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.

 

New Footage 9/11 Second Tower Explosion Incredibly Clear Video From Helicopter - Where Is The Plane?

page: 30
106
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Gestas
 


Yea right

Corey Lidle accident in 2006

Plane he was flying Cirrus SR 20 is made of FIBERGLASS...

Also weighs some 3000 lbs, traveling at 150 mph with fuel load of about 50 gallons

AND YOU WANT TO COMPARE IT TO A BOEING 767 HITTING BUILDING AT 500 MPH.....!!!!


Data from Cirrus SR20 Specifications Webpage[7]

General characteristics

Crew: one
Capacity: three passengers
Length: 26 ft 0 in (7.92 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.68 m)
Height: 8 ft 11 in (2.71 m)
Wing area: 144.9 ft² (13.71 m²)
Airfoil: Roncz[15]
Empty weight: 2080 lb (945 kg)
Loaded weight: 3050 lb (1386 kg)
Useful load: 970 lb (441 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 3050 lb (1386 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Continental IO-360-ES, 200 hp (149 kW)
Performance

Cruise speed: 155 knots (288 km/h)
Range: 785 nautical miles (1454 km)
Rate of climb: 828 ft/min (4.2 m/s)
Wing loading: 21.0 lb/ft² (101 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 15.25 lb/hp (0.108 kW/kg


Talking about reaching......




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 



try a block of ice on a steel plate like the Titanic was made from. Get my drift? Fake, fake, fake...


So what sank the TITANIC ....?

If not hitting iceberg.......

Wait it was Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Mossad firing torpedo from a U Boat.......



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Try this

Both the engines were recovered from Pentagon

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 

i would have prefered a more scientific rebutal
but
if you look in the mirror and you don't see someone in search of the truth
then
what do you see..?


what do you think us truthers see?

all enemies foreign and domestic as they say



edit on 15-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a “national scandal”, stated in a 2003 PBS interview,

www.pbs.org...


Cleland, speaking with Democracy Now, said,

“One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

www.washingtonpost.com...


9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry also has unanswered questions. As reported by Salon, he believes that there are legitimate reasons to believe an alternative version to the official story.

“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration.

www.salon.com...


Commissioner Tim Roemer, speaking to CNN, stated that Commission members were considering a criminal probe of false statements. As quoted,
“We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting,” Roemer told CNN. “We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy.”

www.cnn.com...


For example, the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission.

www.newsmax.com...

etcetera:
911proof.com...

edit on 15-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Ipsedixit,

Looking forward to checking out your "Devil In The Details" and yes, its been a long time...
years since I posted anything in the 9/11 forum, good reminder for me.

how could I have forgotten what it was like?
You know!

Next time, it will be bulletproof.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird

This is, I admit, an assumption.


That's what I thought. I'm not the internet police or on any high horse, but I can't help to be bothered by this kind of thing. I see both sides saying to each other "prove this" or "prove that," assumptions, etc. This mixed in with provable facts confuses people. There is no way to finally get to the bottom of any argument, in my opinion, with this kind of discussion.

Opinions are one thing. Stating something as a fact when it's just an assumption does not help anyone, and that is my opinion only of course.



So, NO.....they (hijackers) did not have the airline company's own internal passenger traffic records (which, for competitive reasons, are not usually broadcasted).

But, you realize.....before 9/11, a person could go past security without a Boarding Pass.....you DO recall this, right?


I certainly do. And after my post last night the thought did occur to me that IF your assumption that these flights were cased out for weeks is true, that it could have been done by going to either the departure or arrival gate of a particular flight and counting passengers. Doing that everyday for numerous flights seems like a lot of wasted time. That type of thing also would probably seem suspicious to airport staff. Again, just my opinions of course.

I plan on responding to the rest of your post but don't have much time at the moment.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Alfie1
I think I would prefer to go with the findings of aerospace engineers on this one :-


Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
www.ae911truth.org...


There ya go





I do enjoy the circus! Thank you for the link!



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gestas


OPEN YOUR EYES
edit on 14-3-2012 by Gestas because: (no reason given)



YOU FIRST apples with apples!!!!!



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Danbones, if only you knew what the 9/11 Commission was for. Its only been repeated ad nauseum hundreds of times by people like me and others, and yet, you guys still cannot get it right. I mean, get with the program chief.

I guess I have to again, straighten out the FACTS:

9/11 Commission was to investigate the events leading up to 9/11, the response during 9/11, and what transpired after 9/11. It was to investigate the intelligence failures, inter-agency rivalry, bureaucratic red-tape, incompetence, and many other missed, ignored, or unreported red-flags. It was to investigate how the responded to the attacks, the emergency procedures that went into effect, and how well the emergency services worked, and what failed.

Yeah, if you look at it like that, I do believe we weren't told the whole story. I want to know who fouled up, dropped the ball, and caused the deaths of over 3000 US citizens. Let us be honest, do YOU want to be the one to take the blame for 9/11?

Let me repeat this as well for those hard of hearing:
the 9/11 Commission was NOT responsible for investigating the impact, fires and collapse of the WTC buildings. That was left to ASCE and NIST and FEMA.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
You cant scale material analysis down, it doesn't work that way (which is a very basic rule).

The math does not lie....

using 35,000 lbs/15875 kg and 250mph/111 meter/second equals 1,762,125 newton's of force.

250,000lbs/113,398kg and 500mph/223 meter/second gives you 25,287,754 newton's.

Get my drift?

I have also worked through Zdenfk Bažant's collapse mechanism that the OS is partly based on and find it to be in perfect agreement with the facts as opposed to baseless supposition.

Have you?

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions






I'll be the first to admit, possibly even before first, that I know absolutely nothing of structural engineering and all that jazz but on TV shows (in the past, I kicked The Idiot's Lantern out the door long ago) I do remember seeing engineers/scientists using scale models of boats, planes and, if memory serves, even buildings in order to test structural tolerances and parameters. I could be wrong but I don't think so. I believe the Dutch do more or less the same thing when designing sea walls and various types of defences against water and things of a similar nature. Like I say, I could be wrong but in this case, I don't think so.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Beldy
 


You bloody well cherry-picked my quote, at the top!!


AS I TRIED to explain as well, the FBI (and others) checked passenger name records on previous flights, and determined that some had flown previously, in order to "case" the flights.

The idea of sitting in the gate area, and counting....is NOT a "waste of time" if it is your intention to study the scene, and count. And, no.....it doesn't work as you seem to think, at an airport.....that the "staff" would be "suspicious".

Honestly, this focus on the number of passengers per airplane on 9/11 is an waste of time, in and of itself.

Prior to these events, it was just NOT common for anyone to "rise up" against a hijacking threat. Primarily because all the hijackers needed to do was claim that they had a bomb. IN fact, in at least one case for certain, they DID!! Mohammed Atta said so (he was bluffing, of course) when he thought he was using the PA, and talking to the cabin, when he was actually using the mic connected to the radio, and broadcasting it on the ATC frequency.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 





i would have prefered a more scientific rebutal
but
if you look in the mirror and you don't see someone in search of the truth
then
what do you see..?

what do you think us truthers see?
all enemies foreign and domestic as they say

I hope you don't call a photoshopped picture of a Global Hawk 'scientific'. This same thing was done a few years back. Some one shopped a few pictures of crews loading cruise missiles and posted them as what was used for the Pentagon attack.
I found and posted the un shopped pictures (with link). This effort got me banned from the site as they allow non conspiracy believers there.

The truther pyramid is built on a foundation of lies, misinformation and half truths.


As to those notable people from the commision saying the entire truth has not come out: They may be correct to a certain extent. But they are not saying the government use some convoluted plan to blow up the buildings.

The fact remains that a bunch of terrorists crashed a bunch of planes and a couple of buildings were totally destroyed in the process. There has never been any court worthy proof otherwise.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


Dynamic loads are far greater than you think there are calculators on the net to show you I have said on a few threads here re this subject if any one thinks they are not try to catch say a 25kg weight dropped from 12 ft the height of a twin tower floor.

Here is a link put some figs in yourself

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

try 25kg 3,66 mtrs (12ft) and say you slow it down over 30 cm or 0.3 mtrs put the figs in answer is 2989N
There are 10n to a kg so impact force would be 298kg

if we slow it down over 10cm or 0.1 mtrs its now 8967N or 896.7 kg

So the smaller the distance the greater the load.

Well would you try to catch the 25kg


We dont know how much resistance was put up but we have pictures of bolts that sheared on floor connections and also angle iron the bolts were about 16mm dia so 0.016 mtrs,


About 600 tons of concrete in a floor so 600,000 kg thats one floor just the concrete put that in


Remember thats just one floor many fell on both towers during the start of the collapse!!!!



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Vehicle rented to the hijackers was later found to been at Logan airport in Boston (where AA 11 & United 175
originated from ) on several days before September 11 - no doubt checking out security

www.snopes.com...

Tracked to parking garage on Sept 6, twice on Sept 9 and Sept 10

Actor James Woods was on flight from Boston to Los Angles in August - spotted 2 of the hijackers in
1st class. Was so freaked out by their odd behavior that filed a report . FBI interviewed him later and was able
to pick out 2 hijackers



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Umm dude, you clearly see the plane coming in from the right upper corner, then it's digitally REMOVED, it's clear as day. Watch for the black dot approaching, then it blinks out of existance, then around the time it should hit, boom.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
So what sank the TITANIC ....?

If not hitting iceberg.......

Wait it was Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Mossad firing torpedo from a U Boat.......

A bit off topic but I'll play...Capn was drunk apparently, according to a surviving eye witness.
www.thesun.co.uk...

I know it's a crappy rag but there are other sources carrying the same story.

Her sister ship the Olympic was rammed "accidentally" by a Royal Navy ship HMS Hawke and oddly enough, this caused fairly similar damage above the waterline (read: large gaping hole) as the Titanic suffered underneath the waterline. "Some say" this was a test to see just how easy it was to...well, I'm suer you can imagine the craaaazy conspiracy theories, right?
Enough OT-ness I think.

edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by zorgon
 


You post stuff like this and then wonder why truthers get no where.

Did you photoshop the image of the Global Hawk?

Here is the link to the origional picture.

Are you a paid shill from ae911?
edit on 15-3-2012 by samkent because: (no reason given)


Excellent find. I thought the untarnished original must be out there somewhere.

Ironic that it always seems to be so called "truthers" who feel the need to fake stuff.




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

All fine and well, but it still does not explain the powdering of the complete building. Or am I missing some fundamental force of nature? I mean, you can see in the footage that the whole thing literally turns to dust, right?



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


What you see turning to dust is the tons and tons of drywall and sheetrock that were used as partitions on every floor of the WTC and surrounding the core columns as well. You also have concrete that is being crushed as well as fireproofing being shed. The floors and steel did not "dustify" as workers cleaning up discovered when they began clearing the site. Floors were discovered in the footprints squashed to a fraction of their original size. The steel columns of the core and exterior were all accounted for as well. This "dustification" is a strawman. It is a load of BS Truthers came up with to create more fantasies of controlled demolitions with space death rays, and such.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 

That's funny, I thought someone previously mentioned that the fire-proofing was sub-standard and way too thin? You can't have it both ways. I was actually referring to the "video evidence" as pumped out by multiple news agencies worldwide. The towers did, for all intents and visual purposes, turn to dust. As for the rest...well...that steel was carted away faster than a fast-food drive through and was not allowed to be examined so...well, I have my conclusions as I'm sure you have yours.
It's all good, I guess...
edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo




top topics



 
106
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join