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.

 

The 911 OS. Operational Suitability

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


pieces. not the aeroplane, the hole was like 10x10 and it was supposed to be a 747 that crashd




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   


1) Could Al-Queda not have planted the bombs in the Twin Towers and got hold of Thermite? 2) If the USA actually did it, then why would they use Thermite, a patented chemical to the MoD? Surely, if they could co-ordinate everything to such fine detail, why would they leave these tell tail signs? 3) One thing that bothers me is the plane that crashed into the pentagon, but nobody found it. See, if the Americans did set all this up, why the Pentagon Hoax.


1- They could have. If all of the noted construction all of a sudden, extra security people and other "strange happenings" in the weeks leading up to 911 its within reason to say that they did, by proxy of having contacts within the businesses used for those companys. It is widely believed that many cells of terrorists are embedded within the US business sector so yes, they could have.

2- It wasn't a fine detail otherwise we would not be here debating it. Why wouldn't they use Thermite or Thermate? It isn't unique to the US alone and you can actually make it very easily in your shop. The thinking would be that no one could trace it ...Just like the ANFO bomb in OKC. Except that they used McVeigh as their fall guy.

3- At the Pentagon there was a plane that hit it. However the TYPE of plane is disputed because of the lack of debris as well as the amount of debris found.

Again, defender agents of the OS claim that all the planes just vaporized on impact so thats why no debris of any size was found. However as to the Pentagon site, look at the photos posted on some people's blogs, web pages and even OS sites, there is hardly any. In addition, even some OS sites do not show any large debris. The impact area in photos before that section of the Pentagon collapsed shows there is absolutely no large aircraft that struck it. So which plane did hit it? Who knows because the gov can only produce a few sloppy edited frames from a poor quality video camera.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


One - was a 757 that hit Pentagon not a 747, big difference

Two - which hole are you referring to? There were two entry holes
knocked into E (outer) Ring - one on 2nd floor was 16 ft, width of fuselage
other was about 90 ft wide created by wings/jet engines

the 10 ft hole was an EXIT hole in C Ring by some of the heavier debris
which included jet engine, piece of landing gear.

Exit hole



Entry Holes






posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 





3- At the Pentagon there was a plane that hit it. However the TYPE of plane is disputed because of the lack of debris as well as the amount of debris found.



Debris with part number on it



Been identified as power supply for emergency lights


As for debris

Aircraft debris at exit hole in C Ring



Looks pretty large to me

Aircraft debris - front lawn






More debris - including engine parts, landing gear



Is this another one of your mistakes?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.

 

Mod note: Do not edit posts to argue with mods in threads. Doing so may result in a post ban. See the links provided for more details. -- Majic

[edit on 1/7/2010 by Majic]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Part #'s prove nothing as many varying models have the exact same part number.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Your parts collection there hardly equals an entire aircraft.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Wow! Look at all those people with supposed aircraft parts in their hands!!



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


C Ring hole. ( I love this one)

If you would bother to do your OS'er homework, you will see that the impact hole does not line up with that exit hole.

Oh and yea, what made that hole? The force from the blast? HARDLY. Why? Because of the impact hole in proximity to the C Ring hole isn't in correct alignment to claim that yet, the OS does. If it had caused that then the entire rings before that "hole" would have significant damage.

But

That didn't happen and wasn't the case.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Just one problem Sherlock - the 2 lower floors of the Pentagon did not
have partition walls between the Exterior ( E ring) and the C ring

that is where the jet slid through and the casulties were there - most on the 1 st floor, some on the 2nd.




Impact damage to the interior of the Pentagon was primarily on the first floor, and extended in a tapering swath from the first-floor facade puncture to the vicinity of the C-Ring punch-out hole.

Floor Space Between Facade and C-Ring is Mostly Unobstructed

On the first and second floors, the Pentagon has continuous interior space extending from the facade to the inner-facing wall of the C-Ring, joining the C-, D-, and E-Rings. This is because the light wells between the C- and D-Rings and between the D- and E-Rings only descend to the bottom of the third floor. The only structural elements interrupting this space are columns apparently spaced on 10-foot centers along the direction perpendicular to the facade, with each first-floor column having a square cross-section measuring 21 inches on a side.

A figure on the left shows a path from the center of the facade impact puncture to the center of the C-Ring punch-out hole. That path could describe the path of fuselage debris from the facade to the C-Ring wall, where it could have produced the punch-out hole. It shows that there was a narrow path for that debris between the columns left standing by the crash.




View from C ring hole - notice can see all the way to the exterior windows
in E Ring





Many observers find the size of the punch-out hole peculiar because it is small relative to a 757. Measuring about 9 feet in diameter, it is much less than the 12.5-foot diameter of a 757's fuselage.

However, the mass of a jetliner is not uniformly distributed throughout its shape. The fuselage of a 757 comprises only about a quarter of the area of its frontal profile, but makes up well over half of its mass. The distribution of the mass within the fuselage is far from uniform. Most of the structure is located in the lower third of the fuselage, as are the heavy components such as the landing gear.

In a high-speed collision with a building, only the parts of the aircraft with the greatest density and total mass, such as the lower third of the fuselage, could be expected to penetrate far into the building. That part also has a small frontal profile -- approximately the size of the punch-out hole.





posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


If you would bother to look at the crash path in the link there, then compare it to the hole where you pointed out that you can see throught it...it don't line up that way.

If it did then you would have a massive amount of debris to the right side of that "exit hole" for ring C.

Going by that crash path, the amount of debris would be so massive there wouldn't be any hole there purported to be "C hole".

That hole you have chosen to post as the majic exit hole shows clearly a straight line egress rather than matching the crash path of debris in your other OS photo.

Its all elementry, Holmes.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


I never said there WASN'T an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon so I'm not understanding why your arguing the issue with me under the context of "no plane".

Just for your FYI, I had friends there that day so I KNOW a plane crashed there. I'm just not convinced it was an airliner.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


What "don't line up that way?" How do you think things should line up?

You never responded to the people who called you on a Tomahawk missile striking a plane. Do you have any evidence of a Tomahawk being used as an surface to air missile?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Attention all:

I'm done with this thread because the Mods obviously have an agenda here.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by pteridine
 


Mod edit..

[edit on 7-1-2010 by mikelee]

Actually, Mikey, you didn't. You really have no clue about this sort of thing, do you?
You said "Considering the accuracy of a Tomahawk is described as "pin point" by the maker, Hughes Missle Systems in Arizona. Range? 690 miles at 550mph."
What makes you think that a Tomahawk can hit a moving target? How does a Tomahawk achieve pinpoint accuracy? Long range surface to air missiles need an illumination radar. What platform provided the illumination? FYI, anti-aircraft missiles do not have ranges of almost 700 miles.


[edit on 1/7/2010 by pteridine]




[Mod Edit - edit quote]

[edit on 7/1/2010 by Sauron]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Exposing The Agenda


Originally posted by mikelee
Attention all:

I'm done with this thread because the Mods obviously have an agenda here.

That is absolutely correct.

We do have an agenda here, and it is expressed in extraordinary detail in this thread:

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##

In brief, it is to put a stop to the trolling that has plagued this forum for far too long.

I find it difficult to believe you could have missed all the notices, including my earlier post in this thread, the yellow text at the top and bottom of every page in this forum, and our discussion via U2U, all of which explain minimal participation requirements in the most unmistakable of terms. There's not much else we can do.

Since you started this thread and claim to be done with it, I'll take your word for it.

If you wish to start another one that is on-topic for this forum and post in it appropriately, you are quite welcome to do so, but I don't recommend derailing your own threads with rude behavior in the future.

Thread closed.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join