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: 6
52
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Your exact post



So the bomb in '93 did almost no damage so it was not the heat or concussive force. These planes were full of unaccounted for fuel that burned off outside the building in the explosion. We already ruled out a hotter stronger explosion so it wasn't that. The fuel made the planes much heavier right? But then according to the engineers and the video, the building should basically let the plane enter and sail through so then no matter how heavy it was, the plane was not going to cause more or less damage that way.


makes no sense in regards to what you posted about the measuring equipment, the 93 damage or to the airliner impacts.




posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
DP removed

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


makes no sense in regards to what you posted about the measuring equipment, the 93 damage or to the airliner impacts.


I have no idea how to make it any more simple. The engineers claimed that the building was designed so that a plane smashing into it would basically sail through and be shredded instead of really impacting the main structure. It has nothing to do with the '93 bombing.

I was adding them together as in...so the engineers said this about this and in 93 this happened which caused them to also say this other thing...and such. Just stop trying if you cannot understand it because I can not go any more stupid.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Holy smokes, it finally happened, I made a mistake. My apologies to you on that point.


Wow!! A star for you for admitting it.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

I have no idea how to make it any more simple. The engineers claimed that the building was designed so that a plane smashing into it would basically sail through and be shredded instead of really impacting the main structure.




You are assuming things here Lillydale. Or "just saying things", as you like to accuse others of. The structural design is calculated in such a way that the force of the object of a certain mass will not cause enough damage to the integrity of the building as to make it fail immediately. No one considers the shredding of the plane that you claim. The important thing is HOW the different structural components will share the load that will be added to them after the failure of other supporting structure. And YES, the inner structure is damaged in this calculations. The outer structure takes the resulting load.





posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


I am not assuming anything. I am discussing what I read in one of the documents supplied to me. When I get the chance I will find the exact quote.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


To make it more clear. Buildings are not designed to shread airplanes.
Structural calculations must deal with the possibility of a plane crash in all high rises. And the structure must be able to resist the impact. And fire protection on the other hand is calculated for fires brought about by short circuits, office supplies catching on fire, stuff like that, but not airplanes exploding when crashing against the building. (Or being used like weapons or missiles, at least not until 9/11.)




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by Lillydale
 


To make it more clear. Buildings are not designed to shread airplanes.
Structural calculations must deal with the possibility of a plane crash in all high rises. And the structure must be able to resist the impact. And fire protection on the other hand is calculated for fires brought about by short circuits, office supplies catching on fire, stuff like that, but not airplanes exploding when crashing against the building. (Or being used like weapons or missiles, at least not until 9/11.)




Can you read????????????? Please go back and read my post and try again. I made it pretty clear that I have not decided on my own that the plane should be shredded. I read that in the nice literature supplied by you OSers. The engineers claimed that the plane should be shredded.

You can go on and on about how they never expected a fire but if they planned for a plane to hit but did not expect any fires to ensue after impact...then they are full of $*#&. Are you claiming that accidental impacts have no ensuing fire? Fire is a factor of intent? If you do not want me talking about shredded planes, try to stop the OS docs from having those statements in them.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Seventh, I couldn't help noticing that in your latest batch of pictures the sky in the top two has dramatically changed colour.

Could you explain why this might be?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Seventh, I couldn't help noticing that in your latest batch of pictures the sky in the top two has dramatically changed colour.

Could you explain why this might be?


I use various photos from different sources bud, the sky is several shades, but the explosions are the same colours, I learnt a long time ago to try and get a similar picture but a different source
.

EDIT: P.S.

P.S. I forget to mention I use a lot of stills from videos, these will capture a whole lot more (mostly not noticable until you slow the film right down) than cameras. Also, as this thread has gone to pot I made another, same topic as the explosions but I covered it in a few different ways.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

/cheers

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
aelur....

Here is one you are qualified to judge. Go out in evening sun. You want long shadows. Lift your foot 12 inches above the ground. The shadow of your foot may be three to four feet away.
Good. Your actual foot has a head start. Can it reach the ground before your shadow reaches it? Can you get your foot back on the ground while the shadow is still a couple of feet away but closing fast? This is pure nonsense. No matter how fast you stomp, when your foot connects to the ground the shadow will have joined it. third grade logic....so what?
There is a video of people working in the street. The cameraman hearing the plane above and seeing what is happening swings his camera up and catches the FIRST plane crashing into the towers.
Zoom in and freeze frame the moment the fireball begins to appear in front of the plane. Notice how far to the right the shadow of the plane is..... Do you believe the plane reached the tower before its shadow caught up with it?
Are we not talking 3rd grade physics? If the shadow of the plane is still off to the right then the plane has not made contact with the building.
SO WHY IS IT EXPLODING?
Remember we freeze framed when the fireball first appeared. Is someone going to claim buildings explode in anticipation of imminent crashes?
This is the one photo that should be splashed across every debunker site. A fireball appearing in front of a plane whose shadow makes it very clear that the plane has not yet contacted the building.
Drop the other anomalies for the moment. That one pic alone is justification for another investigation. That one pic alone establishes phenomena arab terrorist could not produce.
I think the debunkers would much prefer to argue melting points of steel or the descent rate of falling objects. Much easier to confuse the laymen. But that photo is something any layman can grasp.
If I knew how to capture individual pics from videos I would post it here myself. Can someone else catch that particular frame? Until it is shown they will simply deny it exist. Once someone posts it I am eager to hear them stutter when asked to explain it.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Debunkers want to argue melting points of steel and descent rates of debris etc. Easy to confuse laymen.
Can you stomp your foot so fast that your foot will contact the ground before the shadow of your foot reaches it? Silly! Nonsensical No matter how fast your foot moves when it reaches the ground the shadow will be right there connected to it.
My point.
If you freeze frame the video of the FIRST plane crash just as the fireball appears in front of it you will see the shadow of the plane is still off to the right.
Third grade physics. This can not happen unless the plane has NOT yet reached the tower.
But if the plane has not yet made contact with the building THEN WHY IS IT EXPLODING?
A picture worth a thousand words. A pic every layman can easily grasp. Discussing melting points, chemical compositions of flames producing different colors, free fall rates of speed, etc. is playing into the debunkers hand. They know even if you realize they are full of s**t the average layman reading the thread probably won't if they can insert enough technoese. They're not really worried about you. It's the 'masses' they want to keep in the dark.
Simple picture....Shadow shows plane has not yet reached the tower...Why is it exploding?
Any layman can grasp this. It should be splashed all over every debunker site. If I knew how to capture a single frame from a video I would post it myself. Until someone does though they will simply deny it exist. Once its reality is established think of how much fun it will be to listen to them stutter when asked to explain it.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
My error. Double posted two drafts of same message...my bad...sorry



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

Yes, I did read the article.The statement in question is QUOTE,,["the Twin Towers were constructed with their weight distributed between a hollow steel core (containing services like elevators) and steel columns around the perimeter, maximizing open floor space. Many believe the older high-rise design, in which steel columns are often encased in concrete, is more fire resistant." ]End quote. The writer is good at taking things out of context and making it sound like the Structural engineer Leslie Robertson,is saying it.In the quote above it is from the writer, not from Structural engineer Leslie Robertson, So yes i am questioning the motive, of, you, and the writer,! Post the full transcript of the interview.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
In response to those requesting proof of what was said, regarding the towers abilities to withstand a plane strike, here is the manager of the WTC construction and management team, this short clip can be found in 9/11 Mysteries 06.52 seconds into part I.......


(click to open player in new window)



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


So when I post a copy of a 1912 newspaper article quoting Bruce Ismay as saying the Titanic is unsinkable, will you start looking for the dastardly fellow who put the iceberg in her path? Or did someone wire the hull with explosives?

Someone saying a building could withstand multiple airliners crashing into it, does not make it true.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


At this point, since you are questioning my motive, I am going to question your reading comprehension skills. For the purposes of structural support, the center core is hollow. Its a four sided metal box with utility runs, elevator shafts and stairwells inside it. The majority of the buildings support came from the outside wall, the wall of the "core" and the trusses between them. (BTW, trusses across an elevator shaft would be a BAD idea)



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by On the level
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


None of the evidence convinces me. I would not put it past the Bush regime to have done this but I need more proof. I do agree with half the truth movement. I'm a half-truther.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



So when I post a copy of a 1912 newspaper article quoting Bruce Ismay as saying the Titanic is unsinkable, will you start looking for the dastardly fellow who put the iceberg in her path? Or did someone wire the hull with explosives?

Someone saying a building could withstand multiple airliners crashing into it, does not make it true.


So how does this work then, heads you win tails I loose?, typical scenario seen on here.....

`Where is proof that someone stated the towers would withstand a fleet of 707`s hitting them`.

`Here`s proof`.

`Just because that expert said that, it doesn`t make it true`.


Really is quite obvious that in the absence of Condoleezza Rice`s promise of incoming evidence, (as the deadline has now just gone and her missing it by a mere 8 years and 1 month, still counting) that instead of being able to back up the OS with raw facts, the only stance left is bombing threads armed with self opinions and absolutely nothing else...

Food for thought.....

1). They will never land on the moon.

2). Heart transplants will never be possible.

3). Man will never fly.

4). Splitting the atom is impossible.

5). No-one will ever run a mile in under 4 minutes.

Your logic works both ways.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 





Really is quite obvious that in the absence of Condoleezza Rice`s promise of incoming evidence, (as the deadline has now just gone and her missing it by a mere 8 years and 1 month, still counting) that instead of being able to back up the OS with raw facts, the only stance left is bombing threads armed with self opinions and absolutely nothing else...


And you rely on the opinion of a man who died on 9/11....shortly after he requested engineering assistance when he started assessing the damage that day and said he was seeing signs a partial collapse was imminent.


Of course, then the rest of your post only confirms what ive been pointing out for a long time. Engineers did once say we would never land on the moon or that splitting the atom would end life on Earth...and they were wrong. Just as the engineers who said the Towers would survive the impact of an airliner were wrong.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join