It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by neformore
From what you are saying, I take it then, that you are in agreement with S.O. - as to the premise and the reasoning and justification behind his decision to edit the title, and the OP, with that "ADMIN NOTICE:" and then proceed to move the thread to the hoax bin.. on that basis?
If so, I advise you to read my rebuttal/objection and the subsequent posts by the member BenReclused, who wished to debate the premise of the OP and thread content, based on an entirely honest assessment of the facts.
No fraud, no "hoax" and no falsification of the data presented in the OP was committed by me, or the Pilots and Aeronautical Engineers who's research I accessed in authoring the OP.
The plane in question did not fly constantly at sea level. It flew in a dive, and was only near sea level for a very short period of time according to the radar plots. In that very short period of time,
"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.
No, wait, Milt, you old friendly troll - come back!
My opinion of you changed (improved) when you started standing up for what was obviously true (the data, not necessarily the interpretations).
I think this subject (911) is better suited to sites where the owners support questioning of the OS.
What is it precisely that you don't agree with - the data itself, or my understanding ("opinion") based on that data, that an unmodified plane of that type cannot FLY at that speed and altitude, let alone be piloted in the way it was at such speeds, by a novice.
You're a Civil Engineer, that's interesting.. and surprising, that you don't have any problem with or any questions at all in regards to the nature of the twin towers' destruction (and building 7), which took place within 4-6 seconds of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object from the same height in nothing but air..
Anyway, you didn't answer my question...
Been away from this thread for a few days, came back, looked at the most recent stuff and have this to offer.
NAM has made - in his OP - a premise that some of us consider flawed.
Frankly, nothing short of water boarding him (and that probably isn't going to work either) will shift him from his position.
Similarly for those of us who consider the premise flawed, nothing short of water boarding (and that probably isn't going to work either) will shift us from our position.
New York Times
February 23, 2002
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER CRASHES; First Tower to Fall Was Hit At Higher Speed, Study Finds
By ERIC LIPTON AND JAMES GLANZ
Researchers trying to explain why the World Trade Center's south tower fell first, though struck second, are focusing on new calculations showing that the passenger jet that hit the south tower had been flying as fast as 586 miles an hour, about 100 miles an hour faster than the other hijacked plane.
The speed of the two planes at impact has been painstakingly estimated using a mix of video, radar and even the recorded sounds of the planes passing overhead.
Two sets of estimates, by government and private scientists, have surfaced, but both show that the plane that hit the south tower at 9:02 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, approached the trade center at extremely high speed, much faster than American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m.
In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.
''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. ''It's off the chart''.
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."
~ Malcolm X
This video covers some of this
forward to minute
1.20.15 - The missing black boxes
1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones
1.28:20 - Impossible speeds
Sorry you've misunderstood, that's not so, because near sea level, EAS, and TAS are nearly the same, whereas, if the airspeed near sea level is evaluated in terms of the difference in dynamic pressure between low vs. high altitude, at 22,000 feet that same speed amounts to a TAS of 722 knots or 1.19 Mach and higher, at higher altitudes as the air becomes increasingly thinner.
Furthermore, an EAS of 425 knots, near sea level, represents a TAS, at 22,000 feet, of .99 mach which IS the point at which the out-of-control Egypt Air 990 (see V-G Diagram) experienced structural failure.
The statement at the beginning of post 2 is entirely valid.
It is you who've tried to confuse the issue, and mislead, not i.
Why is this in the Hoax bin?
Then what is the basis for the opposition, including the "reasoning" and premise by which you moved the thread, and re-titled and re-edited the OP - relative to the data as it's been presented?
That's been explained.
Thus i can't think of any other reason why someone, particularly a scientifically minded "skeptic" would be so opposed to it or willing to go to any lengths to try to deny or refute, it makes no sense if one is supposed to be looking at the data as it really is with an objective, analytical mindset.
I can think of a reason: the premise lacks any compelling basis in reality such that no scientifically minded skeptic outside the ranks of "9/11 Truth" is able to find it worthy of their time. But the implication that, just because someone doesn't believe this/you/them, they suddenly support the "Official Story." Ludicrous.
If this had legs of any kind, serious investigative reporters -- at least in the foreign press -- would be all over it like they are Snowden. The NSA conspiracies prove that the press is not averse to taking on what has been previously conspiracy theories.
Why is this in the Hoax bin?
Why is this in the Hoax bin?
Well, since the actual reason and justification for that action, wasn't valid, and since the data has not in fact been misrepresented or falsified in any way, shape or form, then the only real reason must be because it really is "above top secret" ie: worse by far than the NSA Snowden leak (which actually arose via 9/11 related policy implementation), given what it clearly points to, in no uncertain terms.
Think of it therefore as above ATS, and not beneath it or in it's "domain" or even in it's "dungeon" since the motto all along was to "deny ignorance!".
It doesn't matter however where the info and data is located. Just don't forget to spread the information far and wide with whatever tools are available to you, and it will still have the hope of getting the job done, like an arrow of truth flying straight to its mark every time, even and especially where it may be said that "that which hurts, instructs" (Ben Franklin).
edit on 14-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)