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.
wmd_2008
reply to post by leostokes
All the evidence is circumstantial. The evidence does not prove pancake or controlled demolition or DEW
lambros56
reply to post by NewAgeMan
TextNot trying to be snarky at all, just very clear, and disciplined, given what's at stake here and what we're really looking at, so please don't take my long meticulous replies the wrong way, thanks.
Well NAM.....
I think you've made it very clear.
This is one of the best 9/11 threads on ATS and they decide to put it in HOAX.....
I have always believed the planes were souped up remotely controlled and you make a clear case.
You have answered everything thrown at you in a clear and exact manner and I applaud you. For that and all the research you have put into this thread.
NewAgeMan
reply to post by leostokes
Someone else posted: All the evidence is circumstantial. The evidence does not prove pancake or controlled demolition or DEW
T%o which you replied:
That's false. it's physical evidence the actual occurrence of destruction, which proves according to the laws of physics including the first and third law of motion and conservation of momentum, that there was in fact a precision engineered controlled demolition of some kind, regardless of the type of explosives or method employed. We've already covered that though earlier, over and again.
I have to humbly ask you to stop participating in this thread. Thank you.
**ATTENTION**
Please be advised that no member may request another to stop posting in any given thread. Be they the OP or not. If a member is in violation of the
Terms & Conditions, please file an alert and staff will deal with the subsequent actions.
The 'gate keeping' of conversations will not be tolerated.
~Tenth
ATS Super Moderator
Aloysius the Gaul
It doesn't matter how much you tell yourself this nonsense - it remains complete rubbish - repeating drivel never makes it true.
While at Harvard he worked with Ernest May (member of Zelikow's 1998 think tank) and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."
Zelikow's focus was on what he calls 'searing' or 'moulding' events [that] take on 'transcendental' importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experience generation passes from the scene.'
The Official Story - by Philip D. Zelikow
Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
Why would Boeing build a prototype before 2001, when the first aircraft wasn't ordered until 2002? You don't build airplanes to test until you have a firm order in hand. You wind tunnel test until you have a firm order in place. Italy was the launch customer for the KC-767, and didn't award the contract until 2002.
It costs a lot to develop a new plane, even a "bolt on" package like the KC-767. You can't just slap a boom on it and call it a tanker. You have to repipe the fueling system, do wind tunnel testing for aircraft flying near it, to make sure it's not going to flip them or something... It's a lot of work, and it's expensive. So there's no way Boeing would have done it without an order in hand.edit on 12/1/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)
When the Pentagon announced that Boeing had won last Thursday company officials were pleasantly surprised, but they knew the government had gotten quite a bargain.
Boeing started working on the concept of using a Boeing 767 as a tanker in 1999 when it assembled a team to undertake preliminary design development. The following year, wind-tunnel testing and proximity trials took place from NAS Patuxent River, Md, using a civilian 767-300ER and a Boeing F/A-18 Hornet which acted as a small category receiver and a Lockheed S-3B Viking as a medium-sized one. The aim of these tests was to check the viability of the 767 as a platform for aerial refuelling by ensuring receivers could fly smoothly in the aircraft’s wake, crucial for the precise close formation manoeuvring required of receiver aircraft. In June 2002 a USAF Boeing C-17A Globemaster III was also flown behind a -200ER to assess the effect on a large aircraft as well as one with a T-tail. The 767 received a good Cooper-Harper rating, the accepted industry scale for this subject. Indeed, Boeing claims that it performed better than any other aircraft in service today as a tanker. As a result, Boeing officially launched the programme in March 2001.
www.aviation-news.co.uk...