Canadians wary of 9/11 explanations - and of US officials

page: 3
28
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join


posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
>>crickets



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Sorry but that is evidence of peoples description of an event under stress. The descriptive term 'explosion' can be narrated in several different context that have nothing to do with any bomb going off. An example might be 'the newspaper ran an 'explosive' story about the couple'. The term in context means moving out ward and expanding the evidence of the scandal and exposing it to more people. Besides, without physical evidence to collaborate the descriptions, it's hearsay. An example would be 'the witness saw John Blow go into the bar'-that is hearsay-however we also have the tape from the security camera that shows John Blow going into the bar-that is collaborated evidence. If the Fireman in the video say the heard an explosion in the lobby-that is hearsay-however if physical chemical evidence taken from that section proves an explosion-then the evidence is collaborated

I know you don't like that but that is just the way it is. Again, without physical evidence to collaborate the eyewitness testimony it is hearsay.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
North Tower - Top Block

Let's look at two aspects with regards to the destruction of the WTC North Tower, in regards to the top block, first in terms of it's acceleration curve and then second, in regards to it's complete destruction and pulverization even as the debris wave begins it's near free fall descent, all the way down the remaining 95 stories of the building structure and through the path of maximal resistance. There wasn't even a "jolt", nothing, just freeform acceleration amid what can only be described as blowing up, and being already pulverized before it even has a chance to exert any downward force on the remaining structure, which itself then basically proceeded to blow up, imploding and exploding in a cascading, and explosively outwardly ejecting debris wave, which then proceeded all the way down the remaining length of structure all 95 stories worth, all the way to the ground without any appreciable loss of momentum and to within about 4-6 seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air (10. something seconds with air resistance for free fall time), a second less if the free fall count is begun at the 95th floor. Absent the foot of God, or the use of explosives, it's utterly impossible and absurd .

People are going to notice this, looking back on the early history of the 21st century, and they're going to go, "WTF?!!!" and then eventually, as the line of inquiry extends itself logically, to the plane on approach to impact at 510 knots + (+ being about 515, factoring in the light wind vector), an equivalent airspeed or EAS of 1.19 Mach at 22,000 feet, 1.38 at 35,000 feet, and 1.39-1.4 at 38,000 feet, and there, once again, or here and now (whenever they read this or discover it elsewhere) the same thing will occur to them. "WTF?!!!!" (sorry for swearing, but that's what future history will say looking back on the 1st decade of the 21st century, looking back through the history right to the 9/11 event itself as the first cause in the whole monstrous mess and utter fisaco, and in the final analysis, abysmal FAILure, there's simply no getting around it.)
edit on 28-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 


And the witnesses from stairwell B that you referenced and then tried to claim was superior testimony to the firemen and others from the oral history..?

We're supposed to accept that and discard the rest?

Do you see what you're doing, and what you are ignoring, knowingly?

it doesn't wash, or wash off.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

www.benthamscience.com...


Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

(pdf) www.journalof911studies.com...


Journal of 9/11 Studies, which contains more perfectly rational, scientific explanatory hypothesis in regards to actual physical occurrence of the events themselves i.e.: it's physical evidence, and the court of public opinion will allow it and ought to be paying close attention in this matter, if only as a point of historical justice in as much as what might be LEARNED from the actual event itself, looking back on it under a lens of rational scrutiny and scientific analysis in the real view mirror of near 20/20 hindsight.

www.journalof911studies.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
And here is physical evidence, that the south tower plane was not and could not possibly have been the originating flight 175, an unmodified United Airlines Boeing 767-222, simply because it was seen and recorded as flying, and maneuvering deftly, at a speed of 510 knots at 700 ft. altitude (sea level), which represents an over-Mach EAS (equivalent airspeed) at high altitude where the air is thinner and less dense by about 2/3rds at 30,000 ft. - let alone under the control of a pilot no better by comparison than the likes of Hani Hanjour who allegedly piloted the Pentagon airplane whom the 9/11 Commission considered the most trained and "skilled" of the would-be Boeing pilots, in this case without any actual flight time in the real macoy.

It's an impossible airspeed for an unmodified commercial Boeing passenger jet.

It too, like the building's destruction, would violate the laws of physics if the offifical story is to be believed and accepted, which cannot be believed in light of the simple truth that it was and must have been based on all observable phnomenon, an elaborate, highly sophistacated and complex HOAX, which cannot be believed in the face of a rational and objective, scientific scrutiny, of the events themselves as they actually occurred in reality. Physical evidence. Irrefutable, and incontrovertible facts in evidence, which cannot be denied nor overlooked.

-------------------------------

i] Zaphod58
You have to prove that it couldn't have dove down and reached that speed. Which you haven't, and can't. If a plane can dive down, and remain under perfect control and reach Mach 1, there is absolutely no reason why 175 couldn't have done it.

Zaphod58
They climbed to 52,000 feet, where they put it (the DC-8) into a half G pushover (a dive no steeper than 175 performed, and possible not as steep), at 45,000 feet, while in perfect control, the aircraft reached Mach 1.01 for 16 seconds. They were able to recover at 35,000 feet, with no damage to the aircraft.


I've already proven it. And we'll do a comparison yet between your DC-8,16 second Mach dive at high altitude example, both in relation to it's Vd limit, and as it compares to the STP (south tower plane), as well as numerous other precedents of near Mach flight by 767's and similar aircraft, but they're all at high altitude, often much higher than 22,000 feet, which is a relatively low and conservative point comparison considering that most if not all the examples are at altitude - and what they PROVE is that such aircraft are not made to exceed the sound barrier, which carries with it it's own transonic effects still further placing any such airplane when it reaches or exceedes the Mach 1.0 threshold in grave jeapardy. Again, all those examples of near Mach 1 filght are at altitude, often exceeding 22,000 feet.

Therefore any equivalent airspeed, where the air it 2/3rd's thicker than at 30,000 feet, which represents a corresponding airspeed exceeding Mach 1.0, at altititude reveals that within the margin by which the plane exceeded this threshold, I've proven the case, because it's too great, the margin, too far beyond the established Vd or max structural speed, beyond which, by only five knots, and we're at an equivalent airspeed at the Mach .99 - 1.0 threshold, already, at 425 knots EAS at sea level.


The dive speed (Vd) is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake.

theflyingengineer.com...

In that video, for the Airbus380 flutter test, they descended in a steady dive from 38,000 feet aiming for a Vd of Mach .96 (it's a big plane with lots of surface area) which to certify required some major modifications.

The south tower plane, according to you, would be able to exceed Mach 1.39 to Mach 1.4 when descending from the same height of 38,000 feet.. for an EAS of 510 knots, at sea level.

To put this into perspective in regards to the airspeed magnitude by which the south tower plane is/was observed exceeding the Vd limit as set by first wind tunnel then flight testing, just like with the Airbus380..


Vd is 420 knots for the Boeing 767 as set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing.

Here are those limitations, from Boeing...
(pfd) rgl.faa.gov...$FILE/A1NM%20Rev%2026.pdf


Vd explained
theflyingengineer.com...

At EAS (Sea Level), over test Vd - let's take a look at the range, beyond Vd for the Boeing 767, and we'll do it in full 5 knot increments, which is fair, since we're already at and beginning to exceed the threshold limit for structural failure, Vd limit, and even the smallest increments at that point can have grave effects, as the flight testers experienced with the Airbus A320 in the video contained in that link above i.

420 (Vd limit, by stress/flutter testing)
425 (which is .99 - Mach 1.0 equivalent airspeed and pressure at higher altitude of 22,000 feet - which is about the threshold from all those examples of near or just over Mach flight, while surviving, and this is very conservative, because such dives are mostly done from much higher altitudes as per your DC-8 ref cited above in which case an EAS of 425 represents an even higher Mach # up around 35,000 - 52,000 ft, well exceeding Mach 1.0 ++)

430, 435, 440, 445, 450, 455, 460, 465, 470, 475, 480, 485, 490, 495, 500, 505, 510 knots + (including windspeed, 515)

EAS:
EAS is sea level airspeed. As a factoral expression of the equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe at low vs. high altitude, because the air is so much thicker at sea level, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS.
The air is thinner at higher altitudes so the aircraft will need to go faster to match the amount of air hitting the airframe at low altitudes, in thick air.

EAS is defined as:
EAS is the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as a True Airspeed at higher altitudes. It is used for determining aircraft performance, structural integrity.. .etc. The Vd limit is expressed in an EAS. In other words, to be more specific, 510 knots at sea level (EAS) would produce the same dynamic pressure as 722 knots True Airspeed (TAS) at 22,000 feet.

Thus an EAS of 510 knots = 722 knots or Mach 1.19, at 22,000 feet, and at still higher altitude, 915 knots or 1.38 Mach, at 35,000 feet, and reaching Mach 1.39 and 1.4 at about 38,000 ft. It's an absurd speed, 90 knots, NINETY, above Vd of 420 (EAS) which again represents Mach 1.9, at altitude. An unmodified 767-222 cannot do it, it's impossible unless modified, and impossible to control and maneuver at such speed, particularly for an untrained pilot with limited training, and skill level, and zero airtime in the the genuine article. It's not possible and it cannot be believed, not in light of the facts before us.

edit on 28-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Cont'd


"During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6,000 feet, the aircraft groundspeed remained between 500 - 520 knots. As the aircraft made it's descent to 1000 feet, it accelerated (there goes Zaphod58's hypothesis about self propulsion at level flight on final approach) and impacted World Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed.

Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175 (pdf)


510 knots is the airspeed claimed for "UA175", by radar.. (as an airspeed, because the wind was light heading N/W, it would be about 515 knots)
So, dearest reader, consider that those who believe a standard 767 can fly at 510 knots near sea level and remain stable/controllable, MUST also accept that the same airplane can fly in a controlled fashion, even in a dive,

- at 722 knots at 22,000 feet... or Mach 1.19, and 915 knots at 35,000 feet...or Mach 1.38 heading for 1.39 or 1.4 at 38,000 ft. It's absurd.

And again, as an expression of EAS at altitude, 22,000 feet is a fairly reasonable altitude, considering that no one will able to produce any example of a commercial plane exceeding Mach 1.0, by anything beyond 1.01 or 1.02 etc. let alone an equivalent airspeed at that altitude, exceeding Mach 1 by .9 or 1.38 going on 1.4 at 38,000 feet. Unmodified, they just can't do it it's physically impossible. This is a statement of fact, and of reason, based solely on observation.
510 knots is NINETY knots over Vd of 420, and 85 knots over 425 which is an equivalent airspeed at 22,000 feet of .99 Mach.
85 knots past the equivalent EAS for Mach 1.0. at altitude..

There is no precident in the history of aviation which can make this seem normal or natural as if it's like "nothing to see here, nothing unusual please move along", not one.
At altitude (and they all are or or they'd plow into the ground) often exceeding 22,000 feet, they break apart at over Mach speed, by margins exceeding Mach 1.05, every time. None can go to an equivalent airspeed of Mach 1.19 at 22,000ft, ever. It's not possible, unless the plane were seriously modified both in terms of structure as well as engine performance, since it accellerated at the end of it's dive to retain a sea level airspeed of 510 knots, while maneuvering on final approach to impact.
edit on 28-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Those are fine informative post however, as I have said before, I don't know anything about building construction and demolition nor the physics of airplane accent and decent.

What I do know is the foundation of a plot that encompassed 4 years of planning and was highly detailed scheme that shrewdly took advantage of Americas freedoms and turned them against their own people. I will not be part of the current, and seemingly inexhaustible number of posters at ATP that rely solely on the google database of instant expertise. I am not including you in that because you put a great deal of effort in your work here. I simply can't act like I know things that I don't. I know the human side of the collapse and the toll it took and why thousands more died than need be.

Time is short this morning but I will get back to your post later.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

spooky24
Those are fine informative post however, as I have said before, I don't know anything about building construction and demolition nor the physics of airplane accent and decent.

What I do know is the foundation of a plot that encompassed 4 years of planning and was highly detailed scheme that shrewdly took advantage of Americas freedoms and turned them against their own people. I will not be part of the current, and seemingly inexhaustible number of posters at ATP that rely solely on the google database of instant expertise. I am not including you in that because you put a great deal of effort in your work here. I simply can't act like I know things that I don't. I know the human side of the collapse and the toll it took and why thousands more died than need be.

Time is short this morning but I will get back to your post later.



You ask for collaborating evidence and when he offers it you just say that you don't have knowledge of the subjects so you can't refute his claims...
All we get from you is that you have info from this archive that any one that can get past the FBI background check, cause that is just a simple process. Nothing that can be shown to defend your statements, when offered evidence against what you are defending and that you have, self stated, no knowledge about, your response is I won't listen to your google, youtube garbage.
Refuse to acknowledge these claims are coming from experts, just no the ones you want to hear from, that would have knowledge on the said subjects you don't have knowledge on
And the truthers are the hard headed ones....
What is the "human" side of the the collapse that you know so well?
And if you know thousands more died then needed why wouldn't you want an answer that makes sense? Not one that has to break fundamental rules to happen? But you wont weigh in on that because you have no knowledge of it right?
FOIA in regards to this day are being denied left and right, and if you refuse to believe our experts then I refuse to listen to anything you have to say that comes out of that archive, cause like you said the FBI needs to know what you want to to look at and they are not about to give away the good stuff, so to me it would just be OS narrative all around that archive.
Prove me wrong and post something





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join