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.

 

'911 in Plane Site' - Has Anyone Seen It?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wolfpsy
Interestingly, Halliburton got the contract the rebuild Iraq without any bids being let out for the work (which is highly irregular in Government projects). As you know, VP Cheney was CEO of Halliburton prior to being VP.


Are you that ill informed? Under Bill Clinton Hlaliburton got 3 no-bid contratcs woth billions aslo under Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford and LBJ. By the way LBJ's wife owns halliburton.




posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dcgolf

Originally posted by Istvan
WTC Earthquake mpg

Possibly by bombs or underground expolsion, but it is right before the collapse. Very interesting... Each earthquake was followed by a collapse, after few seconds...


Just a question. Isn't it possible these "earthquakes" were picking up the rumblings of the first few floors collapsing before it became visible that the entire building was coming down?





Isn't it possible these "earthquakes" were picking up the rumblings of the first few floors collapsing before it became visible that the entire building was coming down?

No.




Also, if it was truly a conspiracy, why wouldn't the first tower that was hit be the first to be "pulled"?

Probably because tower 2 had more coverage (tv) at the time.

Respects,



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Logically the second tower had to fall because it was hit much lower . But the second plane's body could hardly destroy the inner core, as it flew into the floor area, and the concrete slabs stopped it, not really the core elements. If the collapse was due to the crash, the top portion of the building should have fallen away from the rest of the building destroying the surrounding area, but not the lower floors.

Everyone, thousands witnessed the bombs set off in the buildings, there is no doubt about that.


SMR

posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Are there any links that could show the degree of stress put on steele?
How hot does it need to be in order to fatigue solid steele beams.It would be interesting to see some expert calculations and see if the towers indeed did fall due to structural fatigue from the heat.
I do know that by looking at the damage from the planes it would really destroy some sections therefore allowing it to drop,thus creating a heavy momentom and collapsing the entire building.But as stated,those towers were built to withstand such impacts and there was not really that much damage to the whole area.It was just sections.
It is like a car running into a house.You have some pretty good damage,but normally just a good sized hole and the rest of the house still stands uninterupted.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I just got done watching the video and have a few comments. I see nothing unusual about the flashes when the two jets hit the buildings. When I see this the first thing I think of is a static electric discharge. I would imagine the engines create a tremendous amount of static electricity. I know this happens with helicopters. So why couldn't this happen with jets? So as the jet got close enough to the steel exterior of the building it created a powerful flash of what could be called a ball of lightning. Or perhaps a flash so brilliant that it looked like a ball. I have seen the point of impact when lightning strikes. Its a bright round flash. This is very similar to what the video shows. And there is nothing unusual under the jet. The photo that someone posted on here (sideways pic) looking straight up at the jet shows it is normal. All you see is a shadow cast by the odd shape under the belly between the wings. I believe this is the fuel tank. Absolutely nothing unusual with it.

The cloud of smoke rising before the collapse of either building is very hard to explain.

Some things with the pentagon seem normal and others seem odd. Normal to me is the condition of the building after the hit. The exterior of the building isn't just reinforced concrete but rather stone. A local company here was in charge of cutting new sections of stone to replace the damaged area. As solid as airplanes seem they are in reality extremely fragile. They will shatter on impact. Look what happened in PA and that hit soft dirt. The DC crash was in to a stone wall. Also I believe the shape of the building itself may have contributed to the lack of damage. The design of the building would seem to allow the impact to be distributed around the structure instead of just a single point. Also when you compare the explosion at the WTC to that at the Pentagon the fireball is almost identical. Same brilliant orange color. This tells me it was the same type of fuel that ignited.

The odd thing about the DC crash is the lack of video. Where is it? I know someone has it. There is absolutely NO WAY that a jet crashes into the pentagon and doesn't get picked up by a cam SOMEWHERE.

Oh. Compare the two crashes at the WTC. The 2nd jet to hit the building just vanishes into the interior of the building before exploding despite coming in at an angle thus exposing itself to more floors. The first plan seems to smack the side of the building. To me it looks like the tail of the jet whips down when it hits. It looks to me as if the 1st jet was smaller than the 2nd. But then again this could have to do with the speed of the jet at the time of impact.

BTW.. in the video the woman yells "That wasn't an American airline" not "That wasn't American Airlines".

To me Bush showed no shock when he heard the news. And his comment about seeing the first jet hit was pretty damaging. He either knew or is just a bad liar. Either way he looks bad.

But for that Fox reporter that claims the jet had no windows and that logo in the front... I for one don't believe him. We have all seen the video. That jet came in so fast and so unexpected that no one had time to scan it for any kind of markings. A small round logo on the front certainly wouldn't have been picked up. And I have seen enough United jets to know because of the color scheme on the jets the windows do not stand out and are not really visible from a distance.

But did the US know? Absolutely. George Bush blew the cover. And I expect nothing less from a guy that is so poorly spoken that a new ism was invented after him (Bushism). We knew immediately who to blame. We knew what country to pin him to. We knew immediately who the hijackers were and we went so far to immediately identify the ring leader. Thats pretty impressive investigative work in a matter of hours for a so called sneak attack. I think we knew about it and let it happen. There is no greater proof than the Pentagon getting hit in the first place. There is no excuse for fighter jets not being there to take it down considering what had already happened in NY. And ATC knew about it because they had been watching this jet on radar and reporting on it. If we didn't carry out the attack we certainly knew about it ahead of time and let it happen. Taking out the jet over PA was just a symbolic thing at the time.

I won't even get into those supposed phone calls from the jets that have already been proven could not have taken place given the technology.

Your comments?


SMR

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 03:44 AM
link   
First let me say good post.You covered alot.
As for the static electricity part,Im not so sure about that.It happened to both planes,not just the one.Another thing is if this is something that happens,there are dangers upon being in an airport with such a thing to happen.An airport has alot of electricity itself and if were to have any effect on the planes or vise versa,Im not to sure they would have so many at one time around other solid metal objects.

As for the Pentagon.I dont think it was a commercial plane that hit it.It was either a missle or something like an F-16
There is not enough damage and definitly not enough fire damage to come from a huge plane with the said amount of fuel.It has been said that the plane had so much fuel in it,that that amount would have burned alot more and alot longer.It would have also created more damage on inpact than what they say.Come on,a huge commercial jet liner leaves a 16ft hole and little damge around it?Not likely,maybe,but really,I dont think so.Also,why no parts to the plane?If one is to say this was a commercial plane and it just vaporized,then if it is hot enough to vaporize,why is not hot enough to burn more-longer and burn say,,,,the book on the stool?

A smaller plane hit it and we only saw AFTER impact and then only a few other reports.We saw no parts or debris being removed as we did at WTC.
And there is something.We saw parts and debris from the planes there,and this is from the same type of plane.So we get parts and debris from those planes but not the one at the Pentagon?



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Try this... well.. don't actually try this but rather imagine this. Punch a wall made of drywall or sheet rock. You may not penetrate the wall and make a whole the size of your fist but you may bust out enough of the material to leave a smaller hole. I've seen this done before. lol.

The more I think about the image of the jet hitting the wtc and seeing the flash the more I feel certain it was static electricity. Remember in The Hunt For Red October when the guy was nailed by a static charge from the helicopter? This kind of static isn't made up. This really happens.

www.tpub.com...

"Always assume that a charge of static electricity is present on the helicopter. Use some type of static discharge wand to discharge the static electricity from the helicopter to prevent shock when placing the apex fitting on the helicopter cargo hook."

I assume that the charge disipates when the helicopter actually touches down because of the rubber wheels. This charge is a result of the moving blade. There is no reason for me to believe the same thing wouldn't happen with a jet. The reason this hasn't been brought up before is because we haven't seen a jet in flight making contact with a metal building before. But this idea of the static charge would perfectly explain that flash you see just as/before it hits.


SMR

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Try this... well.. don't actually try this but rather imagine this. Punch a wall made of drywall or sheet rock. You may not penetrate the wall and make a whole the size of your fist but you may bust out enough of the material to leave a smaller hole. I've seen this done before. lol.

The more I think about the image of the jet hitting the wtc and seeing the flash the more I feel certain it was static electricity. Remember in The Hunt For Red October when the guy was nailed by a static charge from the helicopter? This kind of static isn't made up. This really happens.

www.tpub.com...

"Always assume that a charge of static electricity is present on the helicopter. Use some type of static discharge wand to discharge the static electricity from the helicopter to prevent shock when placing the apex fitting on the helicopter cargo hook."

I assume that the charge disipates when the helicopter actually touches down because of the rubber wheels. This charge is a result of the moving blade. There is no reason for me to believe the same thing wouldn't happen with a jet. The reason this hasn't been brought up before is because we haven't seen a jet in flight making contact with a metal building before. But this idea of the static charge would perfectly explain that flash you see just as/before it hits.


You do make some good points there.
I wonder though.Say the plane did make that small hole,where is the plane debris?And at the same time,why not as much fire damage?
If you take a candle and cover it with a glass,the fire loses oxygen and thus goes out.The fire from the planes in NY were not as open to oxygen as in the Pantagon.It was more open air allowing for more fire to breathe so to speak.So there should have been more fire damage and or as much as in NY.

As for the static electricity,you have a good source there.But I still have to wonder,if this is something that can happen,would it not be a danger in an airport?
Say an arc of static electricity were to happen.You have many planes with alot of fuel.It is like having 10 -15 bombs just sitting there at any given time.
I wonder if there are(Im sure there is) any aviation people here who can help out here.

You do make valid points though.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Maybe there isn't the spark on the ground because the jet becomes grounded when it lands. I will admit I am no expert on electricity. I don't fully understand why you are protected inside a car when it gets hit by lightning. But my guess is the jet grounds itself when it lands just like a helicopter does and thats why you don't get shocked.

Thanks for saying the word glass because I forgot something. Look at the DC footage. Is it just me or alll the windows aroudn the crash site still intact? If a jet nose dives it will disintegrate on impact. Hiting the rock face of the building at the angle it would have come in at would have done the same. There may have been tiny pieces of metal all over the place but small enough to not be picked up by camera from a distance.


SMR

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I didnt pick that up.I will have to have a look.
I would type more on this and give you a better reply,but I am so tired right now I might start having spelling errors and ramble into a different subject all together


I will take a look at the footage and see if there is anything else out of place.

Thanks for the good discussion



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Anyone seen this pic? If so do you have a better shot of it?




This is the flight (77?) on a dive to the Pentagon.

Source: www.whatreallyhappened.com...


SMR

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Nice link!
In the one photo they say debris and luggage can be seen.Although a big image,I cant tell what it is.It looks to be just a pile of ....

From that image,I really dont think anyone can safely say they see any type of 'luggage' in there.It is a pile of something but it could be any amount of debris.Maybe it is plane wreckage,but what kind is not determained since it is all 'balled up'

As for your image you post.I dont think I have ever seen that footage or any images.But again,if someone is given a source such as these,,,,where is the whole thing!!
If this is to be debunked,we need point of impact images.Not a few just before and then an after.
We have tons of images and video from NY of the planes actually hitting.So far in ALL images/video images,all we get are just before,and really way before,and then after.At no time have we seen a point of impact of a plane of any sort.That is what 'I' need.

I wish I could help you on that,but as I said,I have never seen those news caps or the video for that matter.I hope someone has more to share.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Modern airliners generally have anti static wicks protruding from the trailing edge of the wings which dissipate electrostatic charge in flight. I know tall buildings can build up charge during a storm but i'm not sure if it happens on a normal day. Seems like a plausible theory though.


SMR

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Modern airliners generally have anti static wicks protruding from the trailing edge of the wings which dissipate electrostatic charge in flight. I know tall buildings can build up charge during a storm but i'm not sure if it happens on a normal day. Seems like a plausible theory though.


Thats what I thought.That is why I asked if that could be a danger.
Maybe we can get answers from someone who knows plane/building/static electricity effects.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Can anybody explain this?!


Here is the mpg:
www.plaguepuppy.net...
and the website...
WTC spire turning into dust..

What the hell???



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Did anyone think, that those towers actually turned into dust?


It is quite amazing, a mass of concrete does not generate this sort of dust, there is no controlled demolition so far with such amount of fine dust..



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Istvan:

Whoa. That's definitely a "wtf" right there. I didn't even notice that.

I know that high-frequency vibrations turn concrete into dust, but as far as I read from that article... that wasn't made of concrete!


SMR

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   
This is indeed getting interesting now.
And now that we see this strange anomaly here,what really happened?
Here is some thought.I am going to grab some straws here.This is in no way my final thought or this is what happened.

The other day I was looking in the science section and found the ani-gravity thread.It reminded me of an ameture scientist that worked within the field as well as others.I finally was linked to info on him and some findings were interesting.
Dr. John Hutchison - The Hutchison Effect
Canadian inventor John Hutchison is credited with the discovery of a highly-anomalous electromagnetic effect which causes the jellification of metals, spontaneous levitation of common substances, and other effects resulting from what is believed to be a very complex scalar-wave interaction between electromagnetic fields and matter.
Changing Properties
www.americanantigravity.com... and his site here www.hutchisoneffect.org...

Now here is something to think about.In these experiments,many other types of anomalies happen to metals.They crumble,they bend,some seem to become jellied.
Now think of this.As in the image above and video,we see what seems to be a metal spear disinigrate into a dust.Could anyone have harnest this type of effect and energy and placed a device in those buildings to make sure they came down?
The Hutchison Effect can distort and fatigue metal as well as probably create a high frequency to mearly turn metals to dust.

Im in no way a scientist.I know very little other than what I read here and there.But reading results and why,you have to wonder could there have been some sort of device put in those buildings that would cause all these unexplained phenomes.
Also,with this effect,can we assume that if some device like this were to have been put in those buildings,being in the field of electromagnetic fields,could this explain what INDY is saying about the 'flashes'

What are the thoughts...........



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Calculon386
I have it downloaded but havent watched it.


Where did you download it from? I don't see any link on the page to download it, just to buy it? Every so often someone comes out with 'al-qaeda didn't do it' type stuff, and they never own up to it. This gives the impression that this video shows that the planes hitting the WTC weren't passenger planes, that they were windowless and such. I am curious to see if they even have pics of the planes for this video, or if its like that other silly 'disclosure' proof-of-aliens-oh-wait-its-just-a-bunch-of-guys-talking fiasco.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1amc


Isn't it possible these "earthquakes" were picking up the rumblings of the first few floors collapsing before it became visible that the entire building was coming down?

No.


Uhm, why?


istvan:
If the collapse was due to the crash


It wasn't. The plane crash didn't damage the central supporting columns ot the point that that alone would cause the crash. The heat of the fire was sufficient to cause the rivits holding the infrastructure together to weaken. The WTC was held together by its 'skin' (and the central column). The weakening of the rivets caused the 'skin' to fail structurally.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join