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.

 

Columnist Ted Rall: AA77 hit the lawn, not the building

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by stirling
 


At best, I would say it may have grazed the lawn, but yeah, it definitely didn't hit the lawn.

He's not a government shill for thinking that though. According to the wikipedia gods, a shill is someone who is an accomplice to a government or organization without admitting a close relationship. You can't just accuse someone of being a shill because they disagree with you.


that's why he said an ipso facto shill.....meaning he is one unwittingly if not wittingly...




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


I suppose it is also worth noting that the towers really did survive the impact of both 767s. It was the culminating factors afterward which led to collapse.

If the towers were not designed enough to take the impact, they would have collapsed instantly after being hit. This did not happen, obviously, so factors after the impact must have done it. Some say explosives, and others say fire+damage. Fire or damage alone could likely not take out the tower, because the fireproofing would be intact, or in the other case, there would be no fire, so the intact steel would be able to hold.

What is argued is that the fire weakened the steel which was missing fireproofing (due to the fireproofing not being impact-proof), and because the steel was already taking more weight than normal, the weakening caused the specs to be lowered significantly. It was just a matter of when, not if, the towers would collapse.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by superman2012
 


I suppose it is also worth noting that the towers really did survive the impact of both 767s. It was the culminating factors afterward which led to collapse.

If the towers were not designed enough to take the impact, they would have collapsed instantly after being hit. This did not happen, obviously, so factors after the impact must have done it. Some say explosives, and others say fire+damage. Fire or damage alone could likely not take out the tower, because the fireproofing would be intact, or in the other case, there would be no fire, so the intact steel would be able to hold.

What is argued is that the fire weakened the steel which was missing fireproofing (due to the fireproofing not being impact-proof), and because the steel was already taking more weight than normal, the weakening caused the specs to be lowered significantly. It was just a matter of when, not if, the towers would collapse.



sorry guys, we have to figure out another angle...the columns were still standing for a very short period of time after the collapse...we figured this out on another thread...this means that there was definitely a pancaking of some sort, but, it doesn't rule out explosives on predetermined floors.......plus, the vertical beams did collapse on to themselves all the way down after the initial collapse, which they shouldn't have done.....



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder
sorry guys, we have to figure out another angle...the columns were still standing for a very short period of time after the collapse...we figured this out on another thread...this means that there was definitely a pancaking of some sort, but, it doesn't rule out explosives on predetermined floors.......plus, the vertical beams did collapse on to themselves all the way down after the initial collapse, which they shouldn't have done.....


The only way the vertical supports could have survived is if every vertical connection to horizontal supports was cut, and the collapse would have looked very different, a clear, straight-forward pancaking with the outside supports basically falling away or being somewhat blown away by compressed air.

No, more likely, some of the connections failed and others did not, meaning that the collapsing steel pulled the vertical steel with it, twisting and bending it along for the ride and making the collapse a lot more chaotic. I'm amazed, as it is, that part of the core of one tower did manage to survive and remain standing for a moment after the collapse.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by patternfinder
sorry guys, we have to figure out another angle...the columns were still standing for a very short period of time after the collapse...we figured this out on another thread...this means that there was definitely a pancaking of some sort, but, it doesn't rule out explosives on predetermined floors.......plus, the vertical beams did collapse on to themselves all the way down after the initial collapse, which they shouldn't have done.....


The only way the vertical supports could have survived is if every vertical connection to horizontal supports was cut, and the collapse would have looked very different, a clear, straight-forward pancaking with the outside supports basically falling away or being somewhat blown away by compressed air.

No, more likely, some of the connections failed and others did not, meaning that the collapsing steel pulled the vertical steel with it, twisting and bending it along for the ride and making the collapse a lot more chaotic. I'm amazed, as it is, that part of the core of one tower did manage to survive and remain standing for a moment after the collapse.


i'm trying to tell you there is video evidence of the spires still standing after the collapse......on both towers.....but, they did fall into themselves after the collapse, which means the floors fell first, then the columns...



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Yes. I suppose that makes sense, really. The floors were basically just trusses, and the core is where the real structure and reinforcement was.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 



I wonder why they designed the WTC's to withstand a hit from a 707 because of the Empire State Building incident when the 747 was already in production?


Problem was in the 55 years between Empire State building and Pentagon/WTC office interiors has
dramaticly changed

1945 - Furniture consisted of steel desks/chairs with minimal padding to desks built of particle board held
together with flammable glue/resins. Office equipment in 1945, manual typewriter/adding machines to
computers/monitors/printers built of plastic. Cubicle dividers (made of highly flammable urethene.styrafoam)
did not exist in 1945, Rugs/floor coverings are made of nylon or synthethics (derived from petroleum and
burn with twice the heat energy of organic wood/paper/cloth)

Even difference between when WTC was built in 1970's and 2001 was dramatic

Modern buildings have much greater fuel loads do to large amounts of plastic/sybthethics

Also fuel loads - max fuel in B 25 is (according to my reference book) 975 gals, vs 9,000 in Boeing 767 or
5500 gal in Boeing 757



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Consider that the Boeing 757 hit with 100 times the energy of the B 25 - now tell us it wont leave a massive
hole?

Just like a bullet, the faster its going, the smaller the entry wound and the deeper the penetration.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
I wonder why they designed the WTC's to withstand a hit from a 707 because of the Empire State Building incident when the 747 was already in production?

It was beyond their ability to do so. Even the statement that it could handle a 707 was just a guess as it was never tested. Having worked on many 747's, they are just immense aircraft, and I doubt that anything even built today could withstand that and still be considered a functional, practical to build, structure.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by jazzguy
lol, i dont think planes just disintegrate. no matter what they hit
2nd


Even given a much higher speed than the average plane crash? You must remember that most times, planes are attempting NOT to crash. These guys were pushing full throttle and doing their best to aim at their targets. That increases the kinetic energy by a whole lot, and can potentially lead to the plane being shredded/disintegrated beyond recognition.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Varemia because: fixed a question



????????????????/
Did you read what you wrote?

Lets go over this for a second...The planes wings disintegrated upon hitting the ground?
What happened to the lawn.....Did the ground open up and swallow the plane where the plane hit it, only to close its mouth back up and leave what looks like an untouched lawn.

Okay okay....not untouched....Wait.....No...untouched.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by superman2012
 


I suppose it is also worth noting that the towers really did survive the impact of both 767s. It was the culminating factors afterward which led to collapse.

If the towers were not designed enough to take the impact, they would have collapsed instantly after being hit. This did not happen, obviously, so factors after the impact must have done it. Some say explosives, and others say fire+damage. Fire or damage alone could likely not take out the tower, because the fireproofing would be intact, or in the other case, there would be no fire, so the intact steel would be able to hold.

What is argued is that the fire weakened the steel which was missing fireproofing (due to the fireproofing not being impact-proof), and because the steel was already taking more weight than normal, the weakening caused the specs to be lowered significantly. It was just a matter of when, not if, the towers would collapse.


Please explain WTC7 then?
Cant wait to hear this.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by superman2012
 



I wonder why they designed the WTC's to withstand a hit from a 707 because of the Empire State Building incident when the 747 was already in production?


Problem was in the 55 years between Empire State building and Pentagon/WTC office interiors has
dramaticly changed

1945 - Furniture consisted of steel desks/chairs with minimal padding to desks built of particle board held
together with flammable glue/resins. Office equipment in 1945, manual typewriter/adding machines to
computers/monitors/printers built of plastic. Cubicle dividers (made of highly flammable urethene.styrafoam)
did not exist in 1945, Rugs/floor coverings are made of nylon or synthethics (derived from petroleum and
burn with twice the heat energy of organic wood/paper/cloth)

Even difference between when WTC was built in 1970's and 2001 was dramatic

Modern buildings have much greater fuel loads do to large amounts of plastic/sybthethics

Also fuel loads - max fuel in B 25 is (according to my reference book) 975 gals, vs 9,000 in Boeing 767 or
5500 gal in Boeing 757


Yep...and 2 planes caused 3 buildings to callapse.
Which means that one building was missing the 9000 or 5500 gallons of fuel.

What reference book do you have? I would venture a guess, but Im not allowed to anymore.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
Lets go over this for a second...The planes wings disintegrated upon hitting the ground?

They went into the building, and there are marks on the facade that show where they penetrated. What would have happened is the wings would have hit the columns inside the building and been cut to pieces, sort of like running a potato through one of those things you use to slice them into potato chips.


Originally posted by DIDtm
What happened to the lawn.....Did the ground open up and swallow the plane where the plane hit it, only to close its mouth back up and leave what looks like an untouched lawn.

I already stated in this thread that if the aircraft did touch the lawn it would most likely not have done any significant damage to it. Read my posts above, and Google up stuff like aircraft "wheels up landing", "Belly slide", etc. to see pictures of other aircraft that have slid and done very minimal damage to the terrain.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
Please explain WTC7 then?
Cant wait to hear this.


Been over this so many times that I practically know it by heart now.

Debris from WTC 1 impacted and set afire to WTC 7. The debris caused a 20 story gouge in the building from the bottom up according to firefighters. Other documented picture evidence includes an 8 story chunk missing from the corner, and a piece knocked off the edge of the south side of the roof.

Firefighters also documented a 3 story bulge forming in the building over the hours that it was burning, and they determined that a collapse was likely to happen. They cleared a collapse radius, and the building collapsed, just as they predicted.

It took 7 hours, and a single column failed. The 8 story chunk missing from the corner caused a buckling in the supports which allowed approximately 8 stories of free-fall. After that, gravity took the building down naturally.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 
I have serious questions for you to attempt to answer. What is it that you hope to accomplish on this site? What would satisfy you to the point of ceasing your posts? If as you say, the buildings collapsed due to fire, and a plane crashed into the pentagon, then what in the world are you doing here? Is there some other reason why you continue to repeat the same opinions, in every thread? Don't you think we know by now how you feel on the matter? Have you said anything new in the past year? Have you learned anything new? Last but, not least, do you expect us to believe you are for real? You pose as someone who, after serious thought has concluded that everything the govt. says happened, did. If that is the case, what satisfaction do you get from your participation in these forums?



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   


The only people who took credit and said we did it was terrorist
reply to post by dragonridr
 


9-11 was carried out using every mind control method in the books. Your statement the terrorist took the blame is one of them. No one ever took the blame. Bin Laden even came out in the media and insisted he was not in any way responsible for it. To this day the ONLY blame and finger pointing has been from our own government. Which, by the way, I thought a little to quick on 9/11. That day you are hearing planes have flown into buildings many people dead. The flight rosters on that day did not list any names of whom we have been told were the highjackers We were also told the highjackers had used fake ID so really how could they have known so quickly the names of these people.

People will belive what they want. My father worked for ARINC. I grew up with the Airlines communications. I can easy say that I don't belive the official story. As for where are the people who could give evidence of the government being involved .... dead. Plenty of them. In fact I was surprised at just how many have died. That tells me something about cover up there. And no not dead from natural causes.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Thanks, Drifter. This group of posters that feebly attempt to tout the OS are so transparent, and I know they know that we know this. How could they not? Even they have to see how weak their story is. Not a day goes by that I don't speak to someone who has now begun to see how badly we were played. I read this whole pathetic thread and I know that anyone else who did, will not conclude that we've been told the truth about that infamous day. Why those that say we 'truthers' are problematic are treated as though they are legitimate, boggles my mind. They are criminals for pepetuating the lie, and should be held accountable for their calculated attempts to hide the truth.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


Obviously, the OS'rs are trying to "Deny Ignorance" and it's really funny that YOU , of all people should ask that question. Of all the posts I've read on this subject, all you ever do is denegrate others and post no evidence supporting your position at all. So, let's turn it around and ask you - what is YOUR purpose here?

BTW care to explain why your self-touted prophesy of why this site is still up and running when (according to you) it should have been shut down by last June? www.abovetopsecret.com...





posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 
Normally, I would never engage in a battle of wits, with an un-armed man but, you've provoked me. I'm here because the media has been bought along with people such as yourself, and have been used to propogate the steaming pile of sh*t that we all call the 'OS'. I believe that any man who believes what you have said you believe, is either incredibly stupid or, a traitor to my country. I believe you could be both, but that doesn't matter. This is not personal, but you have to know that what you've said in the past regarding this topic can't be defended. As another poster said, you can't suspend the laws of physics. Hows about we just let bygones be bygones. You post what you want, I wont believe a word you say, and then I post what I want, and then we let others decide. I dont have to respect your opinion, only your right to express it, no matter how reprehensible it might seem. So, get off your horse and know that you and those like you, are in for a fight to the finish.


edit on 19-9-2011 by dillweed because: spacing



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


Feel free to refute ANYTHING I've posted about the Pentagon with facts and figures - until then, you're just blowing smoke...
Does "I dare you" help? C'mon - you don't get free shot likes this often - how can you resist? Lay me to waste...
edit on 19-9-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join