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.
Originally posted by Six Sigma
Originally posted by Bilk22
I don't know much about that crash, but there are two things to consider here. First, regarding the 1771 crash, does it make sense that a guy would write a suicide note fully knowing that the craft is going to probably burn during the crash? Wouldn't he expect the note to burn too?
Second, this crash has nothing in common with the 911 crashes. This plane was reported to have fallen from 30,000ft and impacted solid earth. The 911 planes flew into structures which are thin skins with volumes of vacant space behind them. Isn't that an OS claim as to why the planes penetrated into the structures so readily? Why the "disappeared" as if there were no structure there at all? Now we're told to believe something very different than that.
Wait... what??? Here is what you said:
Have any other examples of commercial crashes with no large hull or wing parts laying around? I'd be interested in seeing them.
I responded with the crash of flight 1771. You got your answer, I would appreciate a sincere thank you, not you moving the goal posts.
Your post proves your ignorance of the structures that the planes hit and your ignorance of physics. You asked for proof of another crash with no large hull or wings laying around...you got one. Now run along.
Originally posted by Bilk22
I',m an architect and a building professional. What's your field of expertise that would give you a better understanding of those crashes into those buildings?
Originally posted by Bilk22
I don't know much about that crash
First, regarding the 1771 crash, does it make sense that a guy would write a suicide note fully knowing that the craft is going to probably burn during the crash? Wouldn't he expect the note to burn too?
Second, this crash has nothing in common with the 911 crashes. This plane was reported to have fallen from 30,000ft and impacted solid earth
The 911 planes flew into structures which are thin skins with volumes of vacant space behind them. Isn't that an OS claim as to why the planes penetrated into the structures so readily? Why the "disappeared" as if there were no structure there at all? Now we're told to believe something very different than that.
Originally posted by 911files
Originally posted by Bilk22
I',m an architect and a building professional. What's your field of expertise that would give you a better understanding of those crashes into those buildings?
And this makes you an expert on aircraft crashes how exactly?
Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
Originally posted by Bilk22
I don't know much about that crash
Then you sould educate yourself before making declarations like. " it is impossible that a passport can survive those plane crashes".
Cuz there are many similarities between this one (and others) that, once you educate yourself, just might do something about your personal incredulity over such matters.
First, regarding the 1771 crash, does it make sense that a guy would write a suicide note fully knowing that the craft is going to probably burn during the crash? Wouldn't he expect the note to burn too?
Who knows what he thought. Ridiculous question.
But the fact remains that the suicide note survived, proving that it can happen.
Second, this crash has nothing in common with the 911 crashes. This plane was reported to have fallen from 30,000ft and impacted solid earth
Ummmm, Shanksville?
The 911 planes flew into structures which are thin skins with volumes of vacant space behind them. Isn't that an OS claim as to why the planes penetrated into the structures so readily? Why the "disappeared" as if there were no structure there at all? Now we're told to believe something very different than that.
We give these examples in an effort to educate you.
Plane flies into the ground at a very high speed, and disintegrates. small parts are what is found afterwards. A suicide note if found. No bodies are found, only body parts.
This is almost exactly what can be found in witness testimony after the Shanksville crash.
It is then not a far reach to then understand that when planes fly into structures, a similar result would be expected - small pieces, body parts only, etc...
And no planes disappeared into the WTCs. They broke apart the ext columns AND broke around around them, and the plane pieces flowed through the windows.edit on 21-6-2012 by Fluffaluffagous because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
It is then not a far reach to then understand that when planes fly into structures, a similar result would be expected - small pieces, body parts only, etc...
Originally posted by Bilk22
What makes you an expert on them?
Originally posted by Bilk22
Sonny, maybe you should acquire an education before attempting to educate others. I'm 52.
I've effected may and varied repairs to these structures and fully understand the load bearing capabilities of structures and strength in materials.
To further engage the likes of you and others here, whose sole purpose is to continue disseminating false information, is pointless on my part and I'm man enough to admit it.
Originally posted by Bilk22And this makes you an expert on aircraft crashes how exactly?
Originally posted by Bilk22
I',m an architect and a building professional. What's your field of expertise that would give you a better understanding of those crashes into those buildings?
It's obvious there are people here who will vehemently deny there's anything but the officially flawed explanation by NIST. Participants or paid shills? One must wonder.
Have any other examples of commercial crashes with no large hull or wing parts laying around? I'd be interested in seeing them.
9/11 Conspiracies: This forum is dedicated to the discussion and speculation of cover-ups, scandals, and other conspiracies surrounding the events of 9/11/2001. Participants should be aware that this forum is under close staff scrutiny due to general rudeness by some. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.
Phone call from Vin Narayanan 07/23/10 (Mp3 download link)
www.pumpitout.com...
Digging through your jumbled mess of walls of text is almost more than I can stomach this morning. However, I do have some questions that I can't resolve. Why do you classify two helicopter pilots who attempted to replicate the flight path after the event as "witnesses"? Witnesses to what? How does a SMALL Office building suddenly turn into a LARGE Office Building such as the Navy Annex? Your interpretation of what was being referred to as a small office building seems predicated on your interpretation of a couple of pronouns. How do you know a helicopter you think you've found in a photo (I don't see it) is the same as the one flown by the two pilots being interviewed? Your Title and OP indicates this is a thread to establish facts. We're up to 8 pages now and I don't see any facts you've established yet. All I see from you is a continuation of a jumbled up mess constituting walls of text full of errors same as all of your previous stuff. How long do we have to wait to see some facts from you?
Digging through your jumbled mess of walls of text is almost more than I can stomach this morning. However, I do have some questions that I can't resolve. Why do you classify two helicopter pilots who attempted to replicate the flight path after the event as "witnesses"? Witnesses to what? How does a SMALL Office building suddenly turn into a LARGE Office Building such as the Navy Annex? Your interpretation of what was being referred to as a small office building seems predicated on your interpretation of a couple of pronouns. How do you know a helicopter you think you've found in a photo (I don't see it) is the same as the one flown by the two pilots being interviewed? Your Title and OP indicates this is a thread to establish facts. We're up to 8 pages now and I don't see any facts you've established yet. All I see from you is a continuation of a jumbled up mess constituting walls of text full of errors same as all of your previous stuff. How long do we have to wait to see some facts from you?
We're up to 8 pages now and I don't see any facts you've established yet. All I see from you is a continuation of a jumbled up mess constituting walls of text full of errors same as all of your previous stuff. How long do we have to wait to see some facts from you?
Originally posted by LaBTopI am the one being helpful for 9/11 interested readers. You not, you do not assist, you resist truly investigative research, which can lead to erratic conclusions, which are being corrected, as it should.
.