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 SphinxMontreal
This is a minor point, but Bush was in the air in Air Force One after it took off from Sarasota, where he had been reading with children about a pet goat. "By 3 p.m., Air Force One touched down at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska." But he took off from Sarasota shortly before 10 AM. "At 9:57 a.m., Air Force One thundered down the runway, blasting smoke and dust in a full-thrust take off."
If AF1 touched down in Nebraska 3 pm Central, that would make it 4 pm Eastern, which would be a whopping 6 hour flight from Florida to Nebraska. Maybe the pilot was pounding down a few with Bush, got drunk and lost his way.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, since you ask, I graduated magna cum laude in philosophy from Princeton, served four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, resigned my commission as a captain in 1966 to enter graduate school at Indiana where I earned my Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science. I spent most of my 35-year career teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. I have over 150 articles and reviews and have just published my 29th book, THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010). What I don't understand is how, after I have offered link after link to a diagram that shows the plane would have been intersecting with eight (8) floors of 4-8" of concrete poured onto steel trusses anchored to the core columns at one end and the external support columns on the other--each of which represented more than an acre of concrete apiece--that you can possibly doubt that this plane could not have entered the building without crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, and all the rest. Don't you care about logic and evidence? Are you really that dumb? I think you ought to go to "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?" and review the first 15 slides. OK?
reply to post by wmd_2008
edit on 16-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)edit on 16-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: adding a sentence
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack
Hi bib or should that be Jim, let Jim answer its his claim that a softer object cant damage a harder object so how does the FAR SOFTER PAINT cause the damage to the FAR HARDER WINDOW.
OH by the way your answers so far show YOU dont understand whats happening prove me wrong by answering the question re the paint fleck if you do it will show you understand but then of course that will show that Jim is wrong LETS SEE what you do
So are you as uneducated as Jim or not?
Originally posted by JimFetzer
What I don't understand is how, after I have offered link after link to a diagram that shows the plane would have been intersecting with eight (8) floors of 4-8" of concrete poured onto steel trusses anchored to the core columns at one end and the external support columns on the other--each of which represented more than an acre of concrete apiece--that you can possibly doubt that this plane could not have entered the building without crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, and all the rest.
HOOPER, who are you to contest the experts who have certified that it was flying at an impossible speed? See "Pandora's Black Box" for those who have any doubts. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed this precise point.
HOOPER has no idea what he is talking about. Anyone who reads the affidavit can see for themselves that John Lear has explained why, at that altitude, the turbine would function as "breaks" on its forward thrust.
Most of the plane's velocity should have fallen to zero, with crumpling, the tail and wings breaking off, and bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground.
You can count the frames on either of the primary films and they produce equal numbers in both cases.