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.

 

Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

page: 19
13
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Hey Howard, I'm not into unbased conspiracy. I don't even believe in UFOs. I just don't believe that 7 could have possible fallen perfectly like a controlled demo from two fires. And when you say it was a structure fire, I don't know of any steel-and-concrete framed buildings that have ever suffered a structure fire. That's a term for wooden buildings.

What's that third pod on the aircraft?

As far as diesel, it burns at around 210c, and steel depending on quality melts at around 1300c. So if the diesel tank in that building was on fire it would have to be placed perfectly to thoroughly melt all the building's load bearing members at the same time for it to collapse perfectly into its own footprint. If you can site a single building in the world that has accomplished this by accident like WTC 7, I'd be very interested in hearing about it, because I can't find anything.




posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Hey Howard, I'm not into unbased conspiracy. I don't even believe in UFOs. I just don't believe that 7 could have possible fallen perfectly like a controlled demo from two fires.

Two fires? From what I have read, the entire building was on fire.
Also, everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that there was evidence of structural damage to this building from the tower collapses, LONG before 7 collapsed. The fire fighters were monitoring a “kink” in the building’s structure near the 6th floor, (by the transfer trusses) as early as 1:30 in the afternoon.

And when you say it was a structure fire, I don't know of any steel-and-concrete framed buildings that have ever suffered a structure fire. That's a term for wooden buildings.


”Structure Fire: Fire originating in and burning any part or all of any building, shelter, or other structure.” source

Or: Something constructed, such as a building.



What's that third pod on the aircraft?

That is not a “pod” that is the wing root, an integral part of the plane.

As far as diesel, it burns at around 210c,


uh, What?

Are you actually claiming that diesel burns at 210 degrees C?


and steel depending on quality melts at around 1300c.

Steel looses much of it’s strength at much lower temperatures then that. Typically at around 700 to 800 degrees, the yeld strength starts to drop off considerably.

So if the diesel tank in that building was on fire it would have to be placed perfectly to thoroughly melt all the building's load bearing members at the same time for it to collapse perfectly into its own footprint.


Not if the building was structurally damaged by the collapse of the nearby towers.

Once a runaway collapse started it would have instantly spread to the remaining structure.

This is all tied into the concept of distribution of load. Once a structural member fails, the load is transferred to the remaining structural members. If they fail the load is redistributed among fewer and fewer structural elements until they have all failed. In a runaway collapse this redistribution and complete collapse happens fast enough that it appears to be instantaneous, but it is not. If you watch the video of the 7 collapse, there is a definite sequence of events.

If you can site a single building in the world that has accomplished this by accident like WTC 7, I'd be very interested in hearing about it, because I can't find anything.

I can think of two, WTC 1 and WTC 2.

FYI the latest NIST release
www.nist.gov...






[edit on 10-11-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
double post
double post

[edit on 10-11-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Roark, I think the man asked you if you could name a steel high rise that had collapsed due to fire. All that bru-ha-ha about jet fuel melting steel doesn't cut the mustard. Mr. Wizard could tell you that kerosene doesn't melt structural steel. Yeah it weakens at high temperatures, but it doesn't melt into pools that stay hot for weeks and weeks, a common event in controlled demolitions using thermite. There is more circumstantial evidence to support sub level nuclear detonation than there is a structural fire causing the collapses. No steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire. And you still have yet to answer why they took the bomb sniffing dogs out of the buildings. You still trying to claim the squibs going off ahead of the collapse are digital noise on the footage? You still trying to say you don't see the large anamolous spikes in the seismic data here?

The two big black spikes on the read out that are on the LEFT side of each collapse. It's hard to debate a man that can't see the obvious.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
And it is hard to discuss anything with someone who refuses to understand what it is he is looking at.

Since you brought up the seismic graph again, I will debunk your theory again, for the third time in this thread.

Those big spikes you are talking about are the seismic signatures of the buildings hitting the ground.

the smaller signals that go on for a couple of minutes after that initial impact are not from the impact of the building with the ground They are echos and reverberations from the massive signal caused by the impact of the building with the ground.

Do you see the two separate lines, one next to the first plane impact and one next to the first collapse. These are time expanded views of the seismic signals. If you look at the main chart, you will see that from one end of the page to the other is a 30 minute time scale. If you look at the expanded view, you will see that the seismic signal only lasted about 10 seconds. 10 seconds is 1/180 of the length of the longer chart. If the chart is 200 pixels wide, 10 seconds is only 1 pixel wide.

Note also that the inset chart for the collapse is labeled 4,545nm/s. this is the magnitude of the signal. The inset chart for the airplane impact is labeled 273 nm/s. That is the magnitude of the signal for the airplane impact.

The ratio of 4,545 to 273 is about 17 to 1. That is the ratio of the heights of the signal for the airplane impact and the big spike that you claim is from an underground explosion.

That is not from an underground explosion, that signal is from the mass of the tower hitting the earth.

Let me repeat this one more time:
The two big spikes are not before the collapse, they are the collapse.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
You can repeat it all you like roark but they are on the left side of the graph. Echos and reverberations eh? Is that anything like squibs being digital noise?



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
You can repeat it all you like roark but they are on the left side of the graph. Echos and reverberations eh? Is that anything like squibs being digital noise?



OK, let's take this a step at a time.


Do you see the parts of the seismic chart that are labeled 4,545 nm/s and 273 nm/s? You don't have to answer, I know you can see it.

Do you understand that those values represent the amplitude of the signals? in other words, those values represent the magnitude of the signal?

Do you agree with that?

Can you read the time scale on the red part of the following?




can you see that the total length of time for the signal of the collapse is a little less than 10 seconds?

What is the time scale on the other chart, the one you keep talking about?

Each line, from the left to the right represents 30 minutes of time. Do you disagree with that? Of course you can't, it is right there on the chart that you posted!

let's just assume that the lines on that chart that represent 30 minutes of time are 200 pixels wide. That means that 10 seconds would be represented by about 1 pixel. If the lines were 400 pixels wide, then ten seconds would be 2 pixels.

This is simple grade school math. Are you still with me?

Good. Now, read the actual report again and pay attention to this part on page 3

Thus, we conclude that the pulse duration at those four stations reflects mainly that the generation of seismic energy from the collapse was delivered over 5-6 s. A portion of the pulse duration probably results from the dispersion of Rg waves.


Did you get that, the impact of the building with the ground generated a pulse of 5 to 6 seconds.

(Note that by the time that pulse reached the Lamont-Doherty station, the signal was spread out to 10 seconds. Figure 3 of the above report illustrates this nicely.)

Notice also the caption to the figure that you posted above


Figure 1: Seismic recordings on E-W component at Palisades for events at World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, distance 34 km. Three hours of continuous data shown starting at 08:40 EDT (12:40 UTC). Data were sampled at 40 times/s and passband filtered from 0.6 to 5 Hz. Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) is UTC minus 4 hours. Expanded views of first impact and first collapse shown in red. (emphasis added - HR)


Why is it, I must ask, that you have conveniently left that part out of your post. let me just repeat this for you. Remember, this is not me speaking but the seismologists that wrote the report that you have your undies in a bunch over.

Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.


Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2.

Did you get that?









posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   
So since we're debating what took down the 3 WTC buildings, name a single building besides them that's a steel structure collapsed by fire.

Also, that can't be the wing root on the plane. Way too huge and way too assymetrical.

It also appears that something is launched out of that bulbous 'wing root' a split second before impact.

7 WTC was not visibly burning before collapsing. Do you really think an uncontrolled fire collapsed all load bearing members simultaneously?

What about the hot spots in the debris? Removal of the dogs? What explains the massive grey clouds of concrete dust coming out of the building before the collapse and seperate from the fireball?

The planes that impacted the WTC left no black boxes, but the passports for Mohammed Atta and another hijacker were found on a NYC city street after the impact? (According to the FBI)

What about the hijackers who are still alive? 7 of 19 as of last count. The FBI has never changed their identification of the hijackers.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by taibunsuu]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Roark it took roughly ten seconds for the debris to hit the ground, not to mention falling debris isn't going to make huge anamolous spikes at the beginning of that ten second period. If falling debris did cause those large spikes, they would have read when the debris hit the groud, not when it was free falling as though through empty air. As far as that rubbish you quoted over and over and over again, well duh, what other buildings were collapsing at the time?



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:54 PM
link   
The falling debris took ten seconds to hit the ground. when it hit it generated a seismic pulse that lasted for five to six seconds. that pulse caused the big spike.

By the time that pulse reached the seismograph station, due to the varying speeds of seismic frequencies through rock, it had spread out to 10 seconds. By the time the seismic energy reached stations further away it had spread out even longer.

What part of "Two largest signals" don't you understand. The word "two?" That is the number 2 as in 1, 2.

The word "largest?" That means just what you thing it means, larger then the rest. The biggest.

Does the word "signals" confuse you? easy, substitute the word spike.

in other words the two largest spikes were caused by the buildings hitting the ground.

The big spike is the same as the expanded graph. there is no "anomalous spike" because the spike is the signal that they are analyzing.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:12 PM
link   
If you notice, there's not a lot of attempt to squelch this in the media, but they too seem to be propagating it more. This is diversionary tactics being used along with other stories, that keep getting top presss, while big corps and government are stealing our rights. It's called noise where you can't really hear what's actually going on for all you hear is what they are playing over the loudspeakers.

Matrix 75% Loaded, please stand by for IPL!



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
that pulse caused the big spike.
The big spike is the same as the expanded graph. there is no "anomalous spike" because the spike is the signal that they are analyzing.

Falling debris doesn't cause huge sharp spikes roark, sub-level demolition charges do. What part of the word anamolous don't you understand? The pulse caused the big spike.. that's the only accurate thing you have said so far. You can bend it any way you like, but the debris hitting the ground is not going to create one huge spike.
Firefighters don't imagine explosions and squibs don't look anything like digital noise. Silverstien has no athority to tell firefighters to pull out of the building, and NORAD didn't scramble air cover for hours in the most secure air space in the western world. No steel high rise has ever collapsed due to fire, and the buildings were designed to withstand impacts of 707's. Not to mention the criminal destruction of evidence and subsequent obstruction of justice. You can say falling debris causes huge sharp spikes all day long, but all that debris didn't hit the ground at the same time. If you picked up the building and slammed it down all at once, yeah maybe, but from top to bottom, that debris took ten seconds to hit the ground, and those large, yes anamolous, spikes occur at the beginning of the collapses. You can bemoan the seismic data all night if you like but the fact of the matter is, steel framed buildings don't collapse in perfect symmetrical footprint collapses complete with squibs reports of explosions, pulverized concrete, flashes of light, radios going out all at the same time, from jet fuel fires. Pools of molten steel roark, you don't get that from debris burning underground, that only happens in thermite reactions or other thermal detonations. And still you have not answered my question about the dogs...



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:35 PM
link   
The report by the seismologists themselves states thatthe spike was caused by the falling debris.

What academic training do you have in this field to disput this?

How can you say that the impact of thousands of tons falling from hundreds of feet in the air would not cause a sharp spike?


The fact is there is nothing in that data to suport your theory.





And BTW, I don't give a damn about the dogs.


[edit on 10-11-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Uh no roark, if you will peruse back through the thread, the seismologists are saying they are still investigating what caused the anamolous spikes in the seismic data, we are still waiting on your email, remember? We know you don't give a damn about the dogs, in fact there are many examples of data in this thread you refuse to address. I have academic training enough to understand some basic prinicples of physics, and I have seen enough BS to know what it smells like. In two years of debate classes, one thing I did learn is at some point it is a good idea to address the arguments presented by the other team, rather than not giving a damn about them.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Again all this talk about the WTC not possibly falling because of just a fire?....... was there just a fire?.....you all seem to want to leave out a few facts.....

I have to ask again...since it seems you all keep ignoring the facts that have been posted time and time again....

Since when have there been any buildings, which had the designs of the WTC and were hit by Boeings?................


Never, but only in 9/11, thats the anwser.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Again all this talk about the WTC not possibly falling because of just a fire?....... was there just a fire?.....you all seem to want to leave out a few facts.....

I have to ask again...since it seems you all keep ignoring the facts that have been posted time and time again....

Since when have there been any buildings, which had the designs of the WTC and were hit by Boeings?................


Never, but only in 9/11, thats the anwser.


WTC7 was hit by nothing. it was demolished. that is why the mainstream media hardly ever talks about it. the whole silverstein business stinks to high heaven. when ever there is a crime, the first thing(after evidence) the police look for is a MOTIVE. well, silverstien had HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of motives.

the 'facts' posted time and time again are not irrefutable. however, these days, truth is 'proved' by sheer repetition.
a really big lie doesn't need to be hidden, public incredulity will allow it to be accepted as 'truth'.

here's a conversation i recently got off the internet:

Awake Guy: ken lay and bush are best buds.
Duped Masses: i kinda remember that name. who was he again?
Awake Guy: osama bin laden(AKA Tim Osman) is known to have been given tours of military facilities in the usa, prior to 911 by the cia. he was also trained, years before that, by the cia. bin laden's brother was bush's business partner.
Duped Masses: oh, yeah, osama's bad.
Awake Guy: saddam hussein was ALSO trained by the cia, in fact, they helped put him in power.
Duped Masses: he's bad, too. he has WMD's. nobody found any, and that PROVES that he has them.
Awake Guy: george bush senior was having lunch with the brother of hinkley while hinkley was shooting reagan.
Duped Masses: reagan? hinkley?
Awake Guy: prescott bush(bush's granddaddy) was indicted and charged for supplying the nazis in WW2.
Duped Masses: we beat the nazis. god bless america.
Awake Guy: the first victim of american military grade anthrax was a guy who was about to publish compromising pictures of bush in a homosexual relationship. the next targets were those opposed to bush's coronation as king of the usa.
Duped Masses: i voted for bush. he loves his country.
Awake Guy: yeah, emphasis on 'his'. here's something else to ponder, ...buildings don't just fall down from fires. only using big brother psuedo science is it possible(specifically tower seven).
Duped Masses: damn terrorists.
Awake Guy: well, the true terrorists are white and rich as all get out. they are steering the whole world into a police state. soon, there will be a military presence in every city in america. everything will be illegal, and all identity will be virtual. it will be possible to simply 'erase' someone at the touch of a mouse button. all databases containing personal information, financial, medical, location and activity, are being cross correlated and centralised. they even want to 'chip' everyone. when we do this to other herds it is called 'tagging' and 'tracking'. read 'brave new world' and '1984' for a clearer picture of the world than what you see on CNN et al.
Duped Masses: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, ....sniff snuff, uh, hunh?

[edit on 11-11-2004 by billybob]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And it is hard to discuss anything with someone who refuses to understand what it is he is looking at.

Since you brought up the seismic graph again, I will debunk your theory again, for the third time in this thread.

Those big spikes you are talking about are the seismic signatures of the buildings hitting the ground.

the smaller signals that go on for a couple of minutes after that initial impact are not from the impact of the building with the ground They are echos and reverberations from the massive signal caused by the impact of the building with the ground.

Do you see the two separate lines, one next to the first plane impact and one next to the first collapse. These are time expanded views of the seismic signals. If you look at the main chart, you will see that from one end of the page to the other is a 30 minute time scale. If you look at the expanded view, you will see that the seismic signal only lasted about 10 seconds. 10 seconds is 1/180 of the length of the longer chart. If the chart is 200 pixels wide, 10 seconds is only 1 pixel wide.

Note also that the inset chart for the collapse is labeled 4,545nm/s. this is the magnitude of the signal. The inset chart for the airplane impact is labeled 273 nm/s. That is the magnitude of the signal for the airplane impact.

The ratio of 4,545 to 273 is about 17 to 1. That is the ratio of the heights of the signal for the airplane impact and the big spike that you claim is from an underground explosion.

That is not from an underground explosion, that signal is from the mass of the tower hitting the earth.

Let me repeat this one more time:
The two big spikes are not before the collapse, they are the collapse.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by HowardRoark]


you debunked nothing. we're still here. you are willfully IGNORING this, the EXPERTS' testimony(dredged up from earlier in the thread):

The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.

Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University’s Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, “This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated.”

notice, howard, that ARTHUR LERNER-LAM, DIRECTOR of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY'S center for hazards and risk research, DIDN'T say, 'there were NO siesmic spikes before the towers fell'?

“Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion,” Lerner-Lam said. “The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.”

Last November, Lerner-Lam said: “During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage—but not causing significant ground shaking.”


to recap, a little louder, .......only a SMALL FRACTION of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into GROUND MOTION. the GROUND SHAKING that resulted from the collapse was EXTREMELY SMALL.

so, instead of having a pissing contest, why not ADMIT IGNORANCE instead of perpetuating these concocted fictions i always have to laugh when the 'experts' are still debating, but the mighty howard has all the answers rock solid and airtight(i wouldn't take that vessel to sea if i were you howard)

i liked the official report you linked to. it only had a THEORY for towers ONE and TWO, and SEVEN was once again the GLARING OMMISSION.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Again all this talk about the WTC not possibly falling because of just a fire?....... was there just a fire?.....you all seem to want to leave out a few facts.....

I have to ask again...since it seems you all keep ignoring the facts that have been posted time and time again....

Since when have there been any buildings, which had the designs of the WTC and were hit by Boeings?................


Never, but only in 9/11, thats the anwser.


WTC 7 wasn't hit by a Boeing.

Try explaining that one, and some of the other facts posted here that people trying to counter the thread can't touch.



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Here's an email I got yesterday from truthout.org, yet another expert debunking the official story, while this guy is no roark, he is qualified to question the fire collapse theories, his company having certified the steel that originally used in the WTC towers.


"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused
by pools of burning jet fuel." - Kevin Ryan of Underwriters
Laboratories.
A letter questioning the common theory that fuel fires caused the
collapse of the World Trade Center towers was sent yesterday by Kevin Ryan
to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST).
Ryan directs Environmental Health Laboratories and is one of 23
directors at its parent company, Underwriters Laboratories. UL, the
product-compliance and testing giant, certified the steel components used in the
construction of the World Trade Center towers. Statements that the Twin
Towers collapsed because fires weakened steel beams certified by UL are
obviously of concern to the company.
911Truth.org is publishing Ryan's letter today at
www.911truth.org...
For more than two years, Gayle has headed the team at the U.S.
government agency NIST charged with studying how the trade center was built and
why it fell. A draft of its final report is due in January.
A copy of Ryan's letter was received last night in an e-mail to David
Ray Griffin, author of the New Pearl Harbor. He asked for and received
permission to forward it for Web distribution.
911Truth.org called Ryan's office several times today. In one of the
follow-up calls, we received assurances from a UL operator that Ryan was
aware of our efforts to determine whether the letter was genuine. He
later called back and confirmed his authorship.
The letter raises disturbing questions, pointing out that steel
recovered from the towers tested up to its certified standard (i.e., it should
have easily withstood the fuel fires without buckling).
A chemist by profession, Ryan said he took this unusual step in the
hope of receiving a public response from Gayle. Given how the aftermath of
September 11 has changed the world, Ryan said, everyone needs to know
the full truth of what really happened on that day. He added that he
considers Gayle to be a good scientist and an honest person.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports today that the NIST team under
Gayle is planning to hold some of its deliberations on the WTC collapse
in secret...
Read the letter here
www.911truth.org...
This is a big story: If the long-standing story that fuel fires caused
the WTC collapse is as self-evidently false as Ryan claims, why are
experts still repeating it on TV? And what caused the collapse?



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I had read this before somewhere as well from different source, read this post from micpsi and thought I'd add it to this thread.

Originally posted by micpsi
The tail number of Flight UA 93, which was supposed to have crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, is 591UA. (as reference, see the beginning of the second paragraph under the header "Background" at:

en.wikipedia.org...

Frequent United Airlines user Mr Friedman kept a log of all the flights he flew on during 2003, including details about their crews and the tail number (N-number) of the planes. He recorded that on April 10, 2003, he flew on a United Airline Boeing 757 with tail/N-number N591UA. See his flight log at:

friedmanfamily.org...

and look under the date column 04/10/03 for the row named "Tail" (the tail number).

Moreover, he correctly lists as a Boeing 757 the type of plane he flew on that day with the same tail number as Flight 93 . Given that, according to his log, he flew on nine different types of planes between 01/02/03 and 04/10/03, the chance of him flying on a Boeing 757 on April 10 is about 10%.
If the story told by the American Government is true, how could a traveller record flying on a plane with the same tail number as that which crashed 17 months earlier? The FAA does not assign the tail numbers of crashed planes to other planes. Either:
1. Friedman's log is a subtle joke to fool 9/11 conspiracy investigators for whom he has no time. If that is the case, 'subtle' is the word, for there would be few such investigators, let alone other people, who would recognise the tail number of Flight UA93 if they read it, whilst the log is a single, obscure webpage and not part of a personal website, so he is not exactly trying very hard to advertise his hoax!;
2. he accidently made a false entry that coincided with BOTH the type of plane that was supposed to have crashed on 9/11 AND with its 3-figure tail number. But what are the chances of that?!;
3. Flight 93 did not crash into a field in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001 and United Airlines was still using this plane in April, 2003.

You decide.

Another thing I saw that came out a few years ago was the guy on ebay that was selling hollowed out commercial jets as homes, probably unrelated but where in the heck does a guy get commercial jets to refurbish? I can't remember which type of planes he had though, any of guys remember that?




top topics



 
13
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join