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.
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I thought the mysterious WTC 7 collapse had been definitively solved by computer models. Wasn't it "out of control fires?" No wait, NIST said it was a new and unique phenomena: "thermal expansion."
. . . . .
With no steel from Tower 7 to study, investigators have instead made four extremely complex computer models worked out to the finest detail. They're confident their approach can now provide the answers. Dr Sunder says the investigation is moving as fast as possible.
"It's a very complex problem. It requires a level of fidelity in the modelling and rigour in the analysis that has never been done before."
Other skyscrapers haven't fully collapsed before because of fire. But NIST argues that what happened on 9/11 was unique.
Originally posted by airspoon
The government has always approached WTC7 (on the rare occasions that they even acknowledge it) in a funny but odd way. Instead of trying to figure out a cause for its collapse based upon the data, they first came up with the cause, then searched for the data to conform to that cause. It's rediculous, as they are ignoring the most probable cause, controlled demolition. It really isn't a mystery as they are trying to make it out to be because it can easily be explained through comtrolled demo. However, instead of going with the most reasonable, logical and probable cause, they outright ignore it all together and try and fit a square peg in a round hole. Just the fact that they are ignoring the possibility of controlled demolitions, says alot and is indicative of their intentions and motives.
Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by Alfie1
page 3 of 7, the flightpath of UAL93.
Look at the last little white square, and tell me what direction it flew when it headed suddenly at 9:59 a.m. to a more northwards direction, indicated by that second-last other white square?
And after that last one, it got shot, and plunged to the ground.
Btw, I strongly advice to visit this link :
I will post it here too, when page 8 will be reached. I want it on top there, so we can have the responding posts as much as possible on one page.
edit on 19/9/10 by LaBTop because: Added "reply to" remark.
We would like to see you prove to us please, how it is possible at all, that there are great differences in timestamps as you propose in your quote above, in the period from UAL93 Newark take-off time, until start of the 30 minutes endless looped CVR (cockpit voice recorder) and the period DURING the 30 minutes recording loop of the CVR.
See my post about NO discrepancies AFTER the hijack event at 09:31:55, between Captain Clocked timestamps and outside sources timestamps (FAA controllers AND the ACARS) :
The fact that the ACARS messages timestamps, before and after the hijack event, do not differ, is telling something, don't you think so? Because if you are right about big discrepancies during normal flight in timestamps, then WHY do they not turn up in the ACARS?
Either the first normal flight part, or the hijacked part of the DFDR or/and CVR is thus tampered with.
I think you have just proved to yourself that your official story-trusted stance is based on a big fat official Whacker (a giant official LIE).
That hijack-period covered in the CVR, does not show any significant discrepancies between the Captains Clock controlled devices, and any external time measuring devices (ACARS, FAA controllers logbooks) EXCEPT that seismic stations (plural!) and FAA controllers all say that the plane crashed 3 minutes later (10:06 AM) than the officially pushed timestamp of 10:03 AM.
When you discovered great timestamp discrepancies in that first period from take-off at Newark until the hijack event, during which ONLY the original pilots were at the controls, than YOU have proved to us that the CVR is tampered with, since that one does not show up for sure, any significant differences between Captain's Clock and outside sources.
And I know, one of the other Trusters will contemplate to come up with the excuse that the first deed of the hijackers, after overtaking the plane, was to reset the Captains Clock.
Do you mind, when I sincerely doubt the sanity of anyone coming up with that excuse, when I would be confronted with such a lame excuse?
It would show up in the DFDR. Which it doesn't.
Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by cLOUDDEAD
Then around 2:15 the same guy says two times exactly the same "I'll try and get word"", and that is definitely a rewind. That's strange in this video. Hopefully there was not something covered up, over what Hess shouted, by that rewind.
The other guy then points up with his handhold device and the leaving guy definitely says exactly this : ""7 World Trade, a fall-in.""
And definitely not :""I'll call it in."
edit on 18/9/10 by LaBTop because: Changed those VLF sounds occurancies to the real ones.
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.
Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by Alfie1
Alfie1, at further contemplation on what you said, could it have been the other way up or down, a decoy plane, and UAL93?
Could it have been UAL93 already, which was already on its way to home Base again, in a low altitude pattern, when the passengers, who did not know this intention, broke in the cockpit and disturbed the whole planning.
And the plane went down, instead of returning safely. All witnessed by Viola Sailor, her sister and Mr Petersen in Lambertsville.
And the decoy plane flew at 4.500 meters above that Lambertsville streets junction, as seen in the NTSB and FAA and radar reports.
The transponder switch had already taken place,dammit!
UAL93 switched off, and descended, and the decoy plane switched the transponder on and ascended.
I have to find that report back from the early Pilots for Truth forum, and see if UAL93 was in the radar "silence" region, as drawn by the Pilots on a map of the northeastern US.
And the most simple thing was done by the planners :
They just took a piece of the FDR, flight data recorder, from the decoy (with the 4.500 meters altitude), and combined it with the last part from the UAL93 FDR, and combined that altered FDR with the CVR, cockpit voice recorder, from UAL93, as if both originally were recovered from UAL93.
And altered the CVR from UAL93 just a tad bit, to make it all more heroic and patriotically useful, afterwards.
The emergency calls were all genuine, just not the last words of the "hijackers", see the NTSB translation of the CVR.