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 ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
sorry I missed the pentagon diagram, could you either point it out or repost it?
Hers it is, its the basic wall construction, not the newer recontruction.
i114.photobucket.com...
Originally posted by _Del_
The pilots wouldn't call the SR-71 the "Lead Sled" if it was mostly made of titanium...
Originally posted by jfj123
Thanks for the info. I was surprised to see that the wall was only 24 inches thick.
As a comparison, a normal residential building, 3 stories high requires a foundation wall of 10 inches thick.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please be adult enough to answer a simple question that i have ben asking.
Do you have any evidence to debate my statements, YES or NO ?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Hitting one, singel light pole can shear off a large section of wing.
Originally posted by scottie18
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by scottie18
Evidence? Do you mean like your claims about the steel in the F4 where you put certain lines in bold that say nothing about steel?
You are the exact type of person who make people laugh at conspiracy theory believers
1. I have posted lots of information and sources that state the amount of steel in the F-4. Just like
The fact of the J-79 engine needing the large steel heatshield.
The fact of the Keel and rear sections are made from steel.
The Germans would not call the F-4 the "IRON HOG" if as mostly made of aluminum.
A pilot would not call his plane "STEEL STALLION" if it was mostly made of aluminum.
2. When have i ever stated anything about a conspiracy theory? The only conspiracy theory is the official story thats based on a conspiracy.
[edit on 18-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]
1) So the "proof" you posted is you saying that certain parts are steel (does not prove that "most" of the plane is steel and even you said 40% which is not "most.") and nicknames that people gave the planes....because we all know that nicknames are assigned based on exactly what the object or person is made of.
2) So an official story exists and you spend all of your time trying to rebunk it (saying the government is behind it) but you don't think that you are a conspiracy theorist?!?!?!
I can't wait for your response...it's going to be a laugh riot....again.
Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by Disclosed
Every thread becomes "what Ultima thinks and why 'believers' are immature and stupid" I'm surprised you didn't know that rule...
I'm not sure why an a/c at high speed would find it "almost impossible" to penetrate a wall, but I'm interested to hear the reasoning in a perverse way. Perhaps "most" of the energy would have been absorbed by the trees and light poles infront of the Pentagon...
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by Disclosed
Every thread becomes "what Ultima thinks and why 'believers' are immature and stupid" I'm surprised you didn't know that rule...
I'm not sure why an a/c at high speed would find it "almost impossible" to penetrate a wall, but I'm interested to hear the reasoning in a perverse way. Perhaps "most" of the energy would have been absorbed by the trees and light poles infront of the Pentagon...
Ya know the fact that NSA agent Ultima posts here so often actually helps prove that 19 hijackers were able to get into the country and pull off 9/11. You see if NSA agents are able to spend so much time posting on chat boards, obviously they wouldn't have a lot of free time to look for National Security Problems
Originally posted by jfj123
Ya know the fact that NSA agent Ultima posts here so often actually helps prove that 19 hijackers were able to get into the country and pull off 9/11. You see if NSA agents are able to spend so much time posting on chat boards, obviously they wouldn't have a lot of free time to look for National Security Problems
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As far as a conspiracy, the official story is based on a conspiracy of the terrorist planning and hijacking planes.
But aside from that,
There is plenty of evidence that the government had plenty of warning about something happening around that time and even knew it would involve hijackaings.
So the queston becomes why did the government not do anything like raise the security levels at the airports?
Originally posted by _Del_
My pet theory is the NSA deliberately hired a bunch of analysts with 3rd grade educations rendering themselves unable to predict or stop an attack. My alternate theory is that the NSA has employees post things on the web that make conspiracy theories all look silly so that the public is turned off by them and will not hunt for the real truth. I haven't proven either so far -- it's just a working hypothesis...
Originally posted by _Del_
I hear a lot about the administration deliberately allowing(or causing) the attack to drum up public support for the war. In my mind, I haven't really seen anything that would lead me to believe that the administration really gives a damn about public opinion. Public opinion says there should be an immediate withdrawal, but I don't see anything happening there. If this administration wanted to go to war, it was going to war; public opinion be damned.
Originally posted by HLR53K
Originally posted by _Del_
My pet theory is the NSA deliberately hired a bunch of analysts with 3rd grade educations rendering themselves unable to predict or stop an attack. My alternate theory is that the NSA has employees post things on the web that make conspiracy theories all look silly so that the public is turned off by them and will not hunt for the real truth. I haven't proven either so far -- it's just a working hypothesis...
You should throw this in the alternate 9/11 theory thread! On the surface, it...actually makes sense. Of course highly unprovable.
Originally posted by HLR53K
You should throw this in the alternate 9/11 theory thread! On the surface, it...actually makes sense. Of course highly unprovable.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by scottie18
Evidence? Do you mean like your claims about the steel in the F4 where you put certain lines in bold that say nothing about steel?
You are the exact type of person who make people laugh at conspiracy theory believers
1. I have posted lots of information and sources that state the amount of steel in the F-4. Just like
The fact of the J-79 engine needing the large steel heatshield.
The fact of the Keel and rear sections are made from steel.
The Germans would not call the F-4 the "IRON HOG" if as mostly made of aluminum.
A pilot would not call his plane "STEEL STALLION" if it was mostly made of aluminum.
2. When have i ever stated anything about a conspiracy theory? The only conspiracy theory is the official story thats based on a conspiracy.
[edit on 18-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
Thanks for the info. I was surprised to see that the wall was only 24 inches thick.
As a comparison, a normal residential building, 3 stories high requires a foundation wall of 10 inches thick.
Well you have to consider to that the renovation also added reinforments.
The fact remains that it would be almost impossable for a aluminum airframe to cause the amont of penatration and damage that the official story likes to state.
I mean even small birds can put holes in the wings and airframe. Hitting one, singel light pole can shear off a large section of wing.