It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I find it interesting that so many people here, require that you be an aerospace engineer in order to say; "wow, this revelation seems to throw a few wrinkles in the government's theory."
Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by mothershipzeta
However, if we're going to play the "expertise" game...
Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report. Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?
If the above post was your attempt at playing the "expertise game," it was a failure.
Your link doesn't show any list of these 120,000 members of ASME, or 370,000 members of IEEE, or any members of these other organizations who allegedly believe the NIST report. The links within your link don't either. All they lead to is the Wikipedia page for each organization and, oddly enough, none of them mention the number of members who believe the NIST report. I think the source of your above information thinks just throwing out some high numbers will be enough to convince people there are more "experts" who believe the NIST report.
Maybe you have something better to offer in this game?
The ground effect of a plane being forced down close to the ground at high speed would pull tarmac from a road
No apology necessary. I was just trying to give you a heads up not to expect a response. Nice avatar by the way. Love the spiritual.
Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
Actually, that's what's kept the government's version from falling apart faster than it has. They've managed to create this illusion that you have to have the knowledge of a physicist or an engineer to be able to evaluate the evidence and draw a reasonable conclusion. People are starting to see through that a nonsense as well.
So, what you are saying is that you do not need to know math, physics, engineering, and structural design to develop a sky scrapper?
Using distances taken directly from the video screen, flight 175's groundspeed was calculated to be between 473 and 477 Knots just prior to the collision with the building. Using distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeed at impact of 504 Knots and 507 Knots were calculated. This compares to an impact speed of 510 Knots calculated from radar data in the Radar Data Impact Speed Study (AA11 & UA 175)