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 airspoon
Look, I think we are working for the same goal here. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here but more importantly, I just want to get to the truth, whatever that truth may be.
With that being said, are you suggesting that the aircraft was flying into headwinds due to this picture?
Originally posted by earthdude
It is so funny how you can tell by the writting style that Tiffany is not a woman. Women argue differently than men, even the lesbians. The elephant is not in the room and there is no smoking gun for me. I do think a plane did not go down in the spot they staged in Skanksville and the hole in the pentagon seems just wrong. Too bad the truthers don't have a unified theory. Here is mine:
The CIA ripped off Bin Laden, he sent some guys to get even, they crashed into the twin towers. This greatly benefited American Oil interests. Flight 93 was shot down and something strange hit the pentagon. I suspect an inside job. That is all I have.
Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Originally posted by Helmkat
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
As pointed out in the presentation, if you think the NTSB data is wrong, you should think twice about getting on an aircraft in the NY area or arriving to a terminal area, as all separation is done by speed and radar.
I understand what they are saying but they are forgetting one important condition of the situation. The aircraft were not performing within normal parameters. Radar is rythmic in nature and a lot can happen between one sweep and the next. The systems used on 9/11 and today are not optomized for conditions experienced that day. So for your everyday flights around the world? sure the systems are fine but once you have lots of course/speed/apsect changes you are entering a scenario more akin to combat situations and again the everyday traffic control systems are not up to snuff for that.
Have you reviewed the NTSB radar data? The Lat/Long? The Mode C returns within 10 miles of 3 primary airports? And if so, what do you think is the margin of error associated with their analysis?
More than 100 knots in error?
Because that is what you need for a plausible speed.
Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
Ok I re read the OP and I am still getting the same thought.
There were 2 planes that hit two towers.
I think that the planes were visually identified also.
If you are saying there is no way those airplanes could fly that fast,
Originally posted by boondock-saint
I am a truther myself and don't believe the OS.
However, this report has a fundamental flaw.
That flaw being that it is assumed by the writer
that these aircraft cannot exceed certain limitations
in design when in actuality all kinds of vehicles
including submarines have safe operating limits.
But when under stress can exceed those numbers.
And if they can exceed those numbers then for proper
testing would require a test flight to fly said model
as fast as it could go until it actually broke up and
splintered in mid-air. To my knowledge, these tests
have never been done. So to prove this report to
have merit he would have to prove at what speed
these models actually broke apart.
Originally posted by Helmkat
I will say this. I have seen a SR-71 tracked at mach 10 and that is plainly not possible.
The Radar data should be taken with a huge old lump of salt.
Originally posted by Sky watcher
669.3 miles an hour for that trip.
Originally posted by airspoon
The photos given are not adequate enough to determine exact wind direction at the required altitude.
Originally posted by g146541
But still we have film of planes hitting the towers at some speed.