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.

 

More questions of the OS - Operational Suitability

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
While discussing this please remain civil & respectful of others per the ATS 911 Madness rules. I know I will : )

Photo below shows building before collapse. Notice any debris compared to pictures taken then published later on in the day? How about tell tale impact of an airliner? (not talking about a "cartoon hole") While I do believe something hit the building I'm not convinced of the airliner explanation though. I question not only the lack of debris, lack of initial impact damage but the more importantly, the failure of those conducting the investigation to release proof beyond a reasonable doubt for those of us who question the OS that an airline did this.

PentLawn

Pentagon before collaspe

C Ring hole, what caused it?

Path to C Ring hole

If I'm supposed to believe that the nose cone did that then I simply do not. The columns in many photos and descriptions do not support this theory. In addition, the path of egress into the building as shown on the map below if it is right would have pushed literally, tons of debris as the projectile or whatever it was made it's way inside the building at the angle provided in the OS. In addition, if, as some have claimed, the energy did this then I find that impossible due to the fact that there was no structural aspects having enough strength to direct all of the energy into a direct point to cause that. Maybe to the layperson that sounds plausible. To me, it sounds like fantasy.

Hole straight on shot

Kinda looks almost "perfect" uh? Considering that the crash path is noted at an extreme angle of the approach behind this exit hole it don't line up with the science used to explain the explosion pattern and subsequent expulsion of materials. Actually it is a clear example that whatever created it was in a straight line alignment with the wall. Why? The columns between this hole and the impact point would not allow for this alignment and subsequent expulsion of the debris shown.

I also find it hard to believe again, as some have claimed that the nose cone did this as the nose section is not that strong. Initially impacting with the exterior of the building then navigated it's way around or even through building columns then ending up exiting in the C Ring hole with still, enough of it still present to create that damage. Again, its proof to lay persons only here or those who just "want to believe" in order to move on. According to the officially provided reason & projections regarding the after impact path of the aircraft/object in question the exit hole should have consisted of a large section ripped out looking more like a jagged exit point compared to the neat little hole seen in the photos.

This photograph shows a different perspective of the rings and the damage.

B ring


Flight 93 (Flight 98 as cited by the CIA in an official report)
Per the Boeing website the dimensions for this aircraft are as follows:
Boeing 757 Specifications

Dimensions - Feet

Wing Span - 124.10

Tail Height - 44.6

Source: Boeing

Official report cited the impact site as the following:
Crater of about 30 to 40 feet long
15 to 20 feet wide and
18 feet deep was created by the crash.

Crash site photo

Using missiles without explosives to cause a crash or destroy a target. Why do that?

* No overhead explosion for on the ground personnel to hear.
* Using this method reduces catastrophic failure of the aircraft in mid air, while still causing catastrophic failure leading to a crash.
* Use of "sterile" missile allows for no identifiable parts and melds in with other debris.



a projectile without explosives is used, just a collision is sufficient to destroy the target. See Missile Defense Agency for the following systems being developed: A projectile is any object sent through space by the application of a force


Missle Defense Agency, DoD

This same concept & working application is also part of the Patriot system that was seen on television during Operation Desert Storm.



Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine. Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene. John Fleegle, an Indian Lake Marina employee, said FBI agents were skeptical of his reports about debris in the lake until they traveled to the lake shore Wednesday afternoon. By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic and checks. He said FBI agents who spent the afternoon patrolling the lake in rented boats eventually carted away a large garbage bag full of debris. "


What did they say? Did you miss it?...

"...miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine." - Post Gazette, Somerset PA

They found remains & debris miles away from the POINT OF IMPACT in a reclaimed coal mine. More lies or another typo or a Freudian slip like Rumsfeld had?


The official story is chock full of holes based in an attempt to hurry up the investigation in order to justify the Operational Suitability for 911. Again the 911 Commission was flawed and thats not my opinion, its the admission of those who represent YOU in our nation's government AND thatt of the commission members theirselves. That should be speak volumes compared to anything I post here!




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

Using missiles without explosives to cause a crash or destroy a target. Why do that?

* No overhead explosion for on the ground personnel to hear.
* Using this method reduces catastrophic failure of the aircraft in mid air, while still causing catastrophic failure leading to a crash.
* Use of "sterile" missile allows for no identifiable parts and melds in with other debris.



I see you have wisely given up on the Tomahawk guess. What missile do you propose as the kinetic energy impactor?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


"Wisely given up"...LOL

I think I clearly outlined my point in the thread. Respectfully speaking I will no longer entertain ANY requests to explain anything that has already been cited.

Thank you and have a nice day



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Just curious, have you seen the end results of using a kinetic kill projectile on a missile? (Pieces go EVERYWHERE).

Now, if you put a kinetic kill missile, into a pressurized fuselage.....what do you think is going to happen? Explosive decompression....pieces everywhere



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Cabin pressure is typically around 8 psi. This limits most airliners to about 40,000 ft

Another aspect to consider regarding this is the aircraft's
certification altitude. The 757 is certified to 42,000 ft but we all know it wasn't that high.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Now, you told me in another thread that you wanted to see for yourself the end result of this or something to that affect. Here you are now telling me the after effects as you know them.

Apparently your a little more "briefed" than you let on.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


So, how do you respond to the fact that even a missile without an explosive warhead is still going to cause pieces of the airplane to end up all over?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


I see you are unfamilar with the concept of sarcasm...


I will note that for future posts.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Oh, sorry I missed that.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by mikelee
 


So, how do you respond to the fact that even a missile without an explosive warhead is still going to cause pieces of the airplane to end up all over?


Uh, you just confimred its a fact. And that WAS my point is, thanks!



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


AH, I see....you are seeing the "Indian Lake is 6 miles away" nonsense and thinking that finding papers floating on it means there must have been a missile. Sorry, didnt pick up on it the first time.

Still nothing about Flight 93's crash site that suggests a shoot down.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


The kinetic energy weapon you cited is not made to work at a few thousand feet. You have not proposed a system that could do what you claim. You have not shown any evidence that any sort of kinetic weapon was used.
It is apparent that your speculation has no basis in fact and that you have little knowledge of missile technology.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 





If I'm supposed to believe that the nose cone did that then I simply do not. The columns in many photos and descriptions do not support this theory. In addition, the path of egress into the building as shown on the map below if it is right would have pushed literally, tons of debris as the projectile or whatever it was made it's way inside the building at the angle provided in the OS. In addition, if, as some have claimed, the energy did this then I find that impossible due to the fact that there was no structural aspects having enough strength to direct all of the energy into a direct point to cause that. Maybe to the layperson that sounds plausible. To me, it sounds like fantasy.


Still haven't learned anything?

What caused the hole ?

How about this - aircraft debris



including this - section of main landing gear



Main landing gear is among the heaviest and strongest section of the aircraft



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Well I never made the claim I'm a missile expert. Why do you keep making accusations against me in contexts that I didn't make nor intend?

What I refer to is the use of unarmed missiles being used to cause catastrophic flight failure (crash) of an aircraft...nothing more nothing less. I do believe that is very clear in the thread.

These insinuations of aspects that I do not reference or refer to while amusing, is a waste of time for me to keep indulging.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Still haven't learned anything?
Please do not use insults. Thank you.

What caused the hole ?
I provided my opinion regarding that in my post.

How about this - aircraft debris
Yes. Looks like debris to me. Maybe a few aircraft parts in there to boot.

including this - section of main landing gear
OK.

Main landing gear is among the heaviest and strongest section of the aircraft.
Thats is very true indeed.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by pteridine
 


What I refer to is the use of unarmed missiles being used to cause catastrophic flight failure (crash) of an aircraft...nothing more nothing less. I do believe that is very clear in the thread.


Yes, you do refer to it but you don't show any plausible scenario. You have no evidence so you need something more than an unsupported fantasy.
You don't refer to what missile would fit this profile. You do not postulate what the missile would have to hit to cause the plane to crash as it did. You provide no hypothesis of what platform was used to fire the missile.
Please provide a hypothesis that includes the above.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Yes, you do refer to it but you don't show any plausible scenario.
The scenario is flight 93/98.

You have no evidence so you need something more than an unsupported fantasy.
The evidence is at Iron Mountain locked up. If the evidence is ever released then unbiased investigators can examine it to determine if thats the case. Kinda strange that they don't allow any investigators nor forensic exam except their own.

You don't refer to what missile would fit this profile.
Any one can be used. None specific.

You do not postulate what the missile would have to hit to cause the plane to crash as it did. You provide no hypothesis of what platform was used to fire the missile.
Please provide a hypothesis that includes the above.
Aircraft (93/98) had already turned inbound towards DC, thats easily verified. Command MUST make a split second decision to either shoot it down or...??? I seriously would never think that given the fact that Command already knew two other planes hit the WTC + the Pentagon that they would chance another coming in. They already knew that this one was hijacked. I also believe the passengers fighting back and crashing the plane is a cover story to hide the shooting down of this aircraft. In the end, it would be more gratifying to have such a heroic story of passengers fighting back then to be force to announce the gov shot down innocent people...Operational Suitability



[edit on 8-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Not any missile can be used. Not any platform can be used. You have no evidence and no plausible scenario.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by mikelee
 


Not any missile can be used. Not any platform can be used. You have no evidence and no plausible scenario.


You do not have to place a warhead/explosives on a missile in order to shoot it at a target.

I know I have no evidence...Never claimed I did. Your placing assumptions to me then asking me to prove them when there are none.

Plausible scenario...I just provided you with one in the post above.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 



No, you did not. A plausible scenario would postulate a missile that could bring down a commercial aircraft by kinetic impact. It would state what platform would have launched such a missile and from what location. It would estimate which part of the aircraft would have to be hit to allow the aircraft to crash without first breaking up.
If there are witnesses to a missile strike, bring them forward.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join