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.

 

No Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

page: 30
19
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by chaosinorder
This probably is just a diversion thread from the real discussions. Or honestly mistaken idea by the OP. Either way we can spend time discussing what they really and the how the flight came to NewYork without being intercepted by one of the 18000+ jets with US airforce and so on.

The east coast of the US of A had 2 airbases with 2 planes each on alert and ready to scramble. All of them were launched on 9/11.




posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Markshark4
 


Oh, no...not again.

People need to get that "Simon Shack" nonsense out of their heads!


How did "flight 175" go through the South tower with it's nose intact?


Simple....It didn't. Period. DID NOT HAPPEN.

Its nose was NOT "intact". I assume you're referring to that load of garbage video called "September Clues"?

It was a bunch of debris exiting the other side from the impact that coincidentally (and only momentarily) had a shape that resembled the front of the fuselage. That is it.


Not to mention the nose of the plane is aluminum.


Not to mention that, strictly speaking, the 'radome' is not made of aluminum....it is a phenolic/composite/honeycomb dome that is transparent to microwaves....because that's where the radar antenna/receiver is located.

Link to photo of radome, opened on a B-767 to provide reference.

The bulkhead that forms the structure just aft of the radar unit is the forward pressure bulkhead, and (like the majority of the fuselage) is made of aluminum alloy.



On some of the 'amateur' footage for "175" they use the same woman's voice screaming "Oh my God" in multiple videos. That proves to me that at least some 'amateur' videos were fabrications.


Huh?? It "proves" to you "fabrications"?? Because someone reacts with shock?? :shk:

Why are you only reading those "conspiracy" sites' nonsense? Try this:

www.911myths.com...



Also, the Nadet footage looks staged as hell, there is nobody on the streets on a Tue morning at 9:00 AM in New York????


Why not do some research...it is explained. Ever heard of blocking traffic on a street?? Happens all the time.

Finally, some progress...(almost):


I still think it's possible that "planes" or drones hit the buildings...


No...NOT "drones"...the level of accuracy would preclude that; only a person IN the airplane at the controls could have managed it.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Markshark4
Most of the "debunkings" I've read online side step these concerns.

Then you either:

A.) Didn't actually read any debunkings

or

B.) Are purposely ignoring the debunkings to perpetuate the continued disinformation that is "no planes at the WTC".



Originally posted by Markshark4
How did "flight 175" go through the South tower with it's nose intact?

It didn't. Real research would have turned up images of the "exit" side of the south tower where there is no exit hole:





You can also watch how the disinformation artist known as "simonshack/socialservice" purposely created the "nose-in/nose-out" hoax:







Originally posted by Markshark4
That means it penetrated the perimeter steel columns, the 47 CORE STEEL COLUMNS, and than the perimeter steel columns on the other side of the building as well.

The above quote has already been debunked since there is no exit hole and the nose never really came out of the other side.

Oh, and the majority of FL.175 missed most the core entirely:





Originally posted by Markshark4
And why did they go to black for 15 frames right when this happened?

They didn't go "black". They were switching cameras. The debunk is here:



Google Video Link





Originally posted by Markshark4
And why did CNN cover this with their banner when they reshowed it?

CNN's banner is almost always on. You can't cover up something with something that's already there.




Originally posted by Markshark4
On some of the 'amateur' footage for "175" they use the same woman's voice screaming "Oh my God" in multiple videos. That proves to me that at least some 'amateur' videos were fabrications.

Got any proof of this claim, or will you allow it to remain baseless?


This no-plane disinfo is a concerted campaign by disinfo agents and artists, targeted at the 9/11 truth movement. Please do some real research before posting already-debunked and verified disinformation.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Do you believe that 4 commercial planes were used on 9/11?

Could you please post pictures of the 8 engines that were recovered?

Not a link either, post pictures for everyone on ATS to see.

2 engines for AA 11

2 engines for UA 175

2 engines for AA 77

2 engines for UA 93

Thank you.

I saw this post in another thread here on ATS and I agree wholeheartedly.



I have one and only one question for anyone that denies that our country was directly involved in the attacks on 9/11. Please if you will, provide one single photograph of the hundreds of photos taken at the Pentagon of a Rolls-Royce RB-211-535E4? Please! I am not asking for a picture of some small piece of housing, chunk of turbine blade, or nose cone; I want to see a photo showing the heat exchanger on this engine in any photo ever taken. Why you ask?

Oh and before you begin by saying it burned up in the fire from the jet fuel!

Its impossible! Jet Fuel at peak temp burns at 1800F lets say for arguments sake you claim foreign debris helped in the equation; lets say factor in another 400F so that would give us an estimated peak temp of 2200F; lets say I give you another 1000F giving you 3200F which would be outrageous to say the least; the material making up the inner core structure of this engine is 86% molybdenum which only begins to melt at 4700F; which is why the FAA always recovers this particular parts of this particular engine; picture of the part I speak of below; if you can produce one photo that show me this I will never post on a 9/11 topic ever again.

Oh one more thing I almost left out; the inner core is 32,462lbs and has been found at every crash site around the world.

Happy Hunting!!!

Still waiting! You mean to tell me none of you siding with the government have an answer?

MolecularPHD


^^^that x 8 bro



You don't find it strange that ALL FOUR TRANS-CONTINENTAL FLIGHTS WERE AT LEAST HALF EMPTY, and UA 93 had only 1/3 occupancy?

Or that two of the planes were not deregistered until 2005, and the other two have no flight log for that day? -Bureau of Transportation

Or the 9/11 Commission saying that no black boxes were recovered from WTC?



Originally posted by _BoneZ_



Originally posted by Markshark4
How did "flight 175" go through the South tower with it's nose intact?

It didn't. Real research would have turned up images of the "exit" side of the south tower where there is no exit hole:


'Something' had to exit the south tower though, a piece of debris that coincidentally looked like the nose of the plane I guess. I don't know what it is, an engine maybe, you can see it clear as day on the 3 pictures on the left. Assuming that the footage is real it had to exit the building somehow.

forums.randi.org...




You mentioned disinfo, do you by chance know if this guy is legit?

He called BS on the official story pretty soon after 9/11.


23 January 2002
General Peter Pace, USMC
Vice Chairman, JCS
Department of Defense
The Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301

Dear General Pace:

Regarding the 9-11 “incident”, I was assisted in my analysis by friends of impeccable credentials, who actually believe in Duty - Honor - Country. They are in accord with the analysis.

Most — repeat most — of the people had foreknowledge of the pending attack on 11 September and were "on vacation" for the deliberate destruction of the WT buildings by composition C-4 bonded and shaped charges and/or particle beam weapons.

Donn de Grand Pré
Colonel, US Army (Ret)

www.amfirstbooks.com...;_Rattler's_Revenge/Rattler's_Revenge-6-Summary_Report_to_the_Joi nt_Chiefs_of_Staff.html

[edit o

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Markshark4]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Markshark4
 


Yeah, right on. And where are the 20 lavatory seats ? No pics ? Don't tell me they just vanished.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Markshark4
 





Not a link either, post pictures for everyone on ATS to see.

2 engines for AA 11

2 engines for UA 175

2 engines for AA 77

2 engines for UA 93

Thank you.



I resonded to a jet aircraft crash - we did not find any engines

So does that mean that no aircraft crashed there?

Were able to recover 3 jet engines

Jet engine Murray St from UAL 175



Engine piece at recovery site - Fresh Kills



Jet engine pieces in Pentagon

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Also explaination of engine debris found there

Jet engine recovered from Shanksville PA - UAL 93




Also section of Engine fan, weighing 1000 lbs, broke loose on impact




fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Markshark4
 


I can try to shed a little light on your questions....I see that there were some edits, and my memory (vague it may be) of the post before edit seems to recall some reference to engine types, from the four airplanes? Guess you realized there were some variables at work, as to engine manufacturers and airframe pairings?

OK, good!

Firstly, it is important (and I won't waste time and space here with the details), but some study into the construction details, and specifics of engine parts and components might be helpful for some to undertake on their own....for a better understanding of why entire, intact engines are unlkely to be found each time, from all four airplanes, given the circumstances and forces involved in the impacts.

Dare I also point out that, in addition to the "eight" engines that everyone is familiar with that are utilized for propulsion, each airplane additionally had another? NOT exactly the same, not necessarily from the same manufacturer --- but, the APU (mounted in the tail) is essentially the same, as it is a turbine engine, runs on the same fuel, and incorparates many similar attributes in design and component construction.

Anyway, on to some other points that were mentioned, just to clear up some confusions:


You don't find it strange that ALL FOUR TRANS-CONTINENTAL FLIGHTS WERE AT LEAST HALF EMPTY, and UA 93 had only 1/3 occupancy?


Actually, no...not at all. Not on a Tuesday morning, on the first "bank" of flights out. AND, not at that time of year. NOR, at that point in the history of commercial aviation. Knowing and understanding a bit about the airline industry is essential, and will take too much time to explain, here.

Think of other retail marketing concepts known as "loss leaders" in order to get one idea...not the whole story, though.

I mentioned "bank" departures, above...that really refers more to the 'hub & spoke' model of airline scheduling that became popular, especially post-deregulation in the late 1970s. I think one can research that concept online...

AS TO American and United Airlines....only Washington Dulles Airport was a 'hub' airport (for United) and Boston, and Newark, were more 'satellite' stations. (Although you will see so-called "mini-hubs" in the basic marketing and scheduling model...but, you must also consider the competitive nature of marketing, as well...market saturation, I think it's called...)

Again, research online, no need to expand on it here.

Now, this is a gem of a misunderstanding, and comes from a variety of "conspriacy" websites, with a lot of out-of-context innuendo...


Or that two of the planes were not deregistered until 2005...


That is a reference ONLY to the 'N' numbers. It is a concept used to baffle the non-aviation-oriented, and non-savvy people --- but it is nothing special, nor is it pertinent, especially. Research, please.

This next, I've already addressed repeatedly:


... and the other two have no flight log for that day? -Bureau of Transportation


Again...short version...the BTS data is completely dependent on the airlines' contribution and submission of information, for the compilation.

Once you LOOK at the history of that day, on BTS, there is a pattern: American Airlines neglected to forward the information for AAL 11 and AAL 77 to BTS...whereas, United Airlines DID provided the data for UAL 93 and UAL 175.

It is completely due to two different company's methods of reporting procedures, especially in view of the tragedy that day, and their methods of dealing with "lost" flights (accidents/losses; in that vein it is meant).



Or the 9/11 Commission saying that no black boxes were recovered from WTC?


Wouldn't it have been great IF even ONE Flight Recorder or Cockpit Voice Recorder had survived the energies and devastation of the buildings' collapses?? Unfortunately, just not possible, in all of that mess, once the totality of hte collapses was finished.

Correction: It would have been possible, but would have been highly unlikely. Weird things can occur (like the occasional amazing story of the few people who SURVIVED within that collapse) but, circumstances conspired to rob us of this "luck".

The two "black boxes", as they're commonly called, in the case of UAL 93 were recoverable because the type of crash was NOT unprecedented, in actuality...and there was NO GIANT MASS of building to collapse on top of them.

AAL 77's 'black boxes' were both found, also. However, the CVR was too heavily damaged to be readable. The CVR and DFDR are not (contrary to popular fiction) indestructible. They are highly resistant, but only to a point....



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
"Could you please post pictures of the 8 engines that were recovered?"

According to one debunker Flight 93 and Flight 77 disintegrated into confetti size peices, so don't expect any pictures of any engine parts from him.


Those ridiculous pictures of those rusted pieces of metal are laughable, at best. Instead of showing some random close up pictures which could have been taken anywhere at anytime, all of these parts should have been taken to a hanger and properly cataloged and photographed. Good luck finding such documentation of evidence, which is proper investigation protocol in any aircraft crash.

"You don't find it strange that ALL FOUR TRANS-CONTINENTAL FLIGHTS WERE AT LEAST HALF EMPTY, and UA 93 had only 1/3 occupancy?"

Yes, it is very strange, especially on a business day/morning after most people have returned from summer vacation. Actually, UA 93 was more like 20% occupied. My guess is that the price of fuel from Newark to San Francisco costs more than the gross income from those 35 tickets sold. Is this how the largest American airline carriers make money and stay in business?

Besides, I thought airlines routinely canceled flights which do not sell enough seats (especially long coast to coast flights) and transfer the passengers onto other flights (even other carriers) which have space. At the very least, the flight should not have been non-stop and had scheduled stops to pick up more passengers.

Sorry, but I cannot see a 757 going non-stop coast to coast with only 35 passengers on board. Considering how competitive the airline industry is and how high the costs are to operate these planes, this is sheer lunacy.

The obvious theory for the low passenger total is the less "alleged passengers" you involve in your scam, the easier it is to get away with the farce. In other words, keep the totals low so you can properly administer damage control when people start digging into your scheme.

"Or the 9/11 Commission saying that no black boxes were recovered from WTC?"

Who needs virtually indestructible black boxes when you have unscathed paper passports being recovered from the same accident scene?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Markshark4
 


... and the other two have no flight log for that day? -Bureau of Transportation


Again...short version...the BTS data is completely dependent on the airlines' contribution and submission of information, for the compilation.

Just to add to this, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the BTS statistics also only include data on flights that are completed. Quite obviously, none of the flights on 9/11 were completed.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by roboe]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


The BTS database includes the combination of not only the "SCHEDULED" departures and arrivals, on any given date, but also a whole host of other parameters as well.

This is why I get so frustrated by these claims...using these bogus "statistics" out of context, and with little understanding, in order to perpetuate myths.

I invite everyone who reads this to take some time to PERUSE the site at www.bts.gov... (click the tab labeled "Data and Statistics" to begin your journey of self-discovery...)

Go there, and click around, and discover for yourselves, rather than RELYING on bogus 'information' spouted by "conspiracy theory" sites, each and every time!!!






[edit on 9 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

How about showing some tangible, scientific proof that the videos are all fake, even the private HOME VIDEOS, or move along like every no-planer before you.

Why couldn't they have been holograms, that would explain why people said they saw a plane and and why there would be videos...





posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by kybertech
 


Sorry - I'm asking a very specific question, not just "how could NPT possibly work when people saw it?" I outline it above.

Holograms? Do you not know the military is light years ahead of public consumer technology? What is wrong with this idea, it may explain why people saw planes and filmed them.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
lets be real

if you have the balls to kill your own people, put the blame on innocent people, gang rape, kill innocent civilians, steal money from your own country, you dont need to use HOLOGRAMS



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hypattia
Why couldn't they have been holograms, that would explain why people said they saw a plane and and why there would be videos...

Holograms don't produce physical damage (except for in Star Trek, but that's light years ahead of us).

Also, holograms don't produce sounds. You know, like the loud roar of jet engines flying by in every video that shows the planes.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Holograms? Man...

I mean, why bother? Why spend a gazillion on super-advanced experimental 3D technology which could go wrong when you could just do the thing for real fairly easily?

I don't think either thing is true, but take it from me, if you really think holograms were used to attack the WTC you are basically a fruit loop. Sorry, but there it is.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Sorry, can't resist...just a lark, and a bit of a break from the 'drama'....I'm a bit of a stickler, especially when Star Trek is referenced!



....but that's light years ahead of us...


Very, very common, happens to a lot of people, no need to be embarrassed!! Heck, even seen it in some very poorly scripted Hollywood films!

A "light year" is a unit of measure, of distance, not of elapsed time.

However, in a very arcane and technical sense? You could be almost correct, in the usage!! Will just have to calculate the distance our Solar System will travel through the Galaxy (and our Galaxy will also travel...don't know if we can determine that, using today's science yet) in the few centuries of time between now, and the Star Trek time period.....say, ~2350. Not sure if it will amount to many LYs, though...not sure until I do the math...



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


But Bonez is right about the hologram damage bit though on Star Trek. When using the holodeck, the holodeck uses transporter/replicator technology to create an object you can hold/pick up in the holoprogram. You can even turn off safety protocols and have it where if you get shot by a holograms' gun or stabbed by a holo-knife, it can become real and kill you!

I know I know, I'm a Trekkie at heart!



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Except....taking the ST imagined tech to the extreme...you need devices to trnasmit, to "emit" what's necessary to provide the 'solidity'.

In Picard's version of 'reality', for example....the hologram projections could only exist within the holodeck, and thus the array of emitters.

On Janeway's ship (Voyager) the writers devised a work-around for that limitation, to expand the 'Doctor"'s character development potential....by concocting a script where advanced 29th century technology comes into their hands, and thus his "mobile emitter" is created! And used to great dramatic effect, and more story opportunities.

To envision, though, such a technology CURRENTLY exisiting?? A bit ludicrous, I would think....


BUT...given enough time, it has been my observation that a LOT of what was imagined by various Star Trek writers finds a way to form inspiration in people....who sometimes manage to create versions in real lilfe, of the fictional stuff....just stop and look around, there are examples everywhere:

Sliding doors that open as you approach;

Flip-type cellphones;

Flat-panel displays;

Electronic books ("Pads");

(Even the devices in Next Generation, and Deep Space Nine, and Voyager? they were called "PADDS" on the show, in the lexicons).

The list goes on.....thanks to techhie 'geeks' around the world, Star Trek 'lives'!!! (Well..some of it, anyway...)



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
and to us standing there i suppose ther was some giant stereo speakers to mimic planes and we all were imagining them flying into the buildign you people are so dellusional no plane yeah okay was it a pigeon perhaps pure rubbish and ignorance



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I think in one episode where the Doctor encountered the USS Prometheus, an advanced prototype starship hijacked by Romulans, the entire ship had holo-emitters, which allowed for that ship's EMS Doctor to roam the ship freely without the use of a special attachment like Voyager's Doctor.

But yeah, it'd be quite a stretch to even TRY to THINK of doing something like this. The technology is centuries away!



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join