this thread is about what hit the pentagon on 9/11.

Your logical friend says it was AA77 with no proof, no evidence, two links that both prove to be faulty, and he will not even claim that the video actually contains AA77 streaking by. What do you say hit the building?



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Originally posted by turbofan


Originally posted by weedwhackerOK...FIRST, show us where the NTSB determined the speed of UA 175. OK? BECAUSE, as you know the SSFDR data was NOT recovered on UA 175, at the Towers.



Originally posted by turbofanHow about the NTSB FOIA report:

United Airlines Flight 175 N612UA; NTSB# DCA-01-MA-063
Signed Doug Brazy, and Dennis Crider Office of Research and Engineering.


Come on!!!!!

That is NOT from the SSFDR,and you know it...it is an estimated speed, based on observation from various sources.

Stilll NO WHERE NEAR Mach 1!!!!!



[edit on 25 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


It's based on RADAR data as well!

Don't try and squirm out of this.

The NTSB which is trained to handle aircraft investigations STATED THIS
AS FACT IN A REPORT

DEAL WITH IT!

Let me quote the source again:


This corresponds to an
impact speed of 510 knots calculated from RADAR Data Impact
Speed Study (AA11 & UA175)."


What do you have to say about this now?

It's OVER mach 1! I will prove it to you using an EAS calculator.

Please don't let a non-pilot demonstrate how to properly calculate mach number

to a 'self proclaimed internet pilot'.

510 Knots.

NTSB

BASED ON RADAR DATA

FACT Backed up by an official government agency.

DEAL WITH IT.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 



Again the value is over mach 1. This has been checked by registered pilots and aero engineers. Also shown using an online EAS calculator.


I seem to be pushing a rope uphill....

oh....and "registered pilots"????

whatever....

Once again....(and I'll try to ignore the 'stars' your post got....many sycophants, apparently...)



In dry air at 20 °C (68 °F), the speed of sound is 343 meters per second (1,125 ft/s). This equates to 1,236 kilometers per hour (768 mph)...


THIS IS FROM Wiki....look it up at other sources, if you wish.

Please pay attention: 768 MPH is equivalent to 667 knots. I have already presented this, yet you ignore??? WHY?

Let me try, once again, to explain.

AT SEA LEVEL, in standard conditions (20C) MACH 1 is 667 KNOTS!

OK?

"Mach number" is the percentage of Mach....I would think that is obvious.

IF YOU use an airspeed of 505 Knots, at SEA LEVEL, in the assumed "standard" conditions....it is 0.757 Mach.

Again, Mach limits at the low altitudes here are not relevant. SO, even at 500+ knots....it is nowhere near exceeding the speed of sound, at sea level.

Additionally, the speed attained by the jets was only sustained for a very, very BRIEF time.

BECAUSE of gravity, in the dive. The excessive speeds were accomplished....

There is NO WAY those speeds would have been sustained in level flight. BUT, when you add the effects of a descent.......and gravity.....

I am truly sorry that you cannot comprehend what I am describing. Truly. Sorry.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
United Airlines Flight 175 N612UA; NTSB# DCA-01-MA-063
Signed Doug Brazy, and Dennis Crider Office of Research and Engineering.

Page 7, "Using Distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeeds at impact of 504 and 507 knots were calculated. This corresponds to an
impact speed of 510 knots calculated from RADAR Data Impact
Speed Study (AA11 & UA175)."



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Additionally, the speed attained by the jets was only sustained for a very, very BRIEF time.
BECAUSE of gravity, in the dive. The excessive speeds were accomplished....
There is NO WAY those speeds would have been sustained in level flight. BUT, when you add the effects of a descent.......and gravity.....


turbofan has shown a NTSB source that calculates the speed at impact of 510 knots.

weedwhacker, you're stating that this speed could only have been attained in a dive - not level flight? Are you stating that the alleged planes were both in dives when they allegedly struck the towers?

You've ruled out the possibility that those speeds could have been attained in level flight, so I guess the video evidence all show the alleged planes in the dives that you claim?

weedwhacker, could you please substantiate your claim that these speeds were attained for a 'very, very brief time'? I can check over your calculations once you've posted them.


EDIT: Don't worry about it, weedwhacker. I'll let you off the hook. I just read the thread's title... it's got nothing to do with the speed of the alleged AA11 and the alleged UA175.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by Lillydale
There is no other way to read his incessant and blatant attempts to pretend he says things he does not and pretend he has proof he does not


Please, can you cite one time where he claims to have proof for any of his claims? I really would like to see it, as I haven't yet.


Honestly, why are you sticking up for this shmo?


I don't see him that way. Clearly I don't hold his views regarding 9/11, but there are things that have been said about him that I simply don't think should be said about anyone.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Lillydale is a complete jerk most of the time


Laugh :-). You think so? I actually like her a lot, even if I don't always agree with her.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
but still I do not see anyone agreeing with you instead of her on this.


That's fine by me. I don't see the truth as a popularity contest anyway...



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You should really ACTUALLY read thommy's posts.


I do.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
When you get to one where he posts the bodies of dead pentagon employees as proof that passenger bodies were found, you will have an answer to your question.


If I ever find such a post, I agree wholeheartedly that I will have found my answer.



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I would say that claiming to have proof, presenting it and calling it proof would qualify as one time he claimed to have proof.


I agree. However, I don't think I've yet seen such a post.



Originally posted by K J GundersonYou do also realize that he is asking that a negative be proven? That is logical to you? Really???


I don't think he's simply asking us to show proof that the official story is flawed. If you are alluding to the claim that he's asking for negative proof, I haven't seen him do this.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Not going to play your sick game.

Look at the video evidence of UAL 175 (there is no video of AAL 11, except for the Naudet brothers' video of the impact)

There is ample evidence of the descent path displayed by UAL 175, prior to impact.

Anyone who claims otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.

Or, "trolling"...same thing.
________________________________________________________

Applies to AAL 77 too.

and....clever usage of the word 'alleged' is beginning to wear thin.

PICK a SIDE, tezzajw....or just stop trolling. It's disgusting.



[edit on 25 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


It is at least an aspect of proof to the claim that AA77 is what hit the pentagon. I think that makes it at least more relevant than whether or not Jthomas is logical.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Not going to play your sick game.

Of course you won't. I don't expect you to back up your claim about 'very, very brief' speeds with actual data or calculations.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Look at the video evidence of UAL 175... There is ample evidence of the descent path displayed by UAL 175, pror to impact.

There's ample video evidence of a level flight as well. That contradicts your claim that the speed was attained during a dive.

When you're ready to play the sick game, I'll wait for your calculations. Unless you wish to retract any of your claims and qualify them as your unproven opinion, rather than fact?

EDIT:

Originally posted by weedwhacker
PICK a SIDE, tezzajw....or just stop trolling. It's disgusting.

You have the option to ignore me, weedwhacker. I've chosen a side - to find the truth. Until I know what happened, then I have to read about what allegedly happened.



[edit on 25-9-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I would like to know how you can apply anything to AA77. How do you know where it went after it left radar?



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Here.

Watch.

ESPECIALLY at 7:05 But in other moments, you can see United Airlines Flight 175 in a descent, prior to the final level out and impact with the South Tower.

Of course, I can't make you see what is obvious, and you can continue to deny what is shown to you.

AND....because most of you reading this have only experience flying airplanes whilst holding a cocktail in row 17.....perhaps there is a misconception of just WHAT is entailed, in a shallow dive, what it looks like from outside, and what effect the addition of FULL POWER will have on the speed of the dive, even when fairly shallow.

I guess people think that they should see some sort of completely vertical maneuver....but, those people don't fly airplanes (fortunately).




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
There is NO WAY those speeds would have been sustained in level flight.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
But in other moments, you can see United Airlines Flight 175 in a descent, prior to the final level out and impact with the South Tower.

weedwhacker... you're typing one thing, then another.

First you state that impact speed can't be sustained in level flight. Then you state that UA175 levelled out and impacted with that speed.

Which is it?



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by scott3x
 


Wow fella. I have to be honest. I am not even going to peruse both those lengthy posts. If you want to romance thomas, do not let me get in the way. You do not need to bounce off of me to kiss his behind.


I'm trying to show compassion and understanding towards thomas. It's you I'm trying to romance ;-).



Originally posted by Lillydale
It is simple, can you point out just one good logical point he has made? I doubt it.


Nothing comes to mind. Like I said, I have found his best qualities are his relative civility and his refraining from claiming he has proof concerning any of his claims.



Originally posted by Lillydale
This thread is not about me, you, or that mental defective. This thread has a title.


Yes, it does. But how you treat those who participate in a thread can affect the thread's health. I could, ofcourse, branch this into a separate thread (so could you, I promise I would follow).


Originally posted by Lillydale
You and I have spent more than enough time discussing someone that is not only not worth discussing,


I disagree on that one...


Originally posted by Lillydale
but cannot even be bothered to defend himself.


Surely someone who can't be bothered to defend himself deserves some compassion...




Originally posted by Lillydale
Get over it or start some special thread you two can enjoy together or whatever your obsession is.


While I was talking about jthomas, I was talking about -your- comments concerning towards jthomas. If I'd want to pair off with anyone on this, that someone would be you.



Originally posted by Lillydale
I refuse to back away from anything I said unless that is the only way to get back on topic. I could really care less to debate you on whether or not that person is logical. I know he is not.


Well, if your mind's made up I guess there's no point in debating it then...


Originally posted by Lillydale
Apparently most people who read threads he posts on know he is not. You think whatever you like but this thread is about what hit the pentagon on 9/11.


I agree; I simply believe that you can't truly separate a thread from the people who post in it.



Originally posted by Lillydale
Your logical friend says it was AA77 with no proof,


Agreed.


Originally posted by Lillydale
no evidence,


He claims to have evidence, I see it to be more as unsubstantiated claims; essentially, I think it's something that has to be worked on...


Originally posted by Lillydale
two links that both prove to be faulty, and he will not even claim that the video actually contains AA77 streaking by.


See, this is what I think is -good- about him; he refrains from claiming some things that he knows he doesn't have evidence for.


Originally posted by Lillydale
What do you say hit the building?


Explosives, that were placed internally beforehand.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Re: jthomas


posted by Lillydale

It is simple, can you point out just one good logical point he has made? I doubt it.



posted by scott3x

Nothing comes to mind. Like I said, I have found his best qualities are his relative civility and his refraining from claiming he has proof concerning any of his claims.



I can. jthomas has shown astounding astuteness along one avenue of research.


posted by jthomas

Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.


In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.



jthomas Photoshopping Incorporated
Images in jthomas avatar read plane and impact and of course are wrong by 32 hours




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



Originally posted by SPreston
Re: jthomas


posted by scott3x

posted by Lillydale
It is simple, can you point out just one good logical point he has made? I doubt it.


Nothing comes to mind. Like I said, I have found his best qualities are his relative civility and his refraining from claiming he has proof concerning any of his claims.


I can. jthomas has shown astounding astuteness along one avenue of research.


posted by jthomas

Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.


In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.


I agree, that does sound rather good :-).


Originally posted by SPreston
jthomas Photoshopping Incorporated
Images in jthomas avatar read plane and impact and of course are wrong by 32 hours




I know he claims to believe that AA 77 hit the pentagon, but that's not the same thing as saying he has proof for it. And yep, I've definitely noted that rather large hour differential. Not sure if he has accounted for it.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Scott, I hate to be like this but I am just ignoring your posts now. If you want to write post after post extolling the virtues of a mindless troll, please find an appropriate place for it. I have given you all the time and energy I care to spend with on person discussing the posts of another. I get it, you have a crush. You claim to believe opposite things and yet insist on pretending this person has said and done things that every single person reading this thread knows they have not. J is either a liar, brain damaged, or having fun just making very little sense.

I believe it was made rather simple for you. If you really thought he had any good points, just post one. Sorry but I would not read a novel about lesbian frontierswomen and I will not read a novel about Jthomas. Check the title of the thread and see if maybe you took a wrong turn.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join