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.

 

Trying to resolve 9/11

page: 112
28
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Let me dig into that

a reply to: Salander




Which airline did 'flight 23' belong to?


United Airlines flight 23 out of John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
source



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Hulseyreport

What facts tell you "23" was on its way to New York? Which airline did 'flight 23' belong to?


Firerescue seems to be levelheaded and in the know. Why not ask firerescue? Oh. You prefer innuendo and mythology over fact and sciences. Forgot.

Anyway


originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: democracydemo

United 23 was a scheduled flight out of JFK for Los Angles

It was supposed to take off at 830 am, but was delayed

While waiting chance to take off received test message from United flight dispatcher Ed Ballinger warning of multiple hijackings and to secure cockpits

Time was 912 AM

Shortly after all traffic at New York area airports was "ground stopped " - all aircraft waiting on taxiways ordered to
return to terminals

Here things get murky - when United 23 reached terminal, group of young "middle Eastern men" bolted from plane and
disappeared . later" suspicious items" were discovered relating to them

Nobody has been able to pin down these men , why they were there and if part of the conspiracy



Oh. I forgot your reading comprehension is wanting....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

I read it twice just to make sure. It said jetfuel. But that doesn't really matter because we're analyzing propaganda.

The B-25 crash proved nothing, a comparison between apples and oranges.

Drone aircraft hit the towers.


So, quote the paragraph were the referenced source claimed a B-25 carried jet fuel as asked!

Doubling down on what has to be labeled as a lie on your part at this time?

Your original statement.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: wmd_2008

You have little to no credibility WMD.

Your link describes the B-25 as having jetfuel onboard. Guess what--B-25's used avgas, and any knowledgeable person would know that.

Zero Credibility WMD.



About this article?
B-25 Empire State Building Collision
www.aerospaceweb.org...

Where “jetfuel” as one word is not found in the article.

Where the term jet fuel is used only twice.

First instance of jet fuel.


The twin towers of the World Trade Center, by comparison, were struck by Boeing 767 airliners traveling over twice as fast and weighing nearly 15 times as much as a B-25. The energy of impact for the two planes ranged from 2 billion ft-lb (2.6 billion Joules) to 3 billion ft-lb (4.1 billion Joules), some 60 to 100 times greater than that absorbed by the Empire State Building. This estimate is also conservative since it does not account for the energy released by the exploding jet fuel, which greatly exceeded the energy released by the much smaller B-25 fuel supply as well. The greater kinetic energy allowed the 767 aircraft to penetrate much further into the twin towers than the B-25 was able to do at the Empire State Building. Most of the B-25 impact was absorbed by the building's exterior wall leaving very little to damage the interior structure. The 767 impacts, however, not only produced gaping holes in the WTC exterior but also destroyed much of the structural core at the center of each tower.

www.aerospaceweb.org...


Second instance of jet fuel.


Even so, the impact alone does not fully explain what doomed the World Trade Center towers. A fatal contributing factor was the fires ignited by the exploding fuel tanks. A 767 has a maximum fuel capacity 35 times greater than that of a B-25D. The aircraft that struck the Empire State Building was nearly out of fuel when it crashed while each 767 still carried approximately half of its maximum fuel load at impact. The Empire State Building fire exhausted its supply of fuel rapidly while that at the World Trade Center ignited the office contents across several floors and burned much longer. The type of fuel carried may also be a significant factor. The B-25 burned avgas, a high-octane version of gasoline still used aboard piston engine aircraft today. The 767 instead uses Jet-A, a derivative of kerosene that fuels all commercial jetliners. Jet fuel tends to reach higher temperatures than gasoline causing the fires in the WTC to burn more intensely than that in the Empire State Building.

www.aerospaceweb.org...


Now cite what article you are claiming the article stated a B-25 carried jet fuel. And quote the actual statement?

Or you just blatantly lying?



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




Or you just blatantly lying?


Oh Lord
You're not playing with a full deck, are you!

Concentrate.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

One thing always find puzzling is that there is no trace of these people

One = where did they come from ? were they foreigners ? If so should be some immigration record or visas
Did they sneak in illegally so as to leave no traces?

Two where did they stay? Some of the terrorists had a safe house not far from where I live . Person I know, a now retired K 9 officer with local Sheriff dept was first one into house when FBI hit it 3 days after 9 11
If stayed in hotel would be records

Three = where did buy tickets ? Hirst class from New York to LA aint cheap . Even if paid cash would be records 911
hijackers used local college internet and travel agency to buy tickets One friend worked in library where accessed internet He got the 3rd degree (along with everyone else in the library) by FBI as to what they saw

In some cases sounds almost like urban legend where kernel of truth gets stretched out with all sort of speculations and conjecture piled in



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

Read the linked to thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This was Salander original statement.. the persons who’s admitted pet theory for the WTC is Nukes...



a reply to: wmd_2008

You have little to no credibility WMD.

Your link describes the B-25 as having jetfuel onboard. Guess what--B-25's used avgas, and any knowledgeable person would know that.

Zero Credibility WMD.



Salander was proven wrong and pointed out as being wrong repeatedly about the article stating B-25’s fuel. Salander never admitted to being wrong, and even doubled down. What conclusion should I have drawn about Salander’s
own credibility?

edit on 3-1-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

So the UA23 flight is a maybe.

Even if that 'maybe' were true, it changes nothing.

The events were staged by traitors within the government, CIA and Mossad.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Beyond maybe in my mind. In the video Lynn Spencer says


high ranking FAA officials and airport managers told her that during a search of United flight 23, box cutters and Al-Qaeda documents were found in unclaimed bags.


This changes everything. The fact the FBI nor 911 Commission report would not touch the matter does not rule out there are official records to be found.

Don't know whether FBI 9/11 Review Commission Lawsuit sheds light on it or not. If not, a more targeted lawsuit might.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

In my experience, once you understand that everything that happened that day was staged, that it was a total inside job, then details about what other airplanes might have been in the air that day becomes irrelevant.

But it's good you're starting to understand you've been deceived.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: democracydemo

In my experience, once you understand that everything that happened that day was staged, that it was a total inside job, then details about what other airplanes might have been in the air that day becomes irrelevant.

But it's good you're starting to understand you've been deceived.


Oh, do please tell us about the WTC nukes. And how you exploit the illnesses of first responders as false evidence of radiation poisoning.

The blind leading the blind.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Oh i know i was deceived...for a few good years.
Now i want blood, heads on a platter. To achieve this we need details of said deceive.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: Salander

Oh i know i was deceived...for a few good years.
Now i want blood, heads on a platter. To achieve this we need details of said deceive.


You don’t get to the truth through people spreading lies like nukes were used at the WTC. Or falsely parading first responders as radiation victims. Or falling for the false mythology of the talking heads of the truth movement the WTC was leveled by planted pyrotechnics when CD systems wouldn’t even survive the jet impacts and fires. Or flight 77 didn’t hit the pentagon. Or by ignoring real terrorists threats.



posted on Jan, 5 2020 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Nature of the beast when dealing with conspiracy theories, the water is muddy and you can't see what lies at the bottom so you reach around, poke it with a stick, anything you can to map it. Flight 23 at least is something solid you can grab onto.

Mini-nukes makes no sense to me personally. Not directional, therefore not controllable for starters.



posted on Jan, 5 2020 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

Funny you never touch on the fabricated mythology sold by truth movement talking heads for profit. Mythology base on nothing factual, but consumed and swallowed whole for a target audience. “Truth movement” what an oxymoron.

Architects and Engineers are the leading “truth” group? Is that false? What leading “discovery” have they produced that isn’t based on pseudoscience or innuendo that stood the test of time?


edit on 5-1-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed.



posted on Jan, 5 2020 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I see you seeing this whole subject as a kind of ponzi scheme. Remember (Truth movement and AE911) are in the same muddy waters as we all are. Difference with AE911 however is that it is producing something tangible; Lawsuits, WTC7 report for example. Some serious motivation needs to be a driving force at play here.

You announcing all as pseudoscience and innuendo leads me to ask; where was this judment made? Depths of Metabunk.org or other anonymous forums?
AE911 with the 3200 Architects and Engineers signed are known-not anonymous. Is this false?


edit on 5-1-2020 by democracydemo because: Tony Dragon



posted on Jan, 5 2020 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

I see you seeing this whole subject as a kind of ponzi scheme. Remember (Truth movement and AE911) are in the same muddy waters as we all are. Difference with AE911 however is that it is producing something tangible; Lawsuits, WTC7 report for example. Some serious motivation needs to be a driving force at play here.

You announcing all as pseudoscience and innuendo leads me to ask; where was this judment made? Depths of Metabunk.org or other anonymous forums?
AE911 with the 3200 Architects and Engineers signed are known-not anonymous. Is this false?



This was the question.

Architects and Engineers are the leading “truth” group? Is that false? What leading “discovery” have they produced that isn’t based on pseudoscience or innuendo that stood the test of time?

Care to actually validate how many of the 3200 actually hold a degree related to buildings and / or forensic science?



posted on Jan, 5 2020 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




Care to actually validate how many of the 3200 actually hold a degree related to buildings and / or forensic science?


This is a job you need to disprove.
I bet this degree in whole is above anonymous forum degrees related to buildings and / or forensic science.
edit on 5-1-2020 by democracydemo because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2020 by democracydemo because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2020 by democracydemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2020 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

There is a thread with the information on Metabunk on the breakdown of AE membership.


You


You announcing all as pseudoscience and innuendo leads me to ask; where was this judment made? Depths of Metabunk.org or other anonymous forums?
AE911 with the 3200 Architects and Engineers signed are known-not anonymous. Is this false?


So? You cited 320O with no cited source, with no understanding of its actual composition or what it is actually comprised of? While ignoring the AIA has found no credible evidence from Architects and Engineers to reopen a WTC investigation? I think Richard Gage / AE has tried to get AIA delegates to reopen the WTC investigation on several AIA conferences, and has been voted down every time.

Oh look. A little research to our things in perspective.


Resolution 17-5: Investigation of the Total Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, sponsored by Daniel Barnum, FAIA, and 50 Members of the Institute, failed with 4113 votes against and 182 votes in favor (with 179 abstentions). The resolution’s sponsors questioned the conclusions offered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2008 about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. They argued that the Institute should support “a new investigation into the total collapse of WTC7.”

www.aia.org...



Now....

This was the question.

Architects and Engineers are the leading “truth” group? Is that false? What leading “discovery” have they produced that isn’t based on pseudoscience or innuendo that stood the test of time?



posted on Jan, 5 2020 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

By the way. The AIA has 94,000 members.
www.aia.org...

Vs your cite 3200? With you having no understanding what professions make up your cited 3200?



posted on Jan, 6 2020 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

I see you seeing this whole subject as a kind of ponzi scheme. Remember (Truth movement and AE911) are in the same muddy waters as we all are. Difference with AE911 however is that it is producing something tangible; Lawsuits, WTC7 report for example. Some serious motivation needs to be a driving force at play here.

You announcing all as pseudoscience and innuendo leads me to ask; where was this judment made? Depths of Metabunk.org or other anonymous forums?
AE911 with the 3200 Architects and Engineers signed are known-not anonymous. Is this false?



It is not true that AE911 or independent thinkers or Pilots 911 are in "muddy waters". Very much to the contrary.

They are dealing with very specific facts, specific violations of the laws of physics including aerodynamics.

It is the apologists for the worn out government theory that are in muddy waters. Indeed, they are in quicksand. There are no facts that support the official theory.

Indeed, all the known facts CONTRADICT the official story.

As the government's own commission noted many times, "We found no evidence" to support many elements of the official narrative. Mark Dayton, Senator from Ohio I think, wanted to punish NORAD for its many inaccurate and contradictory statements to the commission.



posted on Jan, 6 2020 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Yes, there should have been consequences for the government incompetence concerning 9/11. Yes, government officials covered up the truth concerning their incompetence.


Now. You.


As the government's own commission noted many times, "We found no evidence" to support many elements of the official narrative. Mark Dayton, Senator from Ohio I think, wanted to punish NORAD for its many inaccurate and contradictory statements to the commission.


Care to link to, cite, quote Mark Dayton’s actual statement. You have proven your comprehension skills are lacking. And you have repeatedly misquoted or used quotes out of context in numerous posts.




top topics



 
28
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join