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.
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.
How did "flight 175" go through the South tower with it's nose intact?
Not to mention the nose of the plane is aluminum.
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.
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????
I still think it's possible that "planes" or drones hit the buildings...
Originally posted by Markshark4
Most of the "debunkings" I've read online side step these concerns.
Originally posted by Markshark4
How did "flight 175" go through the South tower with it's nose intact?
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.
Originally posted by Markshark4
And why did they go to black for 15 frames right when this happened?
Google Video Link |
Originally posted by Markshark4
And why did CNN cover this with their banner when they reshowed it?
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.
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
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb3953e10f0c.jpg[/atsimg]
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:
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.
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.
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 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.
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...
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.
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...
....but that's light years ahead of us...