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.

 

To our forum plane experts - shame on you.

page: 1
52
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+28 more 
posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Come on guys!!, you are not being entirely honest with us here...

There are certain parts of an aircraft that survive the crash no matter what, yet for some unknown reason 9/11 has been elevated to `Anything is possible this day` status, and we are led to believe that whatever seems completely wrong regarding anything related to the planes, it is acceptable because... `Yeah man, but this was 9/11`.

No matter what, these parts endured nothing more (apart from the Tower collapses) than the normal scenarios involving plane crashes endure, plane hits ground, building, water, plane explodes due to it`s fuel content, crash investigators screen the site and return with x2 black boxes (1 cockpit voice recorder, 1 data), the engines, landing gear, parts of debris, Jet fuel is neither a high explosive nor has the capabilities of completely vaporising items made of titanium - plain and simple, 9/11 was no different to what these parts were subject to.


Firstly - Flight 93 and the COCKPIT flight recorder, I thought these recorded the voices of those in the cockpit (hence the name), so how was it possible that the passengers can be heard on this one?.

Secondly - The Pentagon.... This part of the cockpit and engine were just two from the many parts of debris recovered from the Lockerbie disaster - A 747 cruising at 31,000 feet when a bomb on board exploded, and the remains of other aircraft including an engine from Concorde, and a burnt out plane, burnt out due to grade A kerosene, exactly the same substance that was in the fuel tanks of all four planes from 9/11, notice the two intact engines, if engines are vaporised then it was not jet fuel they were subject to.

Also a comparison of what happens to the vegetation when jet fuel ignites.



WTC - Where do you start with this bucketful of anomalies, the impact of WTC2, and probably the main cause of this thread, we can all see the initial jet fuel explosion then within a millisecond BOOM!!!, as all hell breaks loose (blatant secondary upon impact explosions.).



Please do not tell us that is jet fuel exploding, it went from orange flame and white smoke to red flame and soot.

Next we have the engine that was shot from the building, let`s compare that and the Pentagon one - to three others involved in crashes including one that plummeted to Earth from 31,000 feet above us......




Four planes - 8 black boxes, 12 landing gears, 8 engines, 28 of parts that have a nigh on 100% chance of being retrieved from crashes in accessible places, no matter what, these were 4 planes and jet fuel, nothing more, nothing less.

You forum plane experts know all that is above is correct, why are you overlooking these points?.




posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


I'm confused?
You build a very good case for the fact that it was not jet fuel (kerosene) exploding, and you give great examples of other crashes with more impact and less accessibility, yet having more debris recovered, and recovery of the black boxes. You provide photos; it seems like a good case, but then you say it WAS 4 planes?

Which side are you on? LOL.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I'm making pop-corn to sit it out and watch.

I have a feeling I know what kind of thread this may turn into...



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Seventh
 


I'm confused?
You build a very good case for the fact that it was not jet fuel (kerosene) exploding, and you give great examples of other crashes with more impact and less accessibility, yet having more debris recovered, and recovery of the black boxes. You provide photos; it seems like a good case, but then you say it WAS 4 planes?

Which side are you on? LOL.


4 planes..

WTC = 2

Pentagon = 1

Shanksville = 1

= 4.
.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
im with tezz on this one. love that popcorn .. i think everyone deserves answers after this long . and not the wrong answers either .. .something different this time.. how bout .. . oh i dont know .. . truth?



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I'm making pop-corn to sit it out and watch.

I have a feeling I know what kind of thread this may turn into...


No matter what, watch them avoid the multicolour explosions part like the plague
.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Again, confused?

The multicolor explosions support the case that it was explosives rather than jet fuel? So.............



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Seventh
 


Again, confused?

The multicolor explosions support the case that it was explosives rather than jet fuel? So.............


Okay I will explain the explosions part, the forum plane experts will say that there are no secondary explosions it was jet fuel..period, we can plainly see there are two explosions at least going on here, they have yet to make any sort of reply to this point.

I just pasted the two explosions from WTC2 North face, check the seemingly lack of debris from the initial explosion to the second explosion, if this was one explosion where is this debris in the initial explosion?.




posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
It looks like the initial blast has a higher concentration of energy yielding a brighter color, but then as the explosion continues the fireball appears orange because the concentration of heat energy has been dispersed.

I like where you are going with this but I don't think these photographs represent a solid control environment for proper analysis.

To echo others' sentiments, yes, 8 years is too long w/out a proper investigation.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by Protostellar]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
These threads are kinda turning into "once you've read one, you've read them all!"

Just the same old, yes it was, no it wasn't, on and on. I'm with the others. Sit it out with popcorn and wait for the new investigation. That's the only way we're ever going to get any conclusive answers.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 





There are certain parts of an aircraft that survive the crash no matter what, yet for some unknown reason 9/11 has been elevated to `Anything is possible this day` status, and we are led to believe that whatever seems completely wrong regarding anything related to the planes, it is acceptable because... `Yeah man, but this was 9/11`.

No matter what, these parts endured nothing more (apart from the Tower collapses) than the normal scenarios involving plane crashes endure, plane hits ground, building, water, plane explodes due to it`s fuel content, crash investigators screen the site and return with x2 black boxes (1 cockpit voice recorder, 1 data), the engines, landing gear, parts of debris, Jet fuel is neither a high explosive nor has the capabilities of completely vaporising items made of titanium - plain and simple, 9/11 was no different to what these parts were subject to.

Firstly - Flight 93 and the COCKPIT flight recorder, I thought these recorded the voices of those in the cockpit (hence the name), so how was it possible that the passengers can be heard on this one?.

Secondly - The Pentagon.... This part of the cockpit and engine were just two from the many parts of debris recovered from the Lockerbie disaster - A 747 cruising at 31,000 feet when a bomb on board exploded, and the remains of other aircraft including an engine from Concorde, and a burnt out plane, burnt out due to grade A kerosene, exactly the same substance that was in the fuel tanks of all four planes from 9/11, notice the two intact engines, if engines are vaporised then it was not jet fuel they were subject to.

Also a comparison of what happens to the vegetation when jet fuel ignites.

WTC - Where do you start with this bucketful of anomalies, the impact of WTC2, and probably the main cause of this thread, we can all see the initial jet fuel explosion then within a millisecond BOOM!!!, as all hell breaks loose (blatant secondary upon impact explosions.).

Please do not tell us that is jet fuel exploding, it went from orange flame and white smoke to red flame and soot.

Next we have the engine that was shot from the building, let`s compare that and the Pentagon one - to three others involved in crashes including one that plummeted to Earth from 31,000 feet above us......

Four planes - 8 black boxes, 12 landing gears, 8 engines, 28 of parts that have a nigh on 100% chance of being retrieved from crashes in accessible places, no matter what, these were 4 planes and jet fuel, nothing more, nothing less.

You forum plane experts know all that is above is correct, why are you overlooking these points?.


*SNIP - No need for the personal attacks - Cheers, alien

While each aircraft accident is unique there are some similarities

The character of the debris fields depends on 2 major factors

Speed and angle of impact

Higher speed accidents result in greater degree of fragnmention as do
impacts at steep angle of impact

What survives is the impact more or less recognizable depends on those
factors and random chance

PAN AM 103 - the pictures you posted broke up at altitude do to bomb
in cargo compartment. Because of this were several large pieces which
impacted ground. One of which struck village of Lockerbie destroying
entire neighborhood




The explosion punched a 20-inch (0.51 m)-wide hole on the left side of the fuselage, almost directly under the 'P' in Pan Am. The disintegration of the aircraft was rapid.





The nerve centre of a 747, from which all the navigation and communication systems are controlled, is below the cockpit, separated from the forward cargo hold by a bulkhead wall. Investigators concluded that the force of the explosion broke through this wall and shook the flight-control cables, causing the front section of the fuselage to begin to roll, pitch, and yaw.[citation needed]

These violent movements snapped the reinforcing belt that secured the front section to the row of windows on the left side and it began to break away. At the same time, shock waves from the blast ricocheted back from the fuselage skin in the direction of the bomb, meeting pulses still coming from the initial explosion. This produced Mach stem shock waves, calculated to be 25% faster than, and double the power of, the waves from the explosion itself.[11][page needed] These shock waves rebounded from one side of the aircraft to the other, running down the length of the fuselage through the air-conditioning ducts and splitting the fuselage open.[13] A section of the 747's roof several feet above the point of detonation peeled away. The Mach stem waves pulsing through the ductwork bounced off overhead luggage racks and other hard surfaces, jolting the passengers.[citation needed]

Although the explosion was in the aircraft hold, the effect was increased by the large difference between aircraft cabin pressure and the outside air pressure (the latter is about a quarter of the former). The front section of the aircraft, containing the flight deck with crew and the first class section, broke away, striking the No. 3 Pratt & Whitney engine as it snapped off.[citation needed]




Investigators believe that within three seconds of the explosion, the cockpit, fuselage, and No.3 engine were falling separately. The fuselage continued moving forward and down until it reached 19,000 ft (6000 m), at which point its dive became almost vertical.[14]

As it descended, the fuselage broke into smaller pieces, with the section attached to the wings landing first (46.5 seconds after the explosion)[15] in Sherwood Crescent, Lockerbie, where the 200,000 lb (91,000 kg) of aviation fuel contained inside ignited. The resultant fireball destroyed several houses and was so intense that little remained of the left wing of the aircraft. No remains were ever found of any of the passengers who were seated over this section of the wing. Investigators were able to determine that both wings had landed in the crater after counting the number of large steel flap drive jackscrews that were later found there[11][page needed] - indeed there were no finds of wing structure outside the crater itself.[16]


Aircraft at WTC were travelling from 470 mph (Tower 1) to 530 mph (Tower 2)

The impacts at the WTC left several large pieces intact - jet engine on Rector Street, aircraft seat in trunk of car, aircraft wheel embedded in
section of exterior wall on street

These pieces had travelled through building and emerged on other side
In the 1945 crash of B25 into Empire State Building one of the motors
punched all way through to land on roof of adjacent structure.

Problem was lot of the aircraft remained inside WTC - where it was exposed to intense fires and was subsequently involved in building collapse

While jet engines, flight recorders and landing gear are engineered to
resist tremendous forces are not indestructible. Aluminium alloys melt
at about 600 C (1200) and will burn if heated enough. Ever seen an
aluminium beer can after being tossed in camp fire? Not lot left...

Even heavy duty pieces like landing gear struts can be smashed into
small unrecognizable fragments if impacts are great enough

As for vegetation in jet fuel fire - seen this one up close at 3AM when
business jet aircraft smashed into my neighborhood. While fireball was
impressive there were no secondary fires from it. Vegetation was only
singed

As for debris - the one who hit in my town left few recognizable pieces
2 x 3 ft piece of tail fin, landing gear light which hit parked car. Rest
was smashed into "metallic confetti" including 2 jet engines with titanium blades, landing gear and other heavy duty pieces. This plane hit at
estimated 350 mph at 80 deg angle into hill




[edit on 7-10-2009 by alien]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
And not to mention the fellow pilots who overlook the engine in the indestructable lawn (check 757 engine height) and the lack of any verifiable wing or engine damage along the building.

Oh and some missing frames.





Don't even get me started on the wtc scam.

[edit on 7/10/09 by GhostR1der]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Your opinion only, thank you for sharing.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
As with all the 9/11 related stuff, I'm holding my breath until I hear a qualified engineer/architech talk about this.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelur
As with all the 9/11 related stuff, I'm holding my breath until I hear a qualified engineer/architech talk about this.


so, if a "qualified" person says or confirms something, you believe it?

i hope a psychiatrist never tells you that you're bugs bunny.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I'm making pop-corn to sit it out and watch.

I have a feeling I know what kind of thread this may turn into...


mmmmmmm popcorn! I'll bring the coke and we can all have some baskin-robbins icecream at intermission...

This is definately gonna be fun to watch

Dave



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Lets talk about the "color" of the explosions.

The first picture is a brighter color. If you have ever taken a basic chemistry class, you should know that "red" fire is not as hot as brighter colors, such as orange to white.

So as others said, the first picture shows a "hotter" or brighter fire. This means it was hotter. More energy. A plane flying into a building is quite a lot of energy.

The second picture is of a redder flame and more black smoke. To me, that looks as if the initial impact energy has worn off and the fuel is starting to burn (black smoke).

The reason I hate 9/11 "debunkers" is because if they do not know the answer, they claim it was a cover up. You use a series of failed comparisons to try and further your point. Personally, I feel I have presented more than enough information for you just to label your few pictures wrong, which eliminates all credibility I could have given you in the first place, which was not much.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


You claim the red flames are not from jet fuel--What color would you prefer to make it so? Surely, you've seen the video of the B-52 crash at a California airbase, and/or the old video of a controlled crash of a 707? And doesn't the slow dissipation of the fireball suggest a fuelburn rather than an outright explosiion?

Finally, we have your created dilemna of exactly how the explosives were situated exactly on the spots of the floors on which both planes hit?
Coincidence or unfounded speculation?

Even if you fall back to the remotely controlled aircraft (by experienced pilots), it is unlikely that the planes could have been targeted precisely at spots on the exact floor areas to make it appear as if it was just jet fuel burning.

Your magical argument doesn't carry any weight and only adds to the confusion.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by Aliensun]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I'm not a plane expert...although I do have an AA in fire technology...and some decent common sense. Why were there no more plane parts when it hit the buildings vs your pics of standard plane into ground crashes? Well...the planes on 9/11 hit a freakin building at high speed...I am sure the force of the impact into a building smashed the plane into smaller pieces that were harder to find amongst the debris...especially at the WTC where the buildings fell...
Why did the fire go from bright orange w/ white smoke to dark orange with/ black smoke? I'm not saying there weren't explosives in the building, we will never know, but I am guessing the jet fuel was burning off and possibly debris from the building were starting to burn.

Just my $.02



new topics

top topics



 
52
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join