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: 37
33
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 





I did not ask what they do, I asked why they would damage them and a plane would not? The sheer mass of the planes wings is what caused the damage to the outer core. I am aware that multiple strikes could be made but how can you hide 5-10 JASSM missiles? You could not. You cannot green screen reality.


You are being disingenuous.

The wings of the jet would strike the protruding edges of the box columns head on...as if striking knife blades. The wings of a missile would be striking those knife edges from the side.

The mass of the plane does not equal the mass of the wings, and again, they were striking the knives head on, not from the side.

And again, had you been paying attention to just this thread alone, you would be familiar with Leslie Raphael's work which proved the Naudets were in place to stage the first impact shot, which means they were in place to capture video before the first strike too, which would make green screening those square buildings a very simple thing.

All it would take is chutzpah, and good ol' American credulity.
edit on 28-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tpg65
 


And what if you've already heard the truth and insist on perpetuating myths and all out lies? Does that honor the dead also?


Let me tell you something, "hooper..."

The phrase "honoring the dead" is about the most heaviest/dense form of dog #e known to man, seriously.

The dead are: dead. They don't care, because they are "DEAD."
2nd, Honoring the dead isn't a spiritual thing, it's a human thing.
You really think grandma is angry at you because you haven't "visited" her grave-site in over a month (or 2)
(despite the fact you talk to her just about every day in your thoughts due to remembrance?"

Whether or not someone believes:

(1) Moronic dip#e hijackers were somehow, someway able to bring the towers down but not able to ride a tricycle with training wheels on.... or
(2) Some form of organized government/tactical ops carried out the attacks...

ONE thing is clear as crystal:

ALL of the victims who perished that day are: DEAD.

The victim's families are NOT what this is about and if they dot realize this: sorry, but tough.
Their acceptance or understanding is not required for MY belief to stand.

The bigger picture is that America as a nation (represented by our government) FAILED everyone
big time. They knew, they knew they knew.

I often ask everyone and myself: what happened as a result of this tragedy (planned or not by our own)


In the end: we have waged war (in the beginning with the WRONG Country) no less and no one seems
to understand this. The president has granted himself the ability to wage war with ANY country it deems necessary to do so without Congressional Approval: a DIRECT abuse of his LIMITED Constitutional powers...


If anyone wants to get angry: Take a deep, cold hard look into that proverbial mirror.
WE, the people let this happen

And worse, continue to LET these types of things happen.
We provoke other nations to piss on our cornflakes all because WE have to stick our huge, hairy noses
where it doesn't belong.

Until WE take responsibility for ALL of our transgressions?
WE will never be free.

This includes YOU.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I see that you are still at a loss to explain how the vestigal wings on a JASSM could damage the structural columns but a 757 could not. You also fail to explain how the JASSM warheads were replaced with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Show how the JASSM can cut steel and a 757 can't and explain the fuel fireball or withdraw the claim.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Chinesis
 


It's been at least twenty minutes since I've seen a post this....misinformed.

Not entirely sure why you think our war is in the "wrong" countries. Although, with the memory recall shown by those who share your appearant viewpoint, I shouldn't be surprised I guess. George Bush stated that if you were a country hiding/training terrorists that had/meant to do us harm, we were going to come pay a visit. Afghanistan and Iraq were the two countries at the top of that list. Now, I realize that some will be quick to say, "Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11". Well, neither was the war on terrorism completely 9/11 related either.

As for your comment that the President did it all by himself, you are flat out wrong. Congress gave their permission for military for e to be used. They did not issue a formal declaration of war is all.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Chinesis
 

Very well written.
These interactions we have on the internet often come at a cost.
At times, we are conversing with the enemy....literally. They are the enemy of truth. They are determined to place doubt into the mind of their "targets", to further the aims of them and their organizations.
The false reality, the false perceptions of our world are their currency and they spend a lot, in a lot of different ways.
We all have to do our part individually to counter this organized crime syndicate, the vampire squid has many tentacles.
People need to understand they are in a war, and the enemy is within the gates.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I see that you are still at a loss to explain how the vestigal wings on a JASSM could damage the structural columns but a 757 could not. You also fail to explain how the JASSM warheads were replaced with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Show how the JASSM can cut steel and a 757 can't and explain the fuel fireball or withdraw the claim.



I have explained it, and I have provided pictures for folks like you who are unable to envision the very simple explanation.

Your continued bleating of the same question will only reinforce my position.


Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by Yankee451
 


The tips did not cut the steel only bent it inwards you know that. The cut steel ended at the same place were the gas tanks ended. Take a look.at the shanksville crater you can clearly see were the fuel tanks end.




Below is a closeup from the left side of the gash. To the left of the severely bent columns, note the two with the dents on the LEFT side of the column, an indication of the direction of travel of the projectile.

Since the wings of a 767 are swept-back 35 degrees, even if they could do such damage to steel formed in a box with two protruding edges, they would not dent the columns on the left, as seen in the image.













Multiple missiles are consistent with the explosions exiting the tower on three sides:



the end result is you cannot explain how a jet could cause the dents, whereas a missile can explain it very well



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Missiles don't strike at an angle, they hit head on. And no idiot would try to program it to hit at an angle either, too great a chance of it missing altogether.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Dp removed
edit on 28-8-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   


I dislike hearing from scripted dummies.
Let hear it from the person who is getting paid for this tripe.
Where is Tesla when you need him to explain things.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Missiles don't strike at an angle, they hit head on. And no idiot would try to program it to hit at an angle either, too great a chance of it missing altogether.


And yet the damage is consistent with missiles striking at an angle.

I appreciate your opinion, thanks.

What idiot would need a missile anyway, when aluminum fuel balloon wings can pierce hardened targets, eh?

After several pages asking how the wing hypothesis is consistent with the damage on the left side of the columns, this is your answer?

It's amazing all the hypocrisy. I have answered direct questions for days, yet no one will touch even one of mine.

Sup? All you're doing is saying silly things about my hypothesis, but you don't support your own.

What caused the damage to the left side of the columns, but didn't damage the right?



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I'm not saying silly things about your hypothesis, I'm flat out saying you don't know jack about air launched missiles. The damage is in no way consistent with the buildings being hit by one. If you think that the wings of an airliner couldn't cause the damage in the photo, then there is no way in hell you could honestly claim the skinny little wings of a missile could cause it either.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I'm not saying silly things about your hypothesis, I'm flat out saying you don't know jack about air launched missiles. The damage is in no way consistent with the buildings being hit by one. If you think that the wings of an airliner couldn't cause the damage in the photo, then there is no way in hell you could honestly claim the skinny little wings of a missile could cause it either.


The claim is a jet wing SEVERED the steel columns; THAT is what I'm waiting for you to demonstrate is possible.

In the mean time, I have offered this better explanation for the damage.

My claim is the missile wing would slice through the CLADDING, but would only be sturdy enough to dent the columns when it was just a stub sticking out of the fuselage.

In such a scenario, the wing would snap off a little more with each column until it becomes a stub...the sturdiest part of the wing. When the stub impacted the 1/4 inch steel protruding from the columns, it snagged the last two and bent them towards the impact hole where the nose and fuselage entered.

If you know missiles, you know very well this is possible. These are the same missiles they brag about lobbing down chimneys so launching a couple volleys in a cross fire formation using pre planted homing beacons would be something you air force types can do with your eyes closed.










In your scenario though, the Jet would impact roughly head on:



And with 35 degree swept-back wings, anyone with eyes can see the gash and the damage would start from the nose of the plane, and end with the tips of the wings. Meaning the RIGHT side of the columns would be damaged before any damage to the left.

The plane wings would be striking the protruding edges of the steel first, in a sawing motion. the 1/4 inch steel protrusions would have shredded a plane wing when struck head on, but when the stub of a missile caught one sideways, we were lucky enough to have enough clues to surmise a projectile like a JASSM must have caused the damage.




And so I ask again, now with the above image in mind.

How do you explain dented columns on the left and not the right, when the 35 degree swept-back wings would have necessitated striking the right protrusion of the columns first.?





edit on 28-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


You think you have explained it but haven't.
You studiously avoid explaining the fireballs, don't have a clue how JASSM's work, don't understand dynamics, don't understand a time-on-target launch, insist that wings able to support hundreds of thousands of pounds are "balloons" but readily explain that the little fold-out wings on a JASSM can carve up a building. All you can say is that the CIA controls th emedia and this is supposed to explain everything.

Your theory is preposterous and your explanations are wrong to the point of laughter.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


It's a simple question really, but no one wants to explain how their precious 35 degree swept back jet wing could cause damage to the wrong side of the columns.

You know the answer and so do the readers.

Cognitive dissonance is what you're banking on, but you're in a trap.

You know the jet cannot cause the damage...nothing else matters but the jets. Gotta have the jets because without the jets the media are naked.

What's it gonna be, Professor? Gonna continue to squirm?



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 





If you know missiles, you know very well this is possible. These are the same missiles they brag about lobbing down chimneys so launching a couple volleys in a cross fire formation using pre planted homing beacons would be something you air force types can do with your eyes closed.


I dont know what conspiracy site you are getting your information off of, but it is truly pathetic to watch the web you are trying to weave.

Missiles that go down chimneys.....which, actually would be BOMBS that go down chimneys...but we will go with "missiles" for the sake of argument, are either laser guided, optically guided OR programmed with the "picture" of the target.

Which, really doesnt matter, since if ANY of the options were used, we would once again be back to it would hit HEAD ON, not at the silly angle you are claiming.

Then there is the missile wing........the wings on those missiles pivot out from the missile body....not the most robust things in the world (the pivots). At the first solid contact, the wing would be folded back along the missile body....not break off in little sections as it hit various beams.

This part....
" launching a couple volleys in a cross fire formation using pre planted homing beacons would be something you air force types can do with your eyes closed"

Not sure who you are trying to impress using that line..........but, it sure made me laugh.......

Cross fire formation? Do you even KNOW how air launched missiles ( of the type you are claiming were used) are normally carried? (here's a hint....they would all fall off of the airplane in the same way...not in a "cross fire formation")



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Interesting story.

So this is you explaining how a jet can account for the damage better?

"we wouldn't shoot at an angle"

The ability for these missiles to follow programmed way points are well known.

I say they did, and I say it is possible, and I say a jet is impossible, and I have provided proof.

You? Not so much.

I noticed the usual bluster and ridicule, but I'm still not seeing you convince me a plane wing can better account for the damage.



edit on 28-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 

The missiles can't do it, Yankee. The fold out wings can't cut much of anything and they are aluminum, the stuff you say can't cut steel. The fuel fireballs can't be accounted for by JASSM's. Your entire argument hinges on bent flanges w/resp to the wing angle. You assumed that you knew the dynamic geometry of a 757 wing cutting the columns.
Explain how those small wings can cut steel. Explain how the fireball was formed. You are unable to support your theory and can only bluff.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Yankee451
 

The missiles can't do it, Yankee. The fold out wings can't cut much of anything and they are aluminum, the stuff you say can't cut steel. The fuel fireballs can't be accounted for by JASSM's. Your entire argument hinges on bent flanges w/resp to the wing angle. You assumed that you knew the dynamic geometry of a 757 wing cutting the columns.
Explain how those small wings can cut steel. Explain how the fireball was formed. You are unable to support your theory and can only bluff.


Let me restate my position:.

The media have been run by the CIA since the 40s.
The Internet is part of the media.
I contend the Truth Movement and conspiracy sites like this one are part of the CIA's disinformation program, with representatives on both sides tasked with directing and managing public perception and directing suspicion away from the media.
I contend since most of the content on this 911 forum is limited to anything but the media, that this is an example of that effort, and that posters who continually derail conversations with irrelevant comments are as well.




In the second half of the 20th century, the burgeoning American media was co-opted by something called Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's subversion of the free press in America. Frank Wisner, who ran the project in the 1940s and 1950s for the Agency, once famously said that the American media was like his own "...personal Wurlitzer; I can play any tune I want on it and America will follow along."

In the 1970s, CIA director William Colby admitted, "The CIA owns assets at every major media outlet in America, TV networks, newspapers, publishing houses, and magazines."

In a 1977 Rolling Stone article, Carl Bernstein estimated that there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of CIA-friendly assets at all the major TV networks, newspapers and periodicals in America.





We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false. -- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, I appreciate your position. You are unable to acknowledge my point, so you keep repeating nonsense. This is expected. Real people would recognize when they are wrong, and however humbling, admit it.

I can continue repeating the same thing as often as you continue to ignore it.

I am in agreement, the aluminum wings did not cut the steel. They cut the aluminum cladding and bent a few of the columns. The columns were severed by the missiles, not by the missiles' wings.

YOUR claim is a jet wing SEVERED the steel columns; THAT is what I'm waiting for you to demonstrate is possible.

In the mean time, I have offered this better explanation for the damage.

My claim is the missile wing would slice through the CLADDING, but would only be sturdy enough to dent the columns when it was just a stub sticking out of the fuselage.

In such a scenario, the wing would snap off a little more with each column until it becomes a stub...the sturdiest part of the wing. When the stub impacted the 1/4 inch steel protruding from the columns, it snagged the last two and bent them towards the impact hole where the nose and fuselage entered.

If you know missiles, you know very well this is possible. These are the same missiles they brag about lobbing down chimneys so launching a couple volleys in a cross fire formation using pre planted homing beacons would be something you air force types can do with your eyes closed.










In your scenario though, the Jet would impact roughly head on:



And with 35 degree swept-back wings, anyone with eyes can see the gash and the damage would start from the nose of the plane, and end with the tips of the wings. Meaning the RIGHT side of the columns would be damaged before any damage to the left.

The plane wings would be striking the protruding edges of the steel first, in a sawing motion. the 1/4 inch steel protrusions would have shredded a plane wing when struck head on, but when the stub of a missile caught one sideways, we were lucky enough to have enough clues to surmise a projectile like a JASSM must have caused the damage.




And so I ask again, now with the above image in mind.

How do you explain dented columns on the left and not the right, when the 35 degree swept-back wings would have necessitated striking the right protrusion of the columns first.?




Prove a jet caused the dents on the wrong side of the column.



edit on 28-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Yankee451
 

The missiles can't do it, Yankee. The fold out wings can't cut much of anything and they are aluminum, the stuff you say can't cut steel. The fuel fireballs can't be accounted for by JASSM's. Your entire argument hinges on bent flanges w/resp to the wing angle. You assumed that you knew the dynamic geometry of a 757 wing cutting the columns.
Explain how those small wings can cut steel. Explain how the fireball was formed. You are unable to support your theory and can only bluff.



I think we're talking about 767s here.
en.wikipedia.org...

The missiles can account for the fireball, or pre-planted napalm could have been included for added shock and awe. Once again I give you the link.

letsrollforums.com...

Here are some vids. Note the fireballs.





Now that I've answered all your questions repeatedly, I look forward to your explanation as to how a jet can better account for the damage.

You have the floor...it's clean. I just wiped it with you.




edit on 28-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join