See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 UAL 175 Plane on Radar AFTER It Has 'Crashed' Into The WTC; (MSNBC)
Source:
,
URL Source: http://,
Published: Mar 16, 2009
Author: msnbc
Post Date: 2009-03-16 13:04:41 by Artisan
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 14961
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 464.
#3. To: Artisan (#0)
Oh, they'll be out in force. It might take them a day or two, but for every new revelation shining light on the 911 Inside Job they have a spin very quickly. Either they will attack the film as altered or they'll have some other spin such as the Radar was incompetent. They won't hold water but for the Sheeple who don't want to look at reality they will grasp at any spin straw to avoid looking. They want the "Nightly Nooze" to tell them what they think.
if the identifying radar system is in real time as he claimed then it is pretty damning evidence of remote controlled drone planes. I don't know antyhing about such systems which is why i pinged the pilots. Anyway, we all know the truth but to what end ? There is more than enough evidence but most politicians, clergy, academics and influence peddlers won't look at or acknowledge any of this. And time has gone on and it's almost 10 8 yrs past. Anyway, it's fun to expose their lies. people do know, in general, but what comes of it? we shall watch.
I'm confused, "tracked on RADAR" 1 hr after it hit the WTC?
Only if you believe this shit are you...
The shit in the video or the Gov't shit?
The government's shit is mosty likely the closest to what happened. If anything got covered up it's how little attention the Boosh's were paying when it went down...
Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
Your prediction was akin to predicting that if you pulled your pants down and tried to blow yourself in Times Square people would look. PS: Claiming that "WE BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!!" is the same thing as self- felating in Times Square.
Explain this. See how the top of the tower is tilting on an angle? Simple physics would determine that the top of the tower should have toppled over and tumbled, as there is less resistance to the air than there would be to the steel and concrete below it, thus it would have continued it's rotational movement and toppled over. Why did it all of a sudden drop like a rock straight down through the steel and concrete rather than simply topple over as it appears ready to do in the following picture?
You mean like what happens in a controlled demolition? Well, this is different....the plane hit the building (which was specifically designed to withstand the impact of a direct hit by a plane), and the plane had fuel (no matter that the fire was limited to just a couple floors, as opposed to other towers which have also had intense fire but never collapsed)....and because of the intense flames (limited to two floors?)....the structural beams just melted.......and can't you just believe these people already?! : )
Two Floors My Ass...
Yes. That's mightily impressive, a fire like that which can bring down a building onto its own feet. Have you see the photos of the other skyscrapers, literally in hell fire throughout, yet those buildings stand? I have.
A) The fire did not act alone. B) It did not fall into it's own feet. 1 fell into the DB Building* and 2 fell into the south facade of 7. I worked at 1 Liberty Plaza on 9/11 and did diasster recovery work that necessitated me going into the building a week or so later. You could clearly see that the towers fell over as well as down. Windows in about 20 floors of the western facade of 1 Liberty were gone... Piece of WTC 1 in DB building... YO can see parts of 2 on 7's footprint as well as the damage to 1 Liberty.
It fell straight down war, you can't deny that fact. So yes, it fell into it's own footprint, but sure there will be debris in the immediate area. What did you expect it to do, drill a whole for itself into the ground and fall into it?
Despite all the photo evidence that I just provided you to the contrary? Did the conspirators come in with a huge crain when noone was looking and put that piece of WTC 1 into the DB Building and take that huge assed scoop out of it as well?
You fool, do you see any buildings with the top section of the WTC impaled into them? The fact that debris was blown outwards is not the same as the tower falling over.
Wha...huh? I challenge you to post a pic of any controlled demolition wherein the debris field was as far outside of its paramerers as it was at WTC...hell...the collpase of WTC 2 demolished the atrium of the WFC across the street... When Pittsburgh had 3 Rivers Stadium brought down it stood yards from the new field which wasn't even scratched...
So what exactly are you trying to say here? Did it topple over or did it fall straight down into its own footprint?
It collapsed in the manner gravity and then momentum affected it...to all points...
So it fell because of gravity. Hmmm, well why didn't it fall as soon as they built it then? Those 100 or so of UNDAMAGED floors dissolved into thin air, where even butter would have offered more resistance. They must have been pretty weak huh. Good thing nobody ever jumped up and down or the whole thing would have gone down sooner, right?
Your questions are devolving further into stupidity. Engineering kept it standing...just as your legs do for you...take out your ligature around your knee and see if you don't topple over from being top heavy. IN the case of the WTC, floor trusses acted as ligature.
Do you see where I'm going with this? If the top of the tower tilted to its side then dropped straight down, the only explanation would be that the core was intact but bent and that the top of the tower slid down the core. So if the core was intact, where IS IT? It simply vanished, as if it wasn't even there. There are some videos which show a "spire" like core structure reaching up to mid level of the tower, then simply vaporizing 20 seconds or so afterwards. Hmmm. What do you make of that? Did you find any NIST data that speaks about that topic? And BTW, if the top of the tower slid down the core, how could it have fallen at virtual free fall speed where there would have been tremendous friction involved slowing down its descent? In addition to the time required to overcome the resistance to the steel core, what about the time required to smash the steel and concrete of each of the 100 floors below it? It did all that in about a second, subtracting the time it would have taken for it to fall through thin air. C'mon Mr. Wizard, give us some physics here.
Dude...you are so fucking babbling. top trying to ***think*** and start using REALITY.wtc floor construction This is what the floorstructure of the WTC looked like around the core: As you can seee, there were elevators within the core. Furthermore, the core was reliant on the exterior support beams to relieve it of being the lone horizontal load bearing mechanism. Once that exterior had been breached and then the internal bracing compromised, there was no other outcome available but destruction.
There was not a hurricane going on that day, so resistance to horizonal force is not a factor. It's the VERTICAL support that mattered. Regardless, the majority of the exterior support columns were intact.
Have you ever been in the Towers? If so then you know there is a natural sway to them...lateral forces were continually at work on them... Secondly, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, the external support mitigated the vertical load and since the external support was compromised the energy being put upon and expended by the core was substanially more than normal. Regardless, the majority of the exterior support columns were intact. Feel free to wax eloquently on the WTC designer's using redundant support columns on the exterior. Also, you want it both ways...you'll claim that it was controlled demolition that brought the towers down which is a process by which only some of the main supports are destroyed...but here you are claiming that because some of the support remained thatg it should not have collapsed. Can any of you Moonbats explain to me, that if the government did this, why did they allow 22K people to escape with their lives and why did they go to the trouble of haing planes flyu into the buildings? The WTC had been bombed before. Why not just bomb it again?
Yes, I have. I've also been on the Empire State Building, built in 1931. One could easily suppose without a degree in engineering, that, given the materials and abilities back in the late 1920's as compared to those of the early 1970's, were not only quite different, but there were conceivably lower standards to be met. Although the wind which blows against that tower is also quite severe and it has withstood the impact of a B-25 bomber...which also had fuel, commentary is nil regarding its current structural soundness. This tells me that it remains a safe building. It is apparent that, given the limitations of the 1920's, it was designed quite well. With a foggy day and the B-25 bomber in mind, the WTC was designed. I believe that, for a building, it is irrelevant whether fog is present or absent when it is directly hit by a plane. And it's a certainty that if a plane is in the air, it has fuel. You keep posting about the architects and designers anticipating flight impact and fog. Terrific! But do you mean to state also that, though these highly educated and intelligent architects and designers, who were anticipating and designing for the possibility of a jet aircraft collision with a tower near three of the busiest airports in the world (JFK, Newark, and La Guardia), who anticipated and designed for the possibility of the impact of SEVERAL 707's due to fog.........but were unable to conceive that the plane(s) would have fuel, possibly having just taken off from JFK, Newark, and/or La Guardia? Come on....let's give some credit to the designers instead of .gov's fairy tales!
They couldn't have accounted for the Magickal Jet Fuel™ because no one knew anything about that when they designed and built the towers. >(;^{]
LOLOL! Yeah...I keep forgetting that one. : )
Considering how many times that he's reminded you, I'd get that checked...
I think I have a better recommendation: Re-examine your blind trust in a .gov that has shown itself to be duplicitous and unconcerned about the people of this country.
This is where you lose any sense of the rational. I have taken each and every bit of your theories and conclusions and researched them. It isn't as if this is the first time I've seen this stuff. I have close to 100 bookmarks on my work computr alone and in those bookmarks are links to pages that could be bookmarked. You folks have a lot of problems, not the least of which are pathological, but even putting them aside, your conclisions are not supported by facts. All of you have posted quesitons to me which I have answered and sourced. Not one of you have responded to any of the questions that I have posed to you. How could you be so certain of your conclusions when you are so unopen to questions about them? You're as bad as the God freaks demanding that I have FAITH in that which I cannot see. But worse...I know that no man can show me God while YOU most certainly CAN show why you believe as you do. The problem is you don't which leads me to one conclusion and it's that you cannot...there is not one quesiton that you raise about that day that either cannot be answered or doesn't have a faulty premise at its root. Some of you have posted some of the most absurd claims, e.g., the plane did not explode INSIDE the WTC...the outside was relatively undamaged...no manifest with Arab names was ever published [when one was] and the coup de gras, the WTC Towers were built to withsatnd an explosion but it was an explosion that brought them down... Why not trying to answer the easiest question of all. Why use the planes? Why only kill 3K? Why use Afghanistan as a means of getting Itaq when Iraq was already a convenient target?
All of you have posted quesitons to me which I have answered and sourced. Not one of you have responded to any of the questions that I have posed to you. ... Nonsense. You have linked to derivative apologias - such as the drawings you tried to misrepresent as the passenger manifests. No, the Passenger Manifests are the Passenger Manifests as released by the Airlines in the 24 hours following the Op. None of those ORIGINAL Passenger Manifests show any Arabic names. When presented with a datum you cannot refute you go off on another diversionary tangent and then cite things not said by anyone on this thread as proof that people seeking the truth are are all nuts for doing so. Your tactic is dishonest and is logically false. Here again you concoct an irrational and logically invalid hodgepodge and then attribute it to ALL when ALL have not made ALL of the claims you falsely attempt to attribute to them. Again you are using a dishonest disinformation tactic to smear not refute: Some has a name. SOME is NOT ALL. The WTC Towers were built to withstand an aircraft impact and yet you assert that two aircraft impacts brought down 3 buildings. Further your assertion is again false as you assert the buildings were built to withstand an explosion but all things engineering have a scale and a tolerance. When you exceed the structures tolerance you exceed its capacity to remain standing. No, what you have done is presented argument that really says nothing while, falsely, asserting and acting as though it proves something.
Funny that you consider the structural engineer an apologist. Funny that you can "impeach" all of my sources as apologias when you can't link any of them directly to the government report. Funny that you can avoid every quesiton that has been posed by me about your beliefs by waving your magic Moonbat Wand and proclaim them moot. The WTC Towers were built to withstand an aircraft impact and yet you assert that two aircraft impacts brought down 3 buildings. That is NOT what I assert and I have corrected this several times over. It was the combination of the damage of the planes' impact, the damage from the planes' exploding and the resultant fires that brought the towers down. Further your assertion is again false as you assert the buildings were built to withstand an explosion but all things engineering have a scale and a tolerance. When you exceed the structures tolerance you exceed its capacity to remain standing. No, what you have done is presented argument that really says nothing while, falsely, asserting and acting as though it proves something. I am sure that there is a cogent thought in there somewhere yearning to be set free...
Still silent re: Satam Al Suqami's passport?
Sorry...that you have to styand in line...I don't have a VIP section...
There are no replies to Comment # 464. End Trace Mode for Comment # 464.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestany debunkers?
#4. To: Original_Intent (#3)
#6. To: Artisan (#4)
#7. To: Itistoolate (#6)
I'm confused
#8. To: war (#7)
Only if you believe this shit
#11. To: Itistoolate (#8)
#14. To: war (#11)
#17. To: Original_Intent (#14)
Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
#59. To: war (#17)
#68. To: FormerLurker (#59)
Why did it all of a sudden drop like a rock straight down through the steel and concrete rather than simply topple over as it appears ready to do in the following picture?
#77. To: litus (#68)
#79. To: war (#77)
#93. To: litus (#79)
Yes. That's mightily impressive, a fire like that which can bring down a building onto its own feet.
#98. To: war (#93)
YO can see parts of 2 on 7's footprint as well as the damage to 1 Liberty.
#101. To: FormerLurker (#98)
It fell straight down war,
#115. To: war (#101)
Despite all the photo evidence that I just provided you to the contrary?
#119. To: FormerLurker (#115)
The fact that debris was blown outwards is not the same as the tower falling over.
#122. To: war (#119)
(Edited)
#124. To: FormerLurker (#122)
So what exactly are you trying to say here? Did it topple over or did it fall straight down into its own footprint?
#126. To: war (#124)
(Edited)
It collapsed in the manner gravity and then momentum affected it...to all points...
#129. To: FormerLurker (#126)
Hmmm, well why didn't it fall as soon as they built it then?
#250. To: war (#129)
(Edited)
#290. To: FormerLurker (#250)
Do you see where I'm going with this? If the top of the tower tilted to its side then dropped straight down, the only explanation would be that the core was intact but bent and that the top of the tower slid down the core. So if the core was intact, where IS IT? It simply vanished, as if it wasn't even there.
#358. To: war (#290)
As you can seee, there were elevators within the core. Furthermore, the core was reliant on the exterior support beams to relieve it of being the lone horizontal load bearing mechanism.
#389. To: FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, litus, randge, scrapper2, James Deffenbach (#358)
There was not a hurricane going on that day, so resistance to horizonal force is not a factor.
#424. To: war, FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, randge, scrapper2, James Deffenbach (#389)
Have you ever been in the Towers? If so then you know there is a natural sway to them...lateral forces were continually at work on them...
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
The Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences
being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.
Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling
faster on take-off and on landing.
The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.
The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.
In all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing
707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed
would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.
* source
#435. To: litus (#424)
(Edited)
But do you mean to state also that, though these highly educated and intelligent architects and designers, who were anticipating and designing for the possibility of a jet aircraft collision with a tower near three of the busiest airports in the world (JFK, Newark, and La Guardia), who anticipated and designed for the possibility of the impact of SEVERAL 707's due to fog.........but were unable to conceive that the plane(s) would have fuel, possibly having just taken off from JFK, Newark, and/or La Guardia? Come on....let's give some credit to the designers instead of .gov's fairy tales!
#438. To: James Deffenbach (#435)
They couldn't have accounted for the Magickal Jet Fuel™ because no one knew anything about that when they designed and built the towers. >(;^{]
#439. To: litus (#438)
Yeah...I keep forgetting that one. : )
#441. To: war (#439)
#444. To: litus, TwentyTwelve, RickyJ, Former Lurker (#441)
Re-examine your blind trust in a .gov that has shown itself to be duplicitous and unconcerned about the people of this country.
#456. To: war, litus, TwentyTwelve, RickyJ, Former Lurker, bluegrass (#444)
This is where you lose any sense of the rational. I have taken each and every bit of your theories and conclusions and researched them. It isn't as if this is the first time I've seen this stuff. I have close to 100 bookmarks on my work computr alone and in those bookmarks are links to pages that could be bookmarked. You folks have a lot of problems, not the least of which are pathological, but even putting them aside, your conclisions are not supported by facts.
Some of you have posted some of the most absurd claims, e.g., the plane did not explode INSIDE the WTC...the outside was relatively undamaged...no manifest with Arab names was ever published [when one was] and the coup de gras, the WTC Towers were built to withsatnd an explosion but it was an explosion that brought them down...
#460. To: Original_Intent (#456)
Nonsense. You have linked to derivative apologias
#462. To: war (#460)
#464. To: bluegrass (#462)
Still silent re: Satam Al Suqami's passport?
Replies to Comment # 464.
