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.
As I noted, that was put out rather early by NTSB, and could be considered a bit "rough"...that is normal in such preliminary versions of Flight Recorder data, especially if "rushed" out.
... that plane was still really high.....much higher than what hit the Pentagon.
... but what I saw in the security camera footage (I posted it below) looks like it is barely 6 meters off the ground....
...and does not even come close to the size or shape of an airliner that huge.
It also looks as if it had a vapor/smoke trail in the video I posted.
The effect in that image makes the airplane look "smaller" than you'd expect, and it's all due to the lens. Additionally, you can see a distinct "curvature" off in the distance, away from the lens. Optical exaggeration again...so actual relative height above ground is illusory.
Originally posted by SheSellsSeaShells
reply to post by vipertech0596
She's a big girl and can form her own opinions. I was just presenting new information to her. She had no idea about the trillions that were unaccounted for or the building 7 collapse. Call it want you want my friend but knowledge is power.edit on 18-12-2010 by SheSellsSeaShells because:
You have an extremely one-sided TV show, presenting outright false information, with no form of rebuttal, so no wonder people fall for it.
Originally posted by roboe
Originally posted by SheSellsSeaShells
reply to post by vipertech0596
She's a big girl and can form her own opinions. I was just presenting new information to her. She had no idea about the trillions that were unaccounted for or the building 7 collapse. Call it want you want my friend but knowledge is power.edit on 18-12-2010 by SheSellsSeaShells because:
It sounds to me more like exactly what Cass Sunstein was worried about.
You have an extremely one-sided TV show, presenting outright false information, with no form of rebuttal, so no wonder people fall for it.
Your "attitude" is neither amusing, nor particularly adult.
I am guessing you have a passably decent comprehension of physics?? Or, can look it up? You may wish to re-visit the concepts of motion, momentum, mass, force and vectors.
FUEL is a substance, and thus, has mass. When in motion, it contains momentum, just as any other mass does. ALL the various components had their own particular amount of kinetic energy, depending on many variables.
It seems that many, many people STILL have terribly incorrect "assumptions" of how things really work, in the real physical world. I have often suggested that it has something to do with modern entertainment media. "Hollywood-style" entertainment....where rules of physics are often ignored, in favor of what "looks good on film", and provides audience enjoyment/excitement, etc.
Here. computer simulation, using the very strict rules of mathematics, and therefore physics, to predict and depict some aspects of the behavior of solids, and specifically the airliner and the fuel, on impact...AND shows the specifics of the building design, and those effects:
weed 1 (wd)
a. A plant considered undesirable, unattractive, or troublesome, especially one growing where it is not wanted, as in a garden
Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by backinblack
I looked for it online, but for some reason my internet is moving deathly slow right now.
Can you answer this question for me. (in meantime I will reboot cpu and router)
What is difference in height on a 757 from the bottom of the engine(s) to the center of the nose?
Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by SheSellsSeaShells
Except, as has been mentioned more than once, the idea that 2.3 trillion dollars was missing, is an out and out lie. And you used it to convince your grandma into believing another lie.
We see it clearly ignite..Now my physics only extends to year 12 but I think thats enough..
Is not most of the fuel carried in the wings? The same wings that did NOT seem to have penetrated the building?
In fact, since you didn't watch it....the majority of the fuel DID enter the building, carried by its momentum.
BTW....when you see jet fuel fireballs, you are seeing the FUMES being ignited. The greatest amount of the fuel itself can be inside the building (in the case of the Pentagon), but a very impressive fireball will still be seen, as the FUMES ignite....and the FUMES burn rapidly.
Am I to believe that on impact the wings and all the fuel inside them, folded up and entered through that one tiny hole??