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.
kix
reply to post by NewAgeMan
The problem with these 9/11 thread is that brainwashed people will never accept anything that contradicts the "oficial" story.
No matter your logic,the graphs, the twisted physics, they will always find something to hold on to.
Me as a person who happens to know a lot about statistics and probability, can and will acknowledge they the event of 9/11 could happen, YES but its possibility of happening is into the trillions, so I use occams razor and thing what is easier that some paper on fire and debris bring down a 57 story building by fire straight down, or was it demolished on purpose? what is the possibility of making maneuvers on a heavy (loaded with transcon fuel) 767 at over 500 knots and hitting a building with no breakup or mech failure TWICE ?
There a re a lot of small plot holes on the 9/11 agenda and the aircraft (all 4 involved) have its problems adhering to the official story, acknowledging them is a surefire way to dismantle the kool aid feed by the perpetrators.
No 767 can fly for that long at that speed while maneuvering period. either they would have broke apart, missed the target, both or simply crashed way before entering manhattan.
NewAgeMan
Think it through.. in light of all evidence, including that which reveals in rather self evident terms, that the twin towers did not really "collapse" at all but were and must have been brought down by explosives in a high precision engineered CD commencing at around the impact areas.
TextWell if you like to use logic and statistics whats the odds of taking down a building with demolitions without any prep work. See when you see the demolition companies take down a building they go in gut the interior walls exposing the structure. Then they plant explosive charges running wires throughout the building because the charges have to be sequenced. Then they cut through certain supports in order to guarantee the building will fall. This is weeks of work for a crew so when did they have time to do all this? Because if they didnt do this no guarantee the tower would collapse in fact odds our it wouldnt.And call me crazy but i think the office workers would have been very upset if crews had come in cut through their walls and ran wires all through there offices i can all but guarantee we would have known. So by just randomly using explosives you cant bring down a building case in point that wasn't the first time the world trade center was attacked.So if they couldnt prep the building and couldnt collapse the building using explosives this leads to the logical conclusion no explosives were used. Not to mention when explosive charges go off there is little doubt large booms fractions of a second apart sounds like a machine gun i watched them demolish a 30 story office building near me.
lambros56
reply to post by dragonridr
TextWell if you like to use logic and statistics whats the odds of taking down a building with demolitions without any prep work. See when you see the demolition companies take down a building they go in gut the interior walls exposing the structure. Then they plant explosive charges running wires throughout the building because the charges have to be sequenced. Then they cut through certain supports in order to guarantee the building will fall. This is weeks of work for a crew so when did they have time to do all this? Because if they didnt do this no guarantee the tower would collapse in fact odds our it wouldnt.And call me crazy but i think the office workers would have been very upset if crews had come in cut through their walls and ran wires all through there offices i can all but guarantee we would have known. So by just randomly using explosives you cant bring down a building case in point that wasn't the first time the world trade center was attacked.So if they couldnt prep the building and couldnt collapse the building using explosives this leads to the logical conclusion no explosives were used. Not to mention when explosive charges go off there is little doubt large booms fractions of a second apart sounds like a machine gun i watched them demolish a 30 story office building near me.
The thing is maybe the explosives that were used were not any type of explosive we know of.
This operation...in my opinion was carried out by an elite group of operatives who could have used an advanced type of explosive unknown to us.
"Absent the sponsorship of al Qaeda's material sponsors and supporters, including the defendants named herein," the suit claims, "al Qaeda would not have possessed the capacity to conceive, plan and execute the September 11 attacks."
The complaint extensively quotes counter-terrorism officials affirming that financial resources are crucial to al-Qaida's ability to launch attacks. It also gives specific examples linking the Saudi government to al-Qaida financing.
China Airlines Flight 006 (possible)
This was a Boeing 747SP (a shorter, faster, baby jumbo jet) on a flight from Taipei to Los Angeles International Airport. Ten hours into the flight, about 300 nautical miles from destination while in cruise at 41,000 feet it flew through severe clear air turbulence. This resulted in a loss of power from number four engine (the outboard, starboard engine); despite the efforts of the flight engineer, engine four eventually flamed out.
Although the crew began procedures to relight the engine, they did it well above Boeing's recommended maximum altitude of 30,000 feet. A lack of rudder input meant the crew were not doing enough to correct the yaw caused by drag from the dead engine; although the autopilot was making corrective actions, the autopilot installed in 747s at the time only controlled the ailerons (which control roll, or bank) and not the rudder (which controls yaw). Both were needed to effectively counteract the extra drag, and in the absence of this the aircraft began gradually rolling to starboard.
The drag on the aircraft was also reducing its airspeed, and adjusting the autopilot for a shallow dive did not improve matters, so the captain disengaged the autopilot to increase airspeed manually. Unfortunately at the time the autopilot was applying maximum port aileron to counteract the drag from the dead starboard engine; the crew should have matched this with their manual controls when disengaging the autopilot but didn't, so the roll continued at a higher rate. The NTSB said in its report that the captain was focused almost exclusively on the airspeed problems at this point, and the aircraft was in cloud so there were no visual references to what the aircraft was doing.
After about 30 seconds the aircraft made a wing-over and rolled completely, descending rapidly at up to 60° down-angle and losing about 30,000 feet in less than two minutes. Speeds exceeded the airframe's maximum mach number of 0.92 (92% of the speed of sound) on two occasions, and strong gee forces were felt for several minutes, up to a maximum of about five gees. About ten feet of the port tailplane and five feet of the starboard, including large parts of the elevators, were ripped off by aerodynamic forces during the descent, and during the periods of high gee the inboard main landing gear was forced down which also resulted in several of the landing gear doors falling off. There was sundry other damage to the empennage area and the landing gear bays.
At 11,000 feet the aircraft broke through the clouds allowing the captain to get visual references, and finally stabilise at about 8,500 feet, after which engine four was successfully relit. With part of the landing gear down and one of the hydraulic systems empty, it was impossible to reach LAX with the increased drag, so the captain diverted to San Francisco International Airport and made an emergency landing. There were several injuries caused by the high-gee portion of the incident but no fatalities.
The NTSB concluded that the incident was caused by "the captain's preoccupation with an inflight malfunction and his failure to monitor properly the airplane's flight instruments which resulted in his losing control of the airplane."
Although the 747 was severely damaged by the incident—including the wings being permanently bent upwards—it was repaired and returned to service.
I'm curious. Where does the 510 knot speed come from?
This MIT report
web.mit.edu...
Puts the speed of 175 at impact at 503mph, which is 437 knots, thats 73 knots less.
neformore
I'm curious. Where does the 510 knot speed come from?
This MIT report
neformore
Its also worth noting that the aircraft was diving all the way, not straight and level and from 6000ft coming down it was flying between 300-325knots until approximately one minute before impact. That suggests to me ..
"During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6,000 feet, the aircraft groundspeed remained between 500 - 520 knots. As the aircraft made it's descent to 1000 feet, it accelerated (there goes Zaphod58's hypothesis about self propulsion at level flight on final approach) and impacted World Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed.
Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175 (pdf)
NewAgeMan
Cont'd
Thus an EAS of 510 knots = 722 knots or Mach 1.19, at 22,000 feet, and at still higher altitude, 915 knots or 1.38 Mach, at 35,000 feet, and reaching Mach 1.39 and 1.4 at about 38,000 ft. It's an absurd speed, 90 knots, NINETY, above Vd of 420 (EAS) which again, represents an equivalent airspeed of Mach 1.19, at altitude (22,000 ft.)
An unmodified 767-222 cannot do it, it's impossible unless modified, and impossible to control and maneuver at such speed, particularly for an untrained pilot with limited training, and skill level, and zero airtime in the the genuine article. It's not possible and it cannot be believed, not in light of the facts before us.
www.luizmonteiro.com...
New York Times
February 23, 2002
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER CRASHES; First Tower to Fall Was Hit At Higher Speed, Study Finds
By ERIC LIPTON AND JAMES GLANZ
Researchers trying to explain why the World Trade Center's south tower fell first, though struck second, are focusing on new calculations showing that the passenger jet that hit the south tower had been flying as fast as 586 miles an hour, about 100 miles an hour faster than the other hijacked plane.
The speed of the two planes at impact has been painstakingly estimated using a mix of video, radar and even the recorded sounds of the planes passing overhead.
Two sets of estimates, by government and private scientists, have surfaced, but both show that the plane that hit the south tower at 9:02 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, approached the trade center at extremely high speed, much faster than American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m.
In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.
''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. ''It's off the chart.''
NTSB Video Impact Speed Study (8mb pdf)
911depository.info...
From the NTSB Video study -
"Using distances taken directly from the video screen, flight 175's groundspeed was calculated to be between 473 and 477 Knots just prior to the collision with the building. Using distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeed at impact of 504 Knots and 507 Knots were calculated. This compares to an impact speed of 510 Knots calculated from radar data in the Radar Data Impact Speed Study (AA11 & UA 175)"
Given that, hasn't it struck anyone else as odd that buildings fully capable of producing 40-50,000 casualties.....produced so few?
seasoul
"9/11 planes flew directly into secure computer rooms in both towers"
source: www.rense.com...
A coincidence, or a conspiracy?
"9/11 is the rule, not the exception to it"