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.
Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by waypastvne
A Boeing airliner can´t land (fly at 530 mph horizontally feet off the ground just before landing) at 530 mph.The notion that reinforced buildings can fall through themselves practically without resistance in a gravity driven event (basically turning to dust in mid-air) belongs in the realm of myths and fairy tales.
Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by waypastvne
A Boeing airliner can´t land (fly at 530 mph horizontally feet off the ground just before landing) at 530 mph.The notion that reinforced buildings can fall through themselves practically without resistance in a gravity driven event (basically turning to dust in mid-air) belongs in the realm of myths and fairy tales.
So you are going with a plane based on the eyewitness. Have you decided on an aircraft type yet or are you still working on it?
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Yankee451
You said "I appreciate your inability to discuss this like an adult, without including such unnecessary words like "idiocy", however now that you bring it up...here's Mike Walter, eye witness, describing the wings folding back."
If you say the wings folded back on an aircraft and are using an eyewitness as evidence for such, you should be able to describe what aircraft would do such a thing. What is your theory and what was the aircraft?
Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by pteridine
It was in effect landing. It was flying horizontally feet off the ground at 530 mph. This is a physical impossibility. It´´s third grade stuff.
Note that the aircraft was not landing; it was crashing.
What expertise tells you that the aircraft could not fly at high speed near sea level?
Originally posted by ProphetOfZeal
reply to post by waypastvne
Why dated after 26? What's that logic?
Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by pteridine
It´s just nonsense. A contrived fable. No Boeing airliner crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.
Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by galdur
Originally posted by Illustronic
One thing, I've never seen a demolition company proceed to implode a skyscraper from the middle or near the top down. A skyscraper demolition crew sets charges to weaken and direct the fall at various key points in the skyscraper but the base of the building is imploded last and the building falls from the ground up using gravity to crush itself.
That's not what I saw with the twin towers. The tops crushed the building below. All of the people who site 'they know a building implosion when they see one' are grossly mistaken. I'm sure they don't know what they are talking about, and use pseudo science to fill the gaps.
I don´t see how this can make sense.
The mass of the reinforcement of the tower is the greater the closer to the ground. As a result it´s obviously a physical impossibility that the tower would fall through itself practically without resistance in a gravity driven event.
also, we have to remember that most of the debris was flying outward which detracted from the weight of the rest of the debris that was still falling inside the building, meaning that a few floors down and the debris didn't weigh as much as the building itself weighed before the collapse...the walls were strong enough to hold the prior weight, why wouldn't it be able to hold less weight?