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.

 

Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

page: 26
24
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


It will vary based on what temperature is used.

Concorde wasn't capable of Mach 1 at low altitude IIRC.




posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


So what do you make of it, in terms of performance capability/threshold, and flight control at that equivalent speed and altitude?


NewAgeMan
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Thanks.

Actually, on a straight conversion I just got

915 knots (@ 35,000 feet) = 1.3833Mach

= EAS (equivalent airspeed) of 510knots (if your calc was right) @ Sea Level (700 feet).



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
In case ANYONE might have missed it, as the thread pages are starting to add up..


Please WATCH => World Trade Center Attack

So basically, aside from looking at and/or revisiting a few things like the 9/11 War Games Operations, the missing black boxes at GZ ("Ground Zero"), the flying passport of Satam al-Suqami, more on Hani Hanjour's flying skills, some videos of the twin towers destruction to verify timing issues ie: was it 14 seconds, or 16,17 seconds.. (buildings were in the way), evidence of super-high temperatures, as well as the presence in the dust of military grade, nano-thermite, which can be strategically painted on beams, and which does not tend to make giant booms, one after another, as with a traditional CD which use shaped charges, dynamite, etc. - I rest my case.


It's not a happy story by any means, but it's one that must be told for the sake of all future generations, even from age to age.

The "Official Story" cannot be believed and accepted, in the light of physical reality, including, as presented in this thread, both, the plane on approach through impact (including mega-giant-fireball), as well as, the CD of the twin towers, which took place just under an hour later, for the south tower, and just over an hour and a half for the north, whereby the south tower was impacted, well, precisely where the upgrade/renno's took place, and for the north tower, same location at the lower level of the same upgrade/renno's by Turner Construction.

This was done with evil genius to "sell" the idea that the tower impacted lower, would "fall" sooner, and then with both towers um "giving up the ghost" with every joint and rivet, weld and bolt, if the official story is to be believed, snapping and breaking apart at a rate faster than the speed of sound, while ignoring the third law of motion and conservation of momentum, which seems to be the only thing (speed of sound) that the buildings really have in common with the planes (referring to EAS conversion from high alt. TAS) - where was I? If the physical evidence basically fly's in the face of what we were led to believe and are supposed to continue to believe at any and all cost, even the cost of truth and reality itself - if it simply cannot be believed or accepted,

..then how convenient for them that all that's left is a "conspiracy theory", also anticipated. It's not funny either, once it becomes apparent, not if you have a heart and care about people and the general state of world affairs. Theirs was a black-bag, black-op, psy-op, and a power grab and abuse of power - ours is a heart war, and we win.

Their story (the OS), we must remember always, is also a "conspiracy theory", but with the special added convenience of having a whole cadre of patsies, brought into the country on special visas, trained some of them at US military basis, rented apartments from FBI agents, were tracked by "Able Danger", and ultimately set up within a complex smokescreen grid of 9/11 War Games Operations involving the use of "simulated" hijacked aircraft being flown into Landmarks Buildings, possibly.. including the WTC and the Pentagon aka "The Big Wedding" whereby there was a very high degree of 9/11 foreknowledge on the part of the military/ intelligence complex, and when the time came - with everyone and everything pointing in the wrong direction and distributed in such a way so as to make interception all but impossible.

Too complicated though this "flight of the bumble planes", and it makes us "conspiracy theorists" look foolish and like we're reaching, and breaking the sound principal of Occam's Razor, but we're not, as evidenced.

The psychological power of the Big Lie, as a psy-op, is at the very heart of it. Once surfaced, however, and it loses it's power to shape history and policy "even as the experience generation passes away" (Zelikow), which ultimately brings us straight back to the pre-9/11 innocence of a bright blue September morning, before this even happened, while never forgetting those who lost their lives, unnecessarily. There's justice for them in our remembrance and commitment to the truth, they deserve no less. Let history learn from itself, so that it will NEVER be condemned to repeat itself because this false flag nonsense is bogus, and the whole damn episode of historic insanity has been an abysmal FAIL. Let us learn from it then whatever there is to be learned about what NOT to do and how NOT to be. What, is that the breeze of liberty i sense..?


And so here this thread languishes in the "hoax bin".

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.


But when we have courage, and face our fears head on, and the lie, something else, something new becomes at least possible, once again when we realize the magnitude to which we've been lied to by the dark shadow government and the "relevant political community" (Zelikow), which isn't even relevant, any more.

Let the government fear the people, and the magnitude of the Big Lie that is 9/11 sitting there like the forgotten elephant in the room.


Best Regards,

Winston Smith, December, 1984 .


edit on 9-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   


the third law of motion
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Again I applaud you for your thread and the way you handle it. Bravo!
Otherwise, there would be less discussion of 9/11.

For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

1. The plane (in motion) hitting the tower (sitting still) is the same as the moving tower hitting the still plane. Like swatting a fly. The plane would be squashed. We do not see this in the videos. Something is wrong.

2. The tower hitting the ground is like the ground hitting the tower. That would cause the ground to shake. We do not see the ground shaking in the seismic record. Something is wrong.

Regards, Sir.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   

leostokes
For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

1. The plane (in motion) hitting the tower (sitting still) is the same as the moving tower hitting the still plane. Like swatting a fly. The plane would be squashed. We do not see this in the videos. Something is wrong.


Yeah - stupid "truther logic" that says that panes of glass should be able to crush aluminium tibes hitting them at 500 + mph lengthwise is what is wrong!!


2. The tower hitting the ground is like the ground hitting the tower. That would cause the ground to shake. We do not see the ground shaking in the seismic record. Something is wrong.


Yes - here are the seismograph records showing that you do not know what you are talking about, and there's plenty of discussion about them around the net such as this example.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Should anyone wish to conduct additional research into the 9/11 event and you're looking for a historical point of reference beyond that of merely the "9/11 Commission Report" and the NIST Report, which are really the only "official" historical record that exists, I would like to refer you on to The Complete 9/11 Timeline, (all public record sourced), put together and maintained by "truthers" who were committed and cared enough to protect and preserve the history surrounding that tragic day, I'd say "fateful" but that would be giving it too much credit which if it "changed the world", did so for the worse, not the better, the data on that too, is in now.

It was bad policy.

Really bad, like the very worst kind anyone could imagine, including Philip D. Zelikow, Robert Gates, and the rest of that little think tank that conceived the policy which then found it's way into the "Project for a New American Century" who's recommendations were followed all the way down the line, even to this very day, now under President Barack Obama, who didn't really veer from the path laid down before him by the previous administration, and that's why everyone is up in arms because they KNOW an injustice and an abuse of power has taken place, which was never made right by Obama. The winds died in the sail of the ship of state because the people's trust should never be abused, as it has.


Truth to "power"! - what can ya do?


"That which hurts, instructs."
~ Benjamin Franklin



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

leostokes
For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

1. The plane (in motion) hitting the tower (sitting still) is the same as the moving tower hitting the still plane. Like swatting a fly. The plane would be squashed. We do not see this in the videos. Something is wrong.


Yeah - stupid "truther logic" that says that panes of glass should be able to crush aluminium tibes hitting them at 500 + mph lengthwise is what is wrong!!


2. The tower hitting the ground is like the ground hitting the tower. That would cause the ground to shake. We do not see the ground shaking in the seismic record. Something is wrong.


Yes - here are the seismograph records showing that you do not know what you are talking about, and there's plenty of discussion about them around the net such as this example.


I am sorry sir. But it is my judgement that you do not debate. You merely disrupt.

It is clear also that you have not read my above posts and studied the evidence I have presented. Otherwise you would know that the seismic events at WTC are smaller than those of the collapse of the Kingdome.

I will not read or reply to your posts.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

should be able to crush aluminium tibes hitting them at 500 + mph lengthwise is what is wrong!!


500+ knots, if the radar and observation and even the 9/11 Commission is to be believed.

No need to reply, and please for the love of God and people, cut it out with the derogatory name calling and seething contempt it's unbecoming and unnecessary, and well it just makes you look bad, angry and disruptive even hateful and spiteful.

Everyone wants to be helpful and for the most part they're just doing the best they can with the resources available to them, most people. They don't just have an axe to grind in other words but are honestly and earnestly seeking the truth of the matter. It's not all about being right to make someone else wrong..

It's a waste of time that kind of approach, and it certainly doesn't help sell anyone on your position and hey we're both probably preaching to the choir anyway, so what's the point of carrying on like that?

Enough!

Thanks.

Best Regards,

NAM
fellow ATS member.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Equivalent speed is irrelevant. The speed at the altitude the aircraft is at is what matters.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Equivalent speed is irrelevant.

You sound like the Borg.

It's relevant alright, and I think you know that. Will come back to this later when I have the time.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


How is the fact that the plane would have been flying faster at high altitude relevant to the argument that it can't fly that fast at lower altitude relevant? What matters is the altitude it's really at.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


Your assumption is wrong the building is NOT ONE SOLID BLOCK OF MATERIAL its built in sections the aircraft can only interact with the areas it impacts with that's why I pointed out the damage was at the joints of column trees which are staggered also re the comment about the Kingdome roof that fell as one intact 25,000 ton mass because the columns supporting it were removed.

The collapse of the towers was different although you watched the video due to your preconceived notion of what you think happened YOU didn't see the difference.


edit on 11-12-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   

wmd_2008
reply to post by leostokes
 


Your assumption is wrong the building is NOT ONE SOLID BLOCK OF MATERIAL its built in sections the aircraft can only interact with the areas it impacts with that's why I pointed out the damage was at the joints of column trees which are staggered also re the comment about the Kingdome roof that fell as one intact 25,000 ton mass because the columns supporting it were removed.

The collapse of the towers was different although you watched the video due to your preconceived notion of what you think happened YOU didn't see the difference.


edit on 11-12-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


Let me explain some simple things to you.

Your posts are disruptive because you change the subject instead of responding to the issue.

1) I did not make the assumption the building is solid. Why do you think I do not know the nature of the construction? The outer wall consists of steel columns clad with aluminum with glass windows.

2) I did not assume the Kingdome fell as a solid mass. I know very well that the dome was weakened and fell first followed by the outer supports.

3) I had the same preconceived notions as you did when I first watched the towers "fall" until Judy Wood changed my mind by showing the difference. Your comment is again off the mark.

You are hiding the idea that you yourself watch the video with preconceived notions that are not likely to change from examination of the evidence as mine did.

You are framing my post in your own terms so that you can easily debunk it.

I ask you not to reply to my posts. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


If I'm reading you correctly Zaphod, reading between the lines between the lines, these page few pages, you secretly want for me to prove that a regular, unmodified Boeing 767 commercial aircraft, could not possibly have been the one observed, clocked at over 500 knots at about 700 feet altitude (Sea level), am I right?



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


You are the one making the claim that it has to be a "monster plane" because there's no way a plane can exceed its parameters by diving down and accelerating. So prove it.

I can prove that they can exceed them by a fairly large margin. Can you prove they can't?
edit on 12/11/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I will. Just needed your permission and go ahead. "snaps to, salutes" It will take me awhile (busy these days) to pull it all together, be patient, but what I can tell you ALL right now, from the research I've already done..


THIS IS NOT A HOAX, folks.

This is very VERY serious, with serious long term historical implications, significance, and ramifications, capable of plumbing the very depths of the dark heart lurking in the shadow government of the US Security/Intelligence and Military Industrial Complex, enabling the fulfillment of a not so secret national policy, as "imagined" and outlined by Philip Zelikow three years prior and then echoed by the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) think tank led by Dick Cheney one year prior to "the Big Wedding".

The data, is in.

The south tower plane so far exceeded the airframe performance limitations of an unmodified 767, that it cannot possibly have been flight 175 and was therefore a modified Boeing 767. No other conclusion in light of the data is even possible.


THIS IS NOT A HOAX.


edit on 11-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I can prove that they can exceed them by a fairly large margin.


While I'm working to pull together my evidence, by all means feel free. Be my guest, because they are very narrow and abruptly limiting parameters, and do not have a very wide margin, at all, it doesn't work that way, but you probably already know that or ought to as an avid follower of all things planes.

And if, somehow, even though it's absolutely impossible, there's no argument that could support controlled flight at such speeds, and air conditions, even if, in a dive, such speeds could be exceeded dramatically, offering up all that additional speed during the leveling off sequence that you keep referring to, which they cannot, not even in that case (in a dive).

The only question is, how far are you prepared to go in trying to push that limit, so even in all fairness, you can go first, if you like.


NAM



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


Don't want a reply DON'T post anyone can reply to anything Judy Wood
just


You said this


leostokes

For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

1. The plane (in motion) hitting the tower (sitting still) is the same as the moving tower hitting the still plane. Like swatting a fly. The plane would be squashed. We do not see this in the videos. Something is wrong.

2. The tower hitting the ground is like the ground hitting the tower. That would cause the ground to shake. We do not see the ground shaking in the seismic record. Something is wrong.



1) The aircraft can ONLY interact with the parts of the building it touches, the ENERGY the aircraft has can only be absorbed by the areas of the building it touches, that's WHY column trees broke at the joints.
The whole mass of the building has NO repeat NO influence on the impact damage.

This image shows it well

Plane Damage

The column trees are coloured to show the staggered joint system.

2) The Tower collapse was like an avalanche it wasn't like the Kingdome were one 25,000 ton section could impact the ground at once.

As for seismographs

WTC Impacts & Collapse



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Here are two that vastly exceeded their parameters.

TWA 841, 1979. Boeing 727-31 (N840TW).

The flight was going from JFK to Minneapolis, when it rolled to the right. Before it was done, the aircraft went through two 360 degree rolls, exceeded the Mach limit for a 727, and dropped 34,000 feet in just over 1 minute. The aircraft landed at Detroit with 8 minor injuries reported. The aircraft was returned to service after extensive repairs.

TWA 841


China Airlines 006, 1986. Boeing 747-SP (N4522V)

The flight was heading to Los Angeles from Taipei. At 350 miles from San Francisco, at 41,000 feet the #4 engine flamed out. The crew tried to restart it without descending to below 30,000 feet as required. The crew failed to monitor the autopilot, and the aircraft rolled through 60 degrees. The crew assumed the instruments were fault and took no corrective action. They dropped 10,000 feet in 20 seconds, reaching 30,000 feet per minute on the vertical rate.

They dropped 30,000 feet in under 2 1/2 minutes, and pulled 5Gs. The crew was able to get the aircraft under control and landed in San Francisco to repair the aircraft, and deal with the injuries reported.

en.wikipedia.org...

And before you say "they weren't in controlled flight, that's irrelevant. The point was that the AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE could exceed its parameters.
edit on 12/11/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Controlled flight IS also entirely relevant to this particular case before us.

Btw, no mention was made there as to the actual airspeeds involved, just a reference in the first one to exceeding it's mach limit which was probably somewhere around Mach .9 or thereabouts (which have to check for that model) from the reading that I've been doing.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join