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: 4
52
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Ooops nearly forgot, entered the South face, cut through some centre core columns, and exited the North face, I really do find this mind boggling - The toughest x3 items are nowhere to be seen, yet we have some fibre glass nose cone ripping through so much steel it`s laughable ,`Yeah man, but that was 9/11`.



And to most of you debunkers, address the questions as they are asked, no complete twisting them to suit with a completely derailed and side stepped answer to a question I did not ask, I will ask them again.....

Voice recorders microphones and being turned on to hear passengers, in planes that can hold up to 300 people, screaming hysterically - 300 - people - I take it they didn`t want to hear the Captain and co then, in an emergency environment?, or was this purely for the court case as evidence?.

The explosions - Apart from the blatant colour difference there is also a lot more debris shown with the secondary explosion, explain this please.

Laymen terms and the parts normally found after a plane crash, what is the normal ratio to parts found in accessible areas here we have x2 landing gear, an engine that shrunk as to fit in a waste bin next to it, and the Pentagon part not vaporised which proves that the engines were not vaporised but has lashings of `Yeah man, but this was 9/11`, attached to it, and a passenger area flight recorder, so 9/11 yielded 5 items from 28, roughly 18%, I just done a little google search relating to found plane parts around crash sites, every single one had engines, landing gear, flight recorders.

What was the difference of the four planes that day, that their crashes defined the stringent tests that flight recorders are subject to, which covers explosions, heat, cold, being crushed, in fact every single aspect a plane crash can through at them - they survive it.

So, in the nutshell, the four planes involved only had one flight recorder between them, or, whatever destroyed them had nothing to do with any aspect of a plane crash, thus they were not designed to take it.

I showed with my original post x3 engines that had been subjected to every single angle of a plane crash - heat and hitting a solid object, a high altitude descent plunge, and being jettisoned into a road so hard it embedded in the road, all however, still look, exactly like, what they are supposed to look like, so, as this is regarded as normal, please post pictures etc of other plane engines that shrunk or completely disintegrated but left one part perfectly cylindrical, if however there are absolutely no engines whatsoever that look anything the same, but hundreds upon hundreds that do, why is it that this is regarded as perfectly normal due to the situation, which by all accounts was what exactly?, Jet Fuel and hitting things.




posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
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...?)



There are a lot of films and photographs that show different colours, whilst filming it, also the debris and a liquid based explosion will have droplets splattering everywhere and leaving small smoke trails, throw a cup full of burning petrol out of a window and see what happens, these explosions are down to an inflammable liquid, they show very little characteristics of this whatsoever
.

This picture shows the North face exit explosion as completely different.....


/cheers.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I dont know how anyone can look at all of the evidence and still believe the official story. It beggars belief and makes me sick to my stomach. I hope one day the people really responsible are brought to justice however like JFK I doubt it. The buildings where brought down as a catalyst for the wars we are now losing simple as that



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Seventh,

You do realize that there were NO planes involved in the attacks on Sept. 11.?.......don't you..



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousMoose
 


I guess that explains why there was no debris found at the towers site. No debris of anything, moving fast from outside or sitting still inside the building. No evidence of anything even being in the building, except for a whole lot of steel and concrete in powder form. Those desks, filing cabinets, people, etc must have been moving real fast to not leave any debris at the collapse site.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by lozenge
 


Umm no, I never said the parts were vaporized by kerosene. No clue how you came to that decision reading my post. I said I wished that the man who first used the word "vaporized" wouldnt have used it.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 





Voice recorders microphones and being turned on to hear passengers, in planes that can hold up to 300 people, screaming hysterically - 300 - people - I take it they didn`t want to hear the Captain and co then, in an emergency environment?, or was this purely for the court case as evidence?.


Well if you had bothered to actually do some research (which I know, is asking a lot of a truther) you would have found out that the only time the passenger voices were captured on Flight 93's CVR was when the passengers were trying to gain access to the cockpit. In other words, they were close to the microphones.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999






was when the passengers were trying to gain access to the cockpit. In other words, they were close to the microphones.



Are you saying that cockpit doors have locks on them?, did four Captains that day forget to lock their doors, wow what another `Yeah man, but that was 9/11` moment.




[edit on 9-10-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Thread update so far....

1). Multi - coloured explosions has had some good input, a high percent of this is they are down to different cameras, videos, this does not however explain why the debris showers are completely different, nor the pictures that clearly show both aspects of the explosions.

2). No positive assessment as to why there was only 5 from 28 of the normally found plane parts, and no explanatory replies stating why this is so.

3). Again, regarding the engine found at WTC, and the rotor in good condition that managed to outdo the unexplained phenomena that vaporised the rest of the engine it came from, and of course the other engine, two from Shanksville, and three from WTC.

4). There has been absolutely no theories whatsoever put forward as to what vaporised 6.5 engines that day, but we are led to believe this is normal, it is not, in fact it is far from normal. Google any inland plane crash and see how many FR`s, Engines, Landing Gears, were not found.

`How many were subject to 110 storeys collapsing in on them?`, they say, poppycock, the planes were above around 80 storeys, the storeys above were reduced to dust, and 80% of the debris was ejected outside of the towers footprints.

Some simple maths.. Average of amount of storeys above planes = 30 - 80% of 30 = 24, so the planes were subjected to no more than 6 storeys of dust falling on them, that managed to vaporise 3 engines, 4 FR`s and 5 Landing Gears.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Surely landing gear has been identified from three of the planes? There are lost of eyewitness reports of it at the Pentagon and then you've got the bit on West Broadway and the piece that struck the Marriot.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999






was when the passengers were trying to gain access to the cockpit. In other words, they were close to the microphones.



Are you saying that cockpit doors have locks on them?, did four Captains that day forget to lock their doors, wow what another `Yeah man, but that was 9/11` moment.


[edit on 9-10-2009 by Seventh]


How quickly they forget. What was one of the first actions ordered after 9/11? For cockpit doors to be reinforced to prevent intrusion and for it to be manditory that the doors were secured during flight. Not to mention revamping of airline procedures when it came to hijacking.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


What is with this attitude???


Are you saying that cockpit doors have locks on them?


Of course they had locks on them. The doors were made of the same material as your average lavatory door. Or non-structural bulkhead partiton.

Very flimsy aluminum frames. Insubstantial knobs, that BTW would accept a universal key, that worked every Boeing door it encounterd, at least within a particular Company. In fact, my key worked on EVERY airplane cockpit door in our fleet, for the entire 18 years since I was hired, and until the doors were REPLACED with the current, heavy-duty versions.



...did four Captains that day forget to lock their doors, wow what another `Yeah man, but that was 9/11` moment.



Now, that is just flat-out rude!!!!

Having trouble with the thread's "Theories" and mistaken "Conclusions"???



Arghhh. If the concept of storming through a door that has been innocently opened by a Flight Attendant to bring food or drink into the cockpit, OR if a pilot is exiting to go tinkle his winky, THIS seems like a foreign "9/11 moment" to you???

I just shake my head, sometimes.

Now, this was also a discussion of the CVR microphone in the cockpit. It is abbreviated "CAM" in transcripts, that stands for 'cockpit area microphone'.

HERE is where it's located in the cockpit:

www.airliners.net...

This is called the 'overhead panel'.

Look near the bottom center, you see the wet compass (the magnetic compass) --- find that for orientation purposes. It is located, as you see, aligned with the center windshield post.

Look left, then UP slightly. (which would be AFT). You see some sliver switches, and some concentric knobs and a square button. Everything there controls various lights -- the switches are the exterior "Runway Turnoff" lights (think cornering lights in your car), the other panel with knobs is for interior cockpit lighting, and the square button is called a "Thunderstorm Light"...it is a master that overrides most other controls for interior lights, and turns them on to bright....for those times that bright lightning flashes may destroy your night vision...or just because you want instant bright lights, at night.

NOW, the next little panel there, that is the CVR panel. That's the microphone on the left, there is a impedance meter in the middle, and the green TEST button, and red ERASE button next to that. ALSO, you can see the headphone jack, because we are supposed to plug in and listen, to ascertain that the mic is working.

Oh, and BTW....loud noises that occur right there in the galley area, just outside the cockpit door, even when it's closed? Yes, we can hear them. Shouts, plates or drinking glasses falling and breaking, even sneezes and loud arguments.....and the mic can pick all that up, too.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Jet fuel has a flash point(the temperature at which it ignites into flame) of 100 degrees F, and it has a fire point(the temperature at which it will continue to produce vapors for ignition) of 110 degrees F.
If the first explosion was from the jet fuel, then no fuel would have been left to burn. The fire point is too low.
Besides that the maximum open air burning temp. for jet fuel A is just over 500 degrees. That is nowhere near what was reported.

The official storyline completely contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Jet fuel cannot explode and then somehow by an act of God reignite and then burn for thirty minutes.
Anyone who studies physics and buys the official storyline, is an abomination to their science.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Seventh. I have to say, you are one of the best examples of “truther logic” at work.
Let´s see. So far. You are an expert on photography, video and how color can be interpreted in those media. Your explanation to the difference in color from some images to others is the ONLY ONE THAT IS VALID. In other words you´re the only authority on interpretation of the meaning of each of the colors seen in those fireballs.
Then you turned “magically” into aviation accident expert. (This by the way is no accident.) And you are the ONLY ONE who can decide how many, what size, and what type of debris or parts are to be found at each crash site on 9/11.
You complain there has been “no positive assessment as to why there was only 5 (also something you arbitrarily set) from 28 of the “normally” found plane parts??? Normally???
The fact is, the assessment as to why this happened, should be COMPLETELY OBVIOUS to you or anyone else.

Where you totally lost credibility and showed your lack of seriousness, respect for those who died and a lack of proper research in aviation related matters is when you go discussing the CVR. (Cockpit voice recorder.)
People have been trying to help you on the subject.
But in complete accordance with “truther´s logic” you have dismissed their help and information. It´s of no value to you.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


Do you seriously believe you have to be an expert in any aspect of all this to spot the flaws?.

I specifically introduced `Yeah man, but this was 9/11`, for replies like yours, now, the explosives, I think I have mentioned this part at least three times in this thread...... The debris showers are completely different also. No expertise in plane crash investigations is needed, to put forward common knowledge facts.

Apn the debunkers make the whole 9/11 fiasco some sort of intricately unique event that had it`s own set of rules, it was the day that science, physics, time, maths, did not exist.

Now, you can make out the whole event was so complex that anyone putting forward some basic summaries of what is the norm, are obviously suffering from illusions of Grandeur, that`s fine.

If I believed the OS I would make threads with relevant pictures to enforce what is quite plain to see, the reason I do not, is very simple, there is no hardcore evidence whatsoever to back it up, now this may escape your attention, but, every single aspect of 9/11 has more signs of being an inside job, than the work of terrorists, to enforce this, do as I do..

Create a thread relating to the OS, using pictures, film clips, maths, science, whatever, that strengthens it and concludes that it is 100% fact, you will find this nigh on impossible, which brings us to the reason why so many people do not believe the OS.

When something happens identically to the way it was explained, two things happen...

1). There is so much proof and evidence to enforce it, that there is no need to argue it out, it plain and simply speaks for itself.

2). There are no indications and or bucketfuls of anomalies to prove otherwise.

There is not one single aspect of 9/11 that is not subject to discrepancies, changed stories, bending of science, maths, physics, pyrotechnics, forensics, normal defence protocols, and ignoring 503 first responders stating they heard, witnessed, or both, explosions, this beggars belief, it could have been the terrorists who planted the bombs.

To this day there is still no explanation of how the towers collapsed, there are only so many things that can cause a building to collapse.......

1). Acts of God (Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Landslides, Avalanches, Floods, etcetera).

2). Subsidence.

3). Fire.

4). Explosive devices.

Now, we can rule out 1 and 2, fire was a contributory factor no doubting that, but it was not the sole cause, by the powers of elimination it is not rocket science to work out what else was involved, 503 people said so, and the timings of the collapses, the way they collapsed, and even though they have been explained as something else, loads of evidence pointing towards explosions and c/d`s, why has the only possible cause of collapse left, not been investigated?. And does putting this forward make me a a buildings expert?.

When playing Cluedo and all that`s left are Mr Peacock, Library, Gun, then, that is it, you do not have to prove that it was [random aspect] that done something, but prove that every other probability to cause it, did not.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 





Now, we can rule out 1 and 2, fire was a contributory factor no doubting that, but it was not the sole cause, by the powers of elimination it is not rocket science to work out what else was involved, 503 people said so, and the timings of the collapses, the way they collapsed, and even though they have been explained as something else, loads of evidence pointing towards explosions and c/d`s, why has the only possible cause of collapse left, not been investigated?



Do you or do you not realize that a fueled airliner is a very large potential explosive device? Under the right conditions (i.e. slamming into a building) it is going to explode.

There were three types of damage incurred by the towers that day, initial impact damage, then damage caused by the exploding airliners and finally the damage by the unchecked fires.

You can scream all day long that there has never been an explanation for the collapse of the Towers. And all day long, you will be wrong. There has been an explanation issued, you just refused to accept it.


Then you mention the first responders. You really should be careful using them. Very few of them think that were bombs that day. Actually several of them have gotten quite pissy because people like yourself try to use their words to support the bomb theory.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999





Do you or do you not realize that a fueled airliner is a very large potential explosive device? Under the right conditions (i.e. slamming into a building) it is going to explode.

There were three types of damage incurred by the towers that day, initial impact damage, then damage caused by the exploding airliners and finally the damage by the unchecked fires.

You can scream all day long that there has never been an explanation for the collapse of the Towers. And all day long, you will be wrong. There has been an explanation issued, you just refused to accept it.


Then you mention the first responders. You really should be careful using them. Very few of them think that were bombs that day. Actually several of them have gotten quite pissy because people like yourself try to use their words to support the bomb theory.



Firstly my apologies regarding my earlier post, I did not intend to insult, sorry for that.

Secondly, I have read every single one of these testimonies I earnestly plead with you to do the same.......




The Sept. 11 Records A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them. The oral histories of dispatch transmissions are transcribed verbatim. They have have not been edited to omit coarse language.


Source.........

graphics8.nytimes.com...

How would the commission have fared if all of the above gave evidence?

Also........

www.911truth.org...

We have on the spot written and verbal accounts from 503 first responders, every one of them tell of explosions, but once again, this aspect from your side of the fence gets tarnished with



Then you mention the first responders. You really should be careful using them. Very few of them think that were bombs that day. Actually several of them have gotten quite pissy because people like yourself try to use their words to support the bomb theory.


On a footnote, the only reason the plane impacts have been deemed responsible for the collapses is down to the outrageous explosions seen from WTC2, deep down inside when you look at that explosion you know something is horribly wrong with it, same with WTC1, look at any report relating to the 1st impact and see if it contains any references to to this, and even more importantly - Why not?...



Again - An outrageously over the top reaction from a plane crash and Jet Fuel, WTC1 was hit nigh on dead centre, for that rear explosion to have happened it would have to have cut through the centre core.

The engineers whom designed the Twin Towers has clearly stated they were designed to withstand a fleet of 707`s hitting them........

911research.wtc7.net...

All aspects of a plane crash were taken into consideration and incorporated into their structures, why is it that 3 towers collapsed, that were over engineered to cope with the major causes blamed for causing it?, planes and the resulting fires that should have been, had all been taken into consideration and duly accounted for in their designs.

When the engineers worked out the design needed to cope with a fully loaded 707 hitting them, the speed, damage, and the initial explosion and resulting fire, were all brought into the equation, so what part had they glaringly overlooked - that must have been such an apparent design flaw that not only did it fail once, but twice, and a 3rd tower collapsed also due to this.

If there was such an oversight to the Towers designs, that was seemingly exposed by the planes, then is it not the case that the architects and structural engineers are guilty of - Gross incompetence and neglect resulting in the loss of life?.

/cheers.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

The engineers whom designed the Twin Towers has clearly stated they were designed to withstand a fleet of 707`s hitting them........


Out of curiosity, do you know if those engineers have ever been interviewed about what happened? Did they accept the OS? I think that must be quite embarrassing for them and quite a difficult situation really. If they accept the OS then it makes their design look very poor and if they don't accept it then what else do they offer?

Or have they always kept silent?

Would be interesting to find out.

Mark



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


One of the engineers who helped design the Towers said that they would survive an airliner impacting them. It was Frank DeMartini who offered his opinion that the towers could withstand multiple airliner impacts. Now this is where I would normally point out that engineers are wrong all the time and even offer examples, however, it would do no good.


I do find it curious however, that you keep trying to use the color of the explosions to try to prove your theories. Well, maybe entertaining would be a better word than curious........reminds me of the people that used to claim black smoke was proof the fires were going out.



graphics8.nytimes.com...

Ah yes...I know that site well...since I am one of the first people to have posted it....long ago.

Psst....seeing the word "explosion" does not show/indicate/prove there was a bomb involved. Most large office building fires have explosions at some point.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
To say that the building will withstand an impact of an airliner doesn´t mean it will not collapse later.
It means the building will not fail at that instant. It will not topple or collapse in that moment.
That is different from saying that a building is indestructible.
Of course in line with “truther´s logic” you are claiming the engineers considered all the aspects as seen on 9/11, and you have failed them on their design. Well, not all the aspects of 9/11 had been foreseen by the engineers.
In fact, I believe that on that statement the engineers weren´t considering the fire and explosion. They were just referring to the forces of the impact alone. (I´m talking of the explosion of the plane.)
But THE TRUTH IS, the towers design behaved even better than anticipated, because the fact that they took the time they did to collapse, allowed THOUSANDS of people to get out of there.


[edit on 10-10-2009 by rush969]

[edit on 10-10-2009 by rush969]



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join