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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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...
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...
Or you just blatantly lying?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Care to actually validate how many of the 3200 actually hold a degree related to buildings and / or forensic science?
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?
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...
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?
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.