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.
Proof of foreknowledge...
Originally posted by userid1
reply to post by anoncoholic
What? Is "Truther" any more insulting/damaging then "OSr"? Wasn't it the Truth movement that actually coined the term originally?
Here's a thought for you...if 9/11 was all a put up, then ALL of it was a put up right? Well, show us where the "put up" in the Pentagon attack is? (Something you've been asked repeatedly to do - but *just* can't seem to mange)If you can't, then we've just seen a foundation block of all of 9/11 being a put up removed - haven't we? Sort of like when a single person lies they lose all credibility - take away a foundation block and suddenly the whole structure becomes unstable - doesn't it?
Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by anoncoholic
Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by NWOwned
reply to post by anoncoholic
Interesting. For I mean, how can you have eye witness reports of planes and no plane pic wreckage?
Please look at the pics in this link www.911myths.com...
I looked at all the pics and there is one that is conspicuous in its absence. The one of the blue tarp being carried off.
This blue tarp? www.rense.com...
Originally posted by anoncoholic
What is fishy about the Pentagon attack? How about testimony of Cheney refusing to rescind the stand down orders that allowed an approaching plane to get closer, and closer, and closer, until it actually "supposedly" hit.
What is fishy about the Pentagon attack? How about testimony of Cheney refusing to rescind the stand down orders that allowed an approaching plane to get closer, and closer, and closer, until it actually "supposedly" hit.
Many reports came out on 911 and if all are to be believed there were also helicopters hijacked that day. With so much confusion how can anyone say with 100% certainty that the plane that was reported flying over the Pentagon was the one that supposedly hit it and what did hit it was a missile launched from a helo that was also seen and in fact had just went over the building when it exploded?
Fly a C130 overhead (cover story of "oh look at the plane") where the f was the shoot-down order? but instead all we have is a C130 ordered to go "oh,... look" and open its cargo doors, climb while dumping random plane parts and presto, instant jumbo jet crash site. ... could have happened as easily as and even more likely than a jumbo jet flying circles around Washington with proven attack underway that was seen coming, profit maximized, and world changing.
Were you there ? Were any of us?
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by ProudBird
Still , no one is highlighting the fact that the official story for the supposed Honeywell rotor that was found was aload of tripe , they said that it was from the rear APU engine in a Boeing 757`s tail section ... BUT ... when Honeywell were asked about it and saw the pictures they said .. "there is no way that is any part of a APU engine we manufacture" ...
Maybe not case closed , but it doesnt look good for the web spinnersedit on 18-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by anoncoholic
Let me ask it yet again... why the need to lie if all was as we are being told?
That simple, no conjectures, attitudes, personal slanders or hidden slurs, no hidden agenda, merely a simple question regarding evidence in the public domain. No opinion or conjecture, EVIDENCE.
why do deniers always avoid that simple question?
Originally posted by Sherlock2009
reply to post by waypastvne
Traveling at 150 nots above operating speed, you my friend need to reserch "ground effect".
It is impossible!!!
post by Drunkenparrot
Most here are misunderstanding what ground effect is. In short aircraft wings are designed with a small amount of dihedral so as they fly the boundary lair travels from the wingroot towards the tip which means the wing stalls at the ailerons last,
As the turbulent air spills off the wingtips, vortices are created which decrease the efficiency of the airfoil due to parasitic drag.
The reason is related to the purpose of the small, upturned "winglets" utilized by some aircraft. The winglets prevent wingtip vortices and their associated parasitic drag from forming and increase the aircrafts fuel economy a few percent.
In the case of ground effect, at a given point the wing is low enough so that drag inducing vortices are prevented from developing by the proximity of the ground. Ground effect might allow an aircraft a control a couple of knots slower at a slightly warmer ambient temp but it doesn't turn the airplane into a hovercraft.
There is no "magic" cushion of air forcing the aircraft away from terra firma, on the contrary, if ground effect prevented aircraft from impacting with the ground, there would be far fewer airplane crashes, would there not?
Hope this helps...
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by anoncoholic
regardless what altitude you seem o think makes that difference. .
Silly truther, 740 feet per second is a velocity not an altitude.
740 fps would be subtracted from the engines exhaust velocity in relation to the ground. The exhaust coming out of the engine would be pretty close to standing still in relation to the ground.
You need to learn the difference between static and dynamic thrust.
edit on 19-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Sherlock2009
reply to post by waypastvne
Traveling at 150 nots above operating speed, you my friend need to reserch "ground effect".
It is impossible!!!
A plane never went into that building. Theres no plane in those 5 frames at the pentaCON.
Did you ever wonder WHY?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Sherlock2009
reply to post by waypastvne
Traveling at 150 nots above operating speed, you my friend need to reserch "ground effect".
It is impossible!!!
A plane never went into that building. Theres no plane in those 5 frames at the pentaCON.
Did you ever wonder WHY?
Not really, because...
a) it was a security camera, and it's standard procedure for security cameras to skip a few frames to save on media storage. When a very fast object comes by, you're lucky to even capture it on one frame
b) in the one frame that was captured, the ticket dispenser in the foreground was between the camera and the plane, so the only details visible was really the plane's rudder
c) this entire campaign of sowing doubt that a plane actually hit the Pentagon is coming 100% from those damned fool conspiracy web sites spreading these inane rumors to make a buck off of gullible people. Once we realize they're just a bunch of snake oil peddlers, the snake oil they're peddling becomes moot.
Look over this animation and mull it over.
Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Sherlock2009
You're right about this, and I believe it should be our starting point.