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.

 

WOW. Just on TV.

page: 9
108
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by wisintel
Great find. I watched the commercial and it put a smile on my face. At one point in my life I held that sad belief that the tragedy that was 9/11 would follow so many other tragedies into that murky place in history that never sees the light of truth. I sincerely hope that this brings the attention and respect that this issue deserves and that the people some day get justice.

The signs that the masses are waking up are everywhere. People I work with and my family, people all around me are talking about things out in the light of day that even a year ago were only mentioned in hushed whispers by people that were considered on the fringe of conspiracy. Daily now I have conversations about the FED, about the illegitimacy of the wars we are in and fraud committed by our financial institutions.

People are truly waking up and it gives me hope.


....isn't it a sad reality to live in.....what are these elite insiders thinking.....
secl




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 





Do you have any EVIDENCE? not your words but hard freaking evidence that would shut people up. No, I am sure that there is nothing and your assumption must be correct based on our research of anti-OS website. Ignorance is not knowing who your enemy is. Sometimes, you learn your enemy is not any enemy but someone with different perception of an issue. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? Ten years later and there is not a fuc*%& thing.....move on.


How's this?

B-25 Bomber hits Empire State Building in 1945


At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.



One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building.



Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million.


No buildings around the Empire State Bldg collapsed due to collateral damage.

source
Wiki entry

By comparison, the first plane hit the WTC around the 80th floor, marble was knocked off in the lobby, explosions were heard by eyewitnesses in the basement levels. It fell at nearly freefall speed more than an hour later. The second WTC building collapsed in less than an hour also at nearly freefall speed. Building 7 collapsed in a similar manner and was never hit by a plane.

The B25 characteristics

# Length: 52 ft 11 in (16.1 m)
# Wingspan: 67 ft 6 in (20.6 m)
# Height: 17 ft 7 in (4.8 m)
# Wing area: 610 sq ft (57 m²)
# Empty weight: 21,120 lb (9,580 kg)
# Loaded weight: 33,510 lb (15,200 kg)


The Boing 767 characteristics

#Length: 159ft 2in
# Wingspan:156 ft 1 in
#Wing Area 3050 sq ft
#Empty Weight: 181,610 lbs


So granted, the 767 is bigger and heavier but that still doesn't explain why all 3 buildings went down at nearly freefall speed when 1 of those buildings, Bldg 7, didn't even get hit.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 




Ive made reference to this very same example in previous threads and its a very important point to make. I would imagine the design is probably far more modern and much more sound than the empire state building was at the time of that crash, thats also quite important to consider. Great responce!!



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Averysmallfoxx
 





I would imagine the design is probably far more modern and much more sound than the empire state building was at the time of that crash, thats also quite important to consider.


Yep, also, I read or saw somewhere that the WTC's were designed with plane impacts in mind (as in being able to withstand them.) I wish I could remember where I ran into that info.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by anyjerk
 


Anyone else find this article interesting?

edition.cnn.com...

Looks like Osamas name will be officially written out of the indictment. So officially speaking, he was never even involved in the incident. But I think most of knew that already : )

This is just the government, doing what they do best. 1983 ring bell?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


Actually yes I've heard that as well. The Twin Towers were designed with a central support coloumn running down the center of the buildings which is what made them so "hearty". The central coloumn was actually designed as a measure to protect against,you got it, commercial plane impacts. I forget where I found that article but it was designed in a very innovative fashion. those planes IMHO couldnt take the towers down on there own. If one indulges in that thought process its clear that the planes were in fact more theatrical in meaning and usefulness than practical application.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by anyjerk
reply to post by anyjerk
 


Anyone else find this article interesting?

edition.cnn.com...

Looks like Osamas name will be officially written out of the indictment. So officially speaking, he was never even involved in the incident. But I think most of knew that already : )

This is just the government, doing what they do best. 1983 ring bell?


Do you know what the papers said today? They say we are at war with Eastasia. That we have always been at war with them, but then why does yesterdays paper say we were and have always been at war with Eurasia?...



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I just realized this and it made me really upset. I think it is off post I am new here and do not know how to start a new thread ....OK Here it is.....
TV take the letters and switch them VT then turn them upside down AT .... if you notice usually the capitol T is basically an upside down i (capitalised) and the v is an A...What does this all mean well TV turned upside down is AI as in ARTIFICIAL INTELLEGENCE..wow Maybe im nuts i dont know....



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 



So granted, the 767 is bigger and heavier but that still doesn't explain why all 3 buildings went down at nearly freefall speed when 1 of those buildings, Bldg 7, didn't even get hit.


Bigger and heavier - Right by a factor of 15 (300,000 lbs for 767 vs 20,000 for B 25)

Also add in the difference in velocity by a factor of some 2.5 to 3 times that of B25

Energey produced is dependent on square of velocity x weight

Energy release at WTC was some 90 to 130 times that of Empire State Bld

Think the building being hit by some 100 times the energy had some effect on why it collapsed...?



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 





Bigger and heavier - Right by a factor of 15 (300,000 lbs for 767 vs 20,000 for B 25) Also add in the difference in velocity by a factor of some 2.5 to 3 times that of B25 Energey produced is dependent on square of velocity x weight Energy release at WTC was some 90 to 130 times that of Empire State Bld Think the building being hit by some 100 times the energy had some effect on why it collapsed...?


And building 7 hit with some 0 times the energy?



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by coyotepoet
 



So granted, the 767 is bigger and heavier but that still doesn't explain why all 3 buildings went down at nearly freefall speed when 1 of those buildings, Bldg 7, didn't even get hit.


Bigger and heavier - Right by a factor of 15 (300,000 lbs for 767 vs 20,000 for B 25)

Also add in the difference in velocity by a factor of some 2.5 to 3 times that of B25

Energey produced is dependent on square of velocity x weight

Energy release at WTC was some 90 to 130 times that of Empire State Bld

Think the building being hit by some 100 times the energy had some effect on why it collapsed...?


Your numbers are off. Here is a rough estimate on the energy. Since both buildings are approximately 1400 feet high, all that's needed is square feet. I used the equation:

(weight*speed) / sqft = impact force per square foot

B-25:
Max takeoff weight: 41,800
Cruise speed: 230mph

Empire State Building:
2,768,591 sq ft

767:
Max takeoff weight: 315,000
Cruise speed: 530mph

World Trade:
4,300,000 sq ft


Impact force on Empire State building: 3.47
Impact force on WTC: 38.83

That's about 11 times the energy not 100 like you claim. Is this enough to take down the whole building? I have no idea. But since the WTC was designed for an airplane impact in mind I would assume it would be able to withstand more stress.
edit on 17-7-2011 by robile because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by robile
 


I don't see what the square footage of the Empire State building compared to a wtc tower has to do with anything.

thedman was quite right. The kinetic energy generated in each WTC strike was roughly the equivalent to 100 of the B25 impacts. Work it out yourself.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by robile
 


Your numbers are wrong

Max weight of B25H was 36,000 lbs, that was with max fuel, guns, ammo, bombs and full crew

B25 which smacked Empire State had been converted to personnel transport and most of the weight stripped
out

Also plane was not at cruise speed as was on short ferry hop to Newark and was over central Manhattan
lost in fog

Estimated speed was ~180 mph

The Boeing 767 which hit WTC weighed in at around 300,000 lbs

Estimated spped was North Tower 470 mph, South Tower at 530 mph

Therefore speed diierence was 2.5 for North Tower, almost 3 times at South



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


No it just burned for over 7 hours with no water for the sprinklers, no fire fighting operations

Add in unusual structural design with long span cantilever beams under tremendous stress and get the
results....



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by robile
 


I don't see what the square footage of the Empire State building compared to a wtc tower has to do with anything.

thedman was quite right. The kinetic energy generated in each WTC strike was roughly the equivalent to 100 of the B25 impacts. Work it out yourself.



How does square footage not factor in? The WTC weighed more and had more surface area, therefor it was more rigid. Who needs more force to be knocked out, Mike Tyson or Oscar De La Hoya?

Thedman, even with your numbers the factor goes up to around 14x, not where close to 100x.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by robile
 


Have a math problem?

Energy =1/2 ( velocity Squared x weight) (E=1/2(V2*W))

North tower impact 2.5 time ESB square = 6.25 x 15 = 94 times energy

South tower impact 3 times ESB square = 9 x 15 = 135 times energy

Since 1/2 factor is same in both equations and only the variable numbers change can ignore it



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by robile
 


Have a math problem?

Energy =1/2 ( velocity Squared x weight) (E=1/2(V2*W))

North tower impact 2.5 time ESB square = 6.25 x 15 = 94 times energy

South tower impact 3 times ESB square = 9 x 15 = 135 times energy

Since 1/2 factor is same in both equations and only the variable numbers change can ignore it


If you really want to get technical you should work with correct figures first. The plane that hit the south tower was at 33% capacity and had 10,000 gallons of fuel which comes out to roughly 187,000lbs if you look up the 767 statistics. It hit the building at an estimated speed of 586mph which comes out to 2.9bil joules. The plane that hit north tower was at 51% capacity, 10,000 gallons of fuel, going 460mph. That comes out to 2.7bil joules, which is a similar amount of energy. Lets say the B-25 that hit the ESB was at 30,000lbs going 180mph for you benefit. That comes out to 43mil joules. Even then the factor is 67x but its still nowhere near 94x or 135x.

I don't have a math problem but why exactly aren't you factoring in the area of the building or are you going to tell me the bigger they are the harder they fall?

By the way, I'm sure you know that the WTC towers with built to handle the impact of a 707 in mind. If you look up the stats for that plane you would see that these buildings were designed to withstand an impact of 3.8bil joules. That means those planes on 9/11 tested only 71% of the stress that the twin towers were built to withstand.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by robile
 


Empty weight of a 767-200, the models which struck the WTC weigh EMPTY at over 176,000 lbs

jet fuel weigh 6 1/2 lbs per gal coming to about 65,000 lbs add in weight of passengers, crew, baggage and cargo (commercial airliners haul cargo including US Mail) total all up weight is about 300,000 lbs

Max takweoff weight is 315,000



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by robile
 



By the way, I'm sure you know that the WTC towers with built to handle the impact of a 707 in mind. If you look up the stats for that plane you would see that these buildings were designed to withstand an impact of 3.8bil joules. That means those planes on 9/11 tested only 71% of the stress that the twin towers were built to withstand.


The fable that the buildings were designed to take hit from 707 is not totally correct

The engineers did a quick calculation of the impact energy of 707 striking building to calculate if would collapse
immediately from the impact . Estimate was that plane would be "low and slow" coming into airport and lost
in fog - basic setup for the B 25 into Empire State

Found that it would not, 767 are about 15% bigger than a 707

Problem was that did not take into account secondary effects of the impact which fatally damaged the building
structure, destroyed the sprinkler system so there was no fire supression, knocked off the spray on fire
proofing material leaving bare steel and prevented FDNY from reaching the impact zones to extinguish the
fires

Fact that buildings stood for hour in case of South Tower and 1 hr 45 min for North saved coutless lives by
giving occupants type to evacuate




top topics



 
108
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join