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.

 

Regardless of your opinions of 9/11 , you need to read this.

page: 21
33
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
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.




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Why dated after 26? What's that logic?

But anyway, there really is no evidence they are dead. Just what they tell us, and present to us through the mainstream media. This is the least important question out of my questions anyway.
edit on 25-8-2011 by ProphetOfZeal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

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.


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?
How experienced are you at determining the collapse of uniquely constructed buildings?
edit on 8/25/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

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.


this is true, theres not enough lift at that point to keep the plane stable....i've flown a plane through turbulance before and that in itself was a horrible experience......i couldn't imagine even being able to aim at something at 530 mph....this would be like just seeing colors passing you by, you wouldn't even be able to distinguish what was what in front of you and especially beside you....



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
by the way, where did we get the 530 mph fact from?



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


From the 9/11 commission report which very few believers in the official story have read.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

The interesting thing about Mike Walters vantage point is that he would have down the long end of the generator trailer and seen it twist toward the building, in the split second, just before impact. This could have given him the illusion of the wings folding back when it was actually the trailer twisting.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   


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?


Are you going with a commercial aircraft striking the Pentagon on anything other than eyewitnesses? If so, I would like to see this evidence, be it photographic, video, plane parts, human remains, etc.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

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?



I know what you said, but I'm still not following you, sorry.

Since you brought up idiocy, I brought up Mike Walter.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

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.


So what should it have done that was physically possible? Should it have flown over the building, exploded in mid air, or crashed into the ground?



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.

govinfo.library.unt.edu...

61. See NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77," Feb. 19, 2002;TSA report, "Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation for 2001," Aug. 20, 2002, p. 41.

govinfo.library.unt.edu...



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   


Note that the aircraft was not landing; it was crashing.


It might as well have been landing, considering how that CaveDwelling Top Gun Turban was allegedly able to perfectly maneuver the plane into the wall of the Pentagon.



What expertise tells you that the aircraft could not fly at high speed near sea level?


If commercial aircraft can fly at high speed near sea level, why do they waste so much time and fuel flying at altitudes of 30,000 feet when they can just cruise around at a much lower altitude?



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


It´s just nonsense. A contrived fable. No Boeing airliner crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


OK. The idiocy I was referring to was the PFT plan about flyovers and timed explosions.

What do you think hit the Pentagon, a 757 or a missile? If a missile, what type of missile?



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProphetOfZeal
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Why dated after 26? What's that logic?



Because that is the date the the FBI released the hijackers identities along with their pictures, thereby ending all speculations about who was dead and who was still alive.

There is nothing stating that any of them are still alive dated after Sept 26 2001.

The hijackers are dead.

They'r not only merely dead, they'r really most sincerely dead.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
holy crap, has any of you even drove 130 mph? that's a hell of a speed by itself, think about at least 4 times that speed!!!!! you'd be a mile in less than a second!!!!!! i don't see anyone being able to control something like that, sorry, nope, nope nope, any one who thinks that they could is delirious and can't wrap their mind around how fast 530 mph really is



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

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.


If a 757 did not crash how do you know it was moving at 530 mph? Could the report be in error with respect to ground speed?

What did crash into the Pentagon?



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I´m just quoting the official report. Why don´t you ask the people who concocted it? I can´t answer for them.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

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?


I've also had the same trouble with the "pancake collapse theory" -- which was not NEW to me -- I suggested it to my soon to be wife when we visited the WTC in 1999 after the first bombing. She asked me if there were any way to "bring it down" and I suggested that a plane packed with explosives -- if it could drop at least two or more floors on the floor below, MIGHT cause a pancake collapse as the floors were "suspended" and only designed to hold their own weight.

HOWEVER -- the collapsing due to pancaking would leave the supports standing upright, and it would TAKE TIME. When I saw the WTC collapse -- the floors were keeping up with the dust falling (within about a second). Physics would demand a transfer of energy -- and that takes time. 60-90 seconds for a pancake collapse would make sense. 30 seconds would be incredible. Under 15; impossible.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join