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 Asktheanimals
Official theory = Boxcutters bring down skyscrapers.
How much more ludicrous can it get?
Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by demonseed
Oh you crazy fool... just kiddng Well thought out post and it is clear you put a lot of thought into it. Everyone should believe what they think to be true and even this statement has to be questioned if its true or not. I applaud your effort, the thing that gets me the most is the resident debunkers on ATS, They are so rude and give so little consideration of people's feelings that it makes me want to believe a conspiracy more because their attitude is so annoying.
But for me the more I look the more I see a conspiracy. On the day it all made sense but afterwards with hindsight not so much, the flight path to the Pentagon, the passport , the way the towers fell, the reports that really don't explain much and my interest in how money controls absolutely the MSM and even the so-called alternative press leads to me one conclusion, it did not go down the way of the official conspiracy theory.
I've got jaded, I've seen the lies, the murder, the hypnocracy of the people in charge, the money , the attitudes and the lies. I try to base my opinions on things that are on the record. The freefall collapse of 2.5 seconds is on the record. And without blabbering it's the physics of the two towers.
For a source check ae911truth.org
The towers "exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”
Lies before 9/11, lies after 9/11.
Peace and nice thread, hope everyone is polite too
Edit to add PS the change may have appeared sudden but your subconscious has been mulling this over for a while I would guess, it's only a conscious sudden realization.
edit on 20-11-2010 by yyyyyyyyyy because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by demonseed
Why do all believers feel the need to post lenghy replies which say little?
Is it just to fill a thread and make their beliefs sound more important?
Or are these people paid by the line??
Maybe they are just not intelligent enought to be more concise with their thoughts..
Who knows, but it does go on and on and on..
.... the flight path to the Pentagon, the passport....
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
Aye, that's the rub.....
...and the major problem. The sorts of "questions" that popped up by people unqualified to ask in the first place, and that seemed (superficially, at least) "reasonable"...until explained carefully and properly and logically.
The problem has been the "logic" has been misapplied and ignored, and a lot of false assumptions have been tossed into the mix, along the way.
So, question: You raised a lot of the same "points" that are bandied about by the "truth movement" over and over.....but instead of the aggregate whole, why not one-by-one? IF you were shown examples of EVERY so-called "inconsistency' that could be explained, demonstrated, presented as a precedent, then what??
Just to continue the sentence, I can speak with some experience on this bit, and show that at least THOSE two aspects can be crossed off of the so-called "inconsistency" list:
.... the flight path to the Pentagon, the passport....
First (and easiest) are the passports, and other personal effects. Yes, more than one passport. And many other personal effects, IDs of passengers, credit cards, papers, mail, etc. A careful and thorough study of any other airplane crash will reveal that this is very common. It is the hyperbole that spews from the frothing of the "9/11 conspiracy" websites that cloud this fact, as they use the "argument from incredulity" inappropriately.
Second, the "flight path" to the Pentagon has been over-hyped, by people who know nothing about how to fly, and accepted by others who know nothing about how to fly. I have watched the NTSB Flight Recorder animation presentation, that re-created from the Recorder data the final minutes, and from nearly four decades' flying experience, including 20+ years flying large passenger airliners, there is nothing out of the ordinary seen. It was a normal turn that included a descent. Something you, as an airline passenger, will experience on every flight.
Only TWO aspects of the actual American 77 "flight path" that would be "different" from a "normal" airline flight are matters of Federal Air Regulations, and other SOPs. The airspeed? Not excessive, in the turn. Perfectly within the airplane's handling abilities. ONLY thing, it was "illegal" per Regulations, especially in U.S. Airspace. Why? The "speed limit" of 250 knots below 10,000 feet. That is not for aerodynamic reasons (excepting as a concern regarding potential birdstrikes, but that's minor). NO, it's an air traffic control consideration, and the fact that airplanes operating below 10,000 feet tend to do so when congregating for arrivals and departures...hence, more crowding. Imposing airspeed limits increases reaction times, and slows closure rates, if mid-airs are impending. Makes it easier for the controllers, who are, after all, only human.
The airspeed did not become excessive and outside of published "limits" until near the end, as power was pushed up to maximum, and the last straight-in powered descent to impact was flown.
The only other aspect I alluded to was the angle of bank, in that descending turn. I said "SOPs"...it is airline (and FAA) standard procedure to impose a maximum angle of bank of 30 degrees, in normal airline operations. Passenger comfort mostly (but, no one would even notice at 35 degrees, for example). It is just an arbitrary angle, a compromise....as pilots we have to demonstrate accurate abilities to control up to 45 degrees of bank in large jets. Private pilots in light airplanes practice the "steep turns", as they're called, up to 60 degrees of bank.
Such demonstrations are part of every pilot's training, and part of the curriculum even before they solo. First eight - ten hours of lessons. (Usually, about lesson four-six or so). Along with other maneuvers, steep turns are just another to teach and allow the pilot the ability to demonstrate mastery and understanding of his/her control over the airplane. It also, for a learning (new) pilot, increases personal confidence in their own abilities.
Please answer with the same lenghy explanagtion you use as a debunker...
I ask you two simple questions weedwacker....
1) What experience did each hijacker on 9/11 have in commercial jet planes?
2) Given the same circumstances, what would your odds be of hitting the same targets?
FAA records show that four of the 19 hijackers—one aboard each flight—possessed FAA
certificates as qualified pilots.
Each of the four pilots received flight training in the United States....
Among the five hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11, only Mohammed Atta held a
certificate from the FAA as a qualified private and commercial pilot, including
proficiency rating in multi-engine aircraft operation. Atta received his commercial pilot
certificate in December, 2000. Records indicate that Atta received Boeing flight
simulator training sessions.
According to experts questioned by Commission staff, simulator training was critical for
the hijacker to familiarize himself with the cockpit controls and proper operation of the
Boeing 757 and 767—the type hijacked on 9/11, and to gain the operational proficiency,
“feel,” and confidence necessary to fly the aircraft into an intended target.
[snip].... United Airlines flight 175, only Marwan al Shehhi is
known to have completed flight training and possessed an FAA pilot certification. Al
Shehhi received his commercial pilot certificate in December, 2000, on the same day and
at the same facility as Atta received his. He also had Boeing flight simulator training.
[snip].....American Airlines Flight 77, Hani Hanjour was the sole
individual who FAA records show completed flight training and received FAA pilot
certification. Hanjour received his commercial multi-engine pilot certificate from the
FAA in March 1999.
[snip].....United Airlines Flight 93, Ziad Jarrah was the lone
individual who is recorded as having received flight training and FAA pilot certification.
Jarrah received his private pilot certificate from the FAA in November, 2000, and was
recorded as having received Boeing flight simulator training. Staff would note that Jarrah
had logged only 100 flight hours, and did not possess a commercial pilot certificate or
The staff would note the existence of computer-based software programs that provides
cockpit simulation available on the open market to the general public. According to
experts at the FAA such computer-based training packages, including products that
simulate cockpit controls of the Boeing 757 and 767, provided effective training
opportunities. The terrorists were known to use computers, and there is no reason to
believe they did not have the computer literacy necessary to take advantage of computer based training aids.