|
Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11 (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I recently watched this video too (I thought I had posted it in a thread). I too heard her say it was a military plane. However, she was filming from a long ways away and if you watch some of the footage from the networks (i.e. I was watching CNBC the morning it happened). It's quite obvious from other footage that they were commercial airliners that hit the buildings. This is just how conspiracy theories get propogated, Josh.;) |
yes, buuutt the military plane deal came out before this footage. and if she didn't pick the idea up from the news that day then it was an original thought. an original thought that she and someone else, in a different place with no connection to each other, had at the same time |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
yes, buuutt the military plane deal came out before this footage. and if she didn't pick the idea up from the news that day then it was an original thought. an original thought that she and someone else, in a different place with no connection to each other, had at the same time |
So what's your point? That two people can be wrong about the same thing at different times in different places?;)
FYI, I don't expect the average person to have a deep bench of knowledge on various military aircraft, but I can tell you with complete confidence that this is NOT a military aircraft. It is DEFINITELY a commcerial airliner.
 |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
So what's your point? That two people can be wrong about the same thing at different times in different places?;)
FYI, I don't expect the average person to have a deep bench of knowledge on various military aircraft, but I can tell you with complete confidence that this is NOT a military aircraft. It is DEFINITELY a commcerial airliner. |
Okay, just checking. |
|
|
| jdat |
Looks like a remote controlled airplane to me  |
|
|
| josh4 |
| OMG jdat thats so stupid, theres no way a plane that size could be remote controlled. :rolleyes: GAWD |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
OMG jdat thats so stupid, theres no way a plane that size could be remote controlled. :rolleyes: GAWD |
Ever heard of Operation Northwoods?
EDIT: From wiki
| quote: |
# Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
# Staging a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees
# "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized." |
|
|
|
| jdat |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
OMG jdat thats so stupid, theres no way a plane that size could be remote controlled. :rolleyes: GAWD |
Oh sorry I forgot this is the pdd .... it's forbidden to be sarcastic :( :haha: |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
OMG jdat thats so stupid, theres no way a plane that size could be remote controlled. :rolleyes: GAWD |
You have much to learn:
| quote: | Controlled Impact Demonstration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Controlled Impact Demonstration (or more colloquially the Crash In the Desert) was a joint project between NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to test the impact of a Boeing 720 aircraft using standard fuel with an additive designed to suppress fire. The additive FM-9, a high molecular-weight long chain polymer, when blended with Jet-A fuel, forms antimisting kerosene (AMK). AMK had demonstrated the capability to inhibit ignition and flame propagation of the released fuel in simulated impact tests.
In addition to the AMK research the NASA Langley Research Center was involved in a structural loads measurement experiment which included having instrumented dummies filling the seats in the passenger compartment. Before the final flight on December 1, 1984, more than four years of effort passed trying to set-up final impact conditions considered survivable by the FAA.
AMK cannot be introduced directly into a gas turbine engine due to several possible problems such as clogging of filters. The AMK must be restored to almost Jet-A before being introduced into the engine for burning. This restoration is called "degradation" and was accomplished on the B-720 using a device called a "degrader". Each of the four Pratt & Whitney JT3C-7 engines had a "degrader" built and installed by General Electric (GE) to break down and return the AMK to near Jet-A quality.
Over a series of 14 flights, General Electric installed and tested four degraders (one on each engine); and the FAA refined AMK (blending, testing, and fueling a full size aircraft). During the flights the aircraft made approximately 69 approaches, to about 150 feet above the prepared crash site, under remote control. These flight were used to introduce AMK one step at a time into some of the fuel tanks and engines while monitoring the performance of the engines. During those same flights, NASA Dryden also developed the remote piloting techniques necessary for the B-720 to fly as a drone aircraft.
On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. All fuel tanks were filled with a total of 76,000 pounds of AMK and all engines ran from start-up to impact (the flight time was 9 minutes) on the modified Jet-A. It then began a descent-to-landing to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8-degree glideslope. The landing gear was left retracted.
Passing the decision height of 150 feet above ground level (AGL), the aircraft was slightly to the right of the desired path. Just above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a "go-around," there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the centerline of the runway. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low.
It was planned that the aircraft would land wings-level and exactly on the centerline during the CID, thus allowing the fuselage to remain intact as the wings were sliced open by eight posts cemented into the runway. The Boeing 720 landed askew and caused a cabin fire when burning fuel was able to enter the fuselage. The fire and smoke took over an hour to extinguish. The CID impact was spectacular with a large fireball enveloping and burning the B-720 aircraft. From the standpoint of AMK the test was a major set-back, but for NASA Langley, the data collected on crashworthiness was deemed successful and just as important.
|
This was done 17 years prior to 9/11. From the Industrial Revolution to the first Moon landing was about 100 years. To say we would land on the Moon in about twenty years in the 40's would have people call you crazy. |
|
|
| Trance Nutter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
PKC, PCK whatever your name is, STFU FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND IGNORE THEM. |
you can't have it both ways. If people don't point out to people why they are wrong they'll just keep going spreading . And in the absence of people pointing out why people are worng other people will believe them "because theres nothing refuting them"
When the threads stop, then people will stop arguing about it.
I don't get why you are telling people who provide prood refuting these idiots to stop. Thats just stupid on your part. |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trance Nutter
you can't have it both ways. If people don't point out to people why they are wrong they'll just keep going spreading . And in the absence of people pointing out why people are worng other people will believe them "because theres nothing refuting them"
When the threads stop, then people will stop arguing about it.
I don't get why you are telling people who provide prood refuting these idiots to stop. Thats just stupid on your part. |
Because nobody is providing any sort of proof of anything. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Ever heard of Operation Northwoods?
EDIT: From wiki |
Thank you for this link... it was very interesting.
Nothing is ever as it seems. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
Because nobody is providing any sort of proof of anything. |
So you provide proof of something for us all? |
|
|
|
|
