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: 3
52
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 



Laser targeting is awesome, have you ever seen what they can do with laser beams...pew! pew!




posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Ok, this is a barn burner!

Here is my opinion: I don't think the planes that hit WTC 1,2 can, at that altitude reach the 400-500 mph speeds.

IN the Doc Seven Days in September, the amateur video reveals debris at very high speed, projecting horizontally from the opposite side of the impact on WTC.

CGI it looks like, was used in the 'Live feed' in lieu of the 'hijacked planes'.

WTC 7 ???????? Why do many people, the main populace, always forget about WTC 7???

I was explaining these thing to my father, he was sceptical. But then I mentioned WTC 7 and that piqued his intrest.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Hey sev! great post.
This picture you posted,brings another,question, to mind.
You are good at adding stuff to pics,can you do me a favor?
Can you add a football stadium to the pic scaled down,to the picture?

What I see, is a huge huge huge fire ball,that expands well acroos, both buildings.
I would like to know how much jet fuel it would take to create a fire big enough to fill TWO! football stadiums. LOL.Think about sitting in a stadium,then look around, and truly! think how much fuel it would take to fill TWO football stadiums?

The buildings are,210 by 210 feet wide. (the fire in the pic is a good 500 feet wide)Each floor is an ACRE in size!AN acre people !Imagine a fire the size of an acre?Can you see it in your head?

Now imagine, the energy, needed, to just heat, and cool,220 ACREs?
Now imagine the energy needed to bring them down?



files.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 





There are certain parts of an aircraft that survive the crash no matter what,


No. There are avionics that by their design and placement in the aircraft they have a higher chance of surviving a crash, but thats it. They are made out of the same materials as the other avionics. There is NO part that is guaranteed to survive a crash, none. Sure, you might find what is left of those parts, but there is no guarantee it will survive intact during a crash let alone a high speed impact with a building that later collapses.




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?.


Firstly, why dont you do some research on the placement of microphones that record the audio for the CVR. Then, check to see when it is when the passenger voices are first heard on the recording and compare that to the theorized timeline of events on Flight 93. Finally, if you do that research you will find the answer to your question.




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.


Comparing Flight 103 to Flight 77...isnt a valid comparison of any kind. I would expect large parts of an airliner that breaks up in flight to survive. The explosion of the bomb did not affect the length of Flight 103's airframe, it caused a rupture in the area it exploded and aerodynamic forces did the rest, Flight 77's impact with the Pentagon affected the entire length of its airframe. Not to mention that what was left of Flight 77 was exposed to fire a lot longer and it had a building collapse on top of it.

Then you show pictures of engine wreckage that survived their respective crashes, but which one of those engines impacted a building at high speed? Flight 77's engines didnt "vaporize" (I truly wish the individual that used that word to try to visualize what he saw, hadnt used it because its become the anchor of so many truther arguments...but he did) Flight 77's engines were torn apart from the impact with the building....and chunks of them did survive. So again, you are using an argument that ignores facts.

Then there is the popular "color of the explosion" argument...which is too laughable for words...not to mention its already been addressed......

Im sorry...why are us plane experts supposed to feel shame? Because we know your arguments dont hold water?



[edit on 8-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 





how does an airliner EXPLODE on impact, in the first second of impact it's just sheet metal against building material. the front of the plane, and the rest of the plane structure, does not have a detonator on the nose like a military cannon round, or a missile


Plenty of videos here, showing various aircraft crashes, most of which explode on impact...including the Airbus that flew into the trees and crashed.....oh yeah...it exploded too...

video.google.com...#



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:04 AM
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.


There have been several engineers who have talked about this. The main engineer for the world trade center itself came out and said that the situation seemed rather dubious in consideration to the way they constructed the WTC.

So, if you haven't heard any qualified professionals on this issue, its because you haven't been listening.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Four airplanes = 8 engines.

2 engines found.

Hmm. Were the other six disintegrated?

Disinfo agents unite.


news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 8-10-2009 by antiopression]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by antiopression
 


Again, listen to me very carefully. Try and follow along. I know it's difficult.

Plane hit building pre-loaded with demolition charges. Plane (with engines) go bye bye.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by antiopression
 


Again, listen to me very carefully. Try and follow along. I know it's difficult.

Plane hit building pre-loaded with demolition charges. Plane (with engines) go bye bye.



Dude! Listen to me carefully. I know it's hard for you to follow
I'm on your side.
So back off with the holier than thou attitude.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by antiopression

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by antiopression
 


Again, listen to me very carefully. Try and follow along. I know it's difficult.

Plane hit building pre-loaded with demolition charges. Plane (with engines) go bye bye.



Dude! Listen to me carefully. I know it's hard for you to follow
I'm on your side.
So back off with the holier than thou attitude.


See how these threads go off on such a tangent that by page 3 nobody can even remember what the OP was and people on the same side start arguing with each other



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Mark_Amy
 


Well, I can understand. Anyone who can't see that 9-11 was the biggest snake oil job perpetuated by Mossad/CIA is either got their head in the sand or their hand in Uncle Sams pocket.

It's very frustrating that this is even a debate. The whole thing deserves a reinvestigation at the very least.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by antiopression
 


I'm playing! Shesh!



Why so serious?



[edit on 10/8/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Seventh, I do enjoy your posts. They're often thought provoking.

But this


Originally posted by Seventh


No matter what, these parts endured nothing more (apart from the Tower collapses) than the normal scenarios involving plane crashes endure,



is not your finest hour.


They were subject to... Hitting the ground (Shanksville), Hitting a building (head on), and Hitting two skyscrapers... So we have planes all but hitting the sea and jet fuel explosions, how are any of these points different to other plane crashes?, Jet fuel and hitting something, no matter what, are the only aspects of plane crashes, don`t be bitten by the `Yeah man, but it was 9/11` bug
.

WTC2 exit from North face showed (alleged) landing gear and an engine being expelled, does this not prove the whole point of this thread?, a quick reminder of what commercial jet engines look like......



Another reminder of what the two from 8 engines recovered from 9/11 look like and another reminder of what jet engines look like after falling from 31,000 feet, hitting the road with such force it embedded into it, and an intense fire and ground/building impact, none of these three could fit into a waste bin.......



Jet fuel and hitting things, nothing more, nothing less.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


So, the parts WERE all vaporized by kerosene jet fuel?

Right...

Are you a rocket scientist?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I really do not have the time atm to reply to a lot of replies here, my apologies for that, but again, a reminder of the 200 plus metres long and 100 plus metres high cookie cutter aviation fuel explosion......



And someone asked for a football field to be superimposed (cannot remember who exactly) i`m out of time bud sorry, but here is something similar, off centre to explosions point of impact.....



And a scaled to suit plane and respective fuel content showed as metres cubed......




posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:00 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.


OK you must have missed the majority of what happened 9/11
two planes in NYC
one in PA
One outside of DC
equals 4 evaporated planes that were totally unrecoverable.
BTW Good work on OP!



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Hi Seventh. I have a question for you regarding colors in the photos that you present.
Can you explain why the buildings look white in some pictures and in others they look gray?
Shouldn´t they look silver or aluminum in color?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by Seventh
 


Hi Seventh. I have a question for you regarding colors in the photos that you present.
Can you explain why the buildings look white in some pictures and in others they look gray?
Shouldn´t they look silver or aluminum in color?


The very bottom picture is the East face and it has just gone nine in the morning, so the Sun will be reflecting off the alloy Facade and making it a whole lot brighter, also - A lot of pictures originate as frames of videos, mostly shot by the MSM, and some of their backdrops and contrast etc was poor vision wise.

The film I captured these pictures from is this one.....

www.history.com...#/nyu-dorms/

A good example of actual photograph and clipped frame from a video is this, the colour of the smoke and dust cloud - from this...



To this.......



/cheers.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Seventh. No amount of light on the subject will change the opinion of those who like to dwell in the dark.

But your efforts are honorable.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I understand that one face of the tower is brighter than the other because the sun is shining on it.
However you didn´t answer my question.
Why does the color that we see in the photos not correspond to the real color of the building?
The reason I ask this is because if the building doesn´t look the right color, then why do we have to believe that the explosion and fire have the correct colors?
I say this because you seem to be basing some assumptions on this color issue in your OP.

Let me quote you: “ Please do not tell us that is jet fuel exploding. It went from orange flame and white smoke to red flame and soot.”
(Could this have a much simpler explanation? Like film processing, different cameras, shutter speeds, etc, etc...?)




new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join