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.

 

9/11 Eye Witness: I Watched A Few Of Them (Bombs) Explode!

page: 4
59
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
 



Pity kamikaze pilots didn't realise they would bounce off steel ships and please don't fire a soft lead bullet at a tin (steel) can because it will bounce right back at you.



Kamikaze pilots would intentionally attempt to crash their aircraft into enemy ships—planes often laden with explosives, bombs, torpedoes and full fuel tanks.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah, that's why they loaded up with bombs and torpedoes...
They realised JUST the plane wasn't having much impact...


In actual fact no kamikaze aircraft was remotely the size of a Boeing 767 nor capable of the speed.

All four flights hi-jacked were transcontinental although the hi-jackers obviously didn't intend to proceed far west. I suggest the obvious reason for that is that they would be heavy with fuel.

But, forgetting the fuel, just the impact of say UA 175 into the WTC would generate tremendous energy. The aircraft weighed 150,000 kg or thereabouts and at about 500 mph or 223 meters per second it generated some 3,729,675,000 joules of kinetic energy. This equates to the best part of 2000 sticks of dynamite without even considering the effect of the ignition of the fuel.

To suggest that a WTC Tower should have been able to shrug off this sort of assault is cloud cuckoo land.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


There is something fishy about this video. Everyone seems to calm and composed in the background. Its before WTC7 collapsed supposedly but after the towers had collapsed but everyone is neat and clean. Anyone within a few blocks of the WTC after the collapse was covered in dust. But not this guy or anyone else.

Not buying it.


WTC7 is in the background..
Maybe it was filmed before the twin towers collapsed..
It's definitly not fake unless you think they rebuilt WTC7..

edit on 28-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



In actual fact no kamikaze aircraft was remotely the size of a Boeing 767 nor capable of the speed.



In actual fact it was YOU that mentioned Kamikaze pilots, very odd.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



The aircraft weighed 150,000 kg or thereabouts


Not even close!!!!
Guess again Alfie...



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
 



In actual fact no kamikaze aircraft was remotely the size of a Boeing 767 nor capable of the speed.



In actual fact it was YOU that mentioned Kamikaze pilots, very odd.


Did I say you introduced it ? You developed it and I responded. Any worthwhile comment on the response ?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
aluminium planes can not penetrate thick steel girders, no matter how fast they are travelling.


Really? How can water and sand cut steel? Water and sand are just loose particles.

How do avalanches work?

Maybe this guy is wrong?


How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center

T. Wierzbicki, and X. Teng
Department of Ocean Engineering, Impact & Crashworthiness Laboratory,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Room 5-218 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, USA

I left the contact information for you, so that if you want, you may contact them.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
 



The aircraft weighed 150,000 kg or thereabouts


Not even close!!!!
Guess again Alfie...


OK. how about giving me your estimate of weight.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


So let's say this politician got mugged in an alley but he shot the mugger. But then people say they heard screams and saw the politician attacking this "mugger" with a knife and blood everywhere. But within 24 hours this crime scene is sterile and the body was cremated, not at ALL proper procedure. So you'd believe the official story and assume the witnesses don't know a stab wound from a gunshot?

Oh and don't forget the politician took out a life insurance policy on the "mugger" and their brother who was run over 20 minutes later 3 blocks away.
edit on 28-1-2011 by KAOStheory because: forgot about the insurance and bldg 7



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by dereks
 


Dereks, I wanted to ask you something personally if I may. Another member in another thread recently dismissed firefighter's accounts of 9/11 because none of them "took samples" to back up their obvious lies. I'm just curious what your opinion on that is. Is there ever a case where firefighters themselves are simultaneously doing their job (i.e. saving lives, putting out fires, etc), and the job of investigators or scientists? Please put aside any notion of what you or I think may of happened that day and focus on the particular question. I know you support the OS and you undoubtedly know I'm a "truther", but regardless of that, how realistic is the scenario I described above?


Budaruskie,

No, absolutely not. None whatsoever. FDNY has their own fire investigatiors that it is there job to do that sort of thing. Collect samples, look for evidence, etc.

Maybe in MUCH smaller departments you my have firefighters collecting evidence. BUT, not while they are doing their primary job of fighting fire, and saving lives. NEVER. It then becomes a liability to the fire department.

Plus, most firefighters are not trained to collect physical evidence for fire investigations. Not to mention that once evidence is collected, they are put either in a plastic bag, or, as my department does, an aluminum can (Think paint can) with a plastic liner.

This is then taped immediately and initialed. It's imperative for the integrity of chain of evidence.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



Did I say you introduced it ? You developed it and I responded. Any worthwhile comment on the response ?


I didn't develop it..
I merely proved you wrong by showing they also carried explosives, but then again maybe that made it a better comparison..


Ohh, your calculation is wrong considering you over stated the planes total weight by more than 30%..
No point responding to incorrect figures, is there.??



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TXRabbit
I honestly believe there were bombs SOMEWHERE in the WTC complex that detonated that day for I can come up with no other explanation for there being debris, broken glass and smoke in the LOBBY - before anything fell. Many many firemen-testimonies report this.


Fuel-air explosions would absolutely account for that. Plus, the people in the lobby suffered burns, but no baratraumatic injuries that would come from a bomb.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



Not to mention, that later some of the firefighters and admitted that they could have mistaken the sound of explosions with the impact of human bodies hitting the ground and girders. Hmmm....interesting concept, everything that goes " BOOM " is a bomb.....

Hope you don't get the hiccups anytime soon, the very smashing of a ruler on the table might be a bomb!



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FDNY343
 



If 7WTC fell into it's footprint, how did 3 OTHER buildings suffer EXTREME damage, one on it's ROOF?


Debris from WTC 1&2...That's how...


No, not 1&2. Not at all. In fact, the damage done to Fitterman Hall was not done untill AFTER 7WTC collapsed. Not before, which would be conclusive of damage from 1&2.

Not to mention, no large debris from 1&2 WTC were in the direct vacinity of the North side of 7WTC.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
 



The aircraft weighed 150,000 kg or thereabouts


Not even close!!!!
Guess again Alfie...


Ah, I see what you are getting at , I underestimated, I should have used the maximum take-off weight for a 767 of 179,170 kg but I was trying to help you out.

Anyways, without recalculating, I guess that would probably push the kinetic energy of impact to more than 2000 sticks of dynamite.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



Anyways, without recalculating, I guess that would probably push the kinetic energy of impact to more than 2000 sticks of dynamite.


OK, how how much explosives did you guys say it would take to bring down a tower??
I'm pretty sure it was a LOT more than that...



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 



Fuel-air explosions would absolutely account for that. Plus, the people in the lobby suffered burns, but no baratraumatic injuries that would come from a bomb.


So if all this fuel rushed down 80 odd floors into the lobby, what fuel was left to burn upstairs causing the intense heat that weakened the steel???



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
 



The aircraft weighed 150,000 kg or thereabouts


Not even close!!!!
Guess again Alfie...


Really?

www.boeing.com...

Now, this is the MAX takeoff weight.
395000 lbs = 179,545.5 kg

150000 kg = 330000 lbs

So, it's a good guess. Now, even at 200,000 pounds, the KE is 2260406830.5 joules.

Now, what is so wrong about that?

BTW, 500 MPH is ~733feet per second, or ~223 meters per second.

What part of his math was wrong? Want to easily check my figures?

Google "Kinetic Energy Calculator".



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
 



Anyways, without recalculating, I guess that would probably push the kinetic energy of impact to more than 2000 sticks of dynamite.


OK, how how much explosives did you guys say it would take to bring down a tower??
I'm pretty sure it was a LOT more than that...



Well, on top of the 2000 sticks of dynamite impact don't forget the 10,000 gallons of jet fuel which equates, on ignition, to another 1422 billion joules.

I don't see how you can be precise about explosive force; all depends on where and other factors like subsequent fire doesn't it ?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FDNY343
 



Fuel-air explosions would absolutely account for that. Plus, the people in the lobby suffered burns, but no baratraumatic injuries that would come from a bomb.


So if all this fuel rushed down 80 odd floors into the lobby, what fuel was left to burn upstairs causing the intense heat that weakened the steel???



All this fuel? Using some math, I calculated that it could be as little as 25 gallons of jetA would have caused a fuel-air explosion that intense.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Take whatever weight you want..
Still doesn't come close to the equivalent amount of explosives you same guys said it would take to bring down the towers..



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join