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.

 

911myths.com : WHY FAKING >73° BANK-ANGLES for a NoC FLYING PLANE.?

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You either prove me wrong with evidence or throw in the towel.


Oh, wouldn't it be nice if you could end the debate by pointing your finger at missing evidence that was shipped off in the most heinous, deplorable way.




posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Evidence please, for all to see, otherwise, you have no case. Now, where is your evidence?



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



Oh, wouldn't it be nice if you could end the debate by pointing your finger at missing evidence that was shipped off in the most heinous, deplorable way.


Be specific.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I am right on the money. In case you missed it.



Disinformation Killed 9/11 “Truth”

By 2009, the 9/11 “Truth” Movement was so inundated with disinformation that it had become a laughingstock. The easily-discredited claims (lies) contaminated the greater issue and soiled dissenters across the board. “Turd blossom” was a Karl Rove phrase that could describe what the movement had devolved into. The media, whether corporate or foundation-funded, could find people ranting about “the Jews” or the Illuminati, the Lizard People, the missiles, holograms, mini-nukes or space beam weapons vaporizing the Twin Towers.

Many trolls, and some public personalities, appeared to be professional disinformation artists hard at work concocting and posting this crap online, which others repeated to their own detriment. One cannot easily prove that a specific person is a paid shill, a disinformation agent, a cyber agent provocateur, but be assured they are out there, and “out there.”

DISINFORMATION TO DISCREDIT

Author Thomas Pynchon wrote, “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” I’ll go one better and in the process explain modern cyber disinformation: If they can get you asking stupid questions, then their lapdog media can dismiss you as a “nut.”



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Evidence please, for all to see, otherwise, you have no case. Now, where is your evidence?


I have no problems admitting the most compelling evidence for me is circumstantial and motive-based. Absent all the physical evidence that was promptly disposed of by the government, it's better than the government's honest-to-gosh 'true dat' word.

Please. The most compelling evidence is the lack of anything physical to examine, IMO.



edit on 13-10-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Look at the research?


Millions of people have. The science debunks the OS.


To let you know that I have debunked many truther


Not since I been on ATS.


debunk the false claims of "Pilots for 911 Truth"


The fact is You were kicked out of Pilots for 911 Truth for pushing false information.


(post by Informer1958 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

You know, and I know, that what you have just said is not true.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



mut, garbage, all lies. And no sources to your insane nonsense.


Actually, it is all true and to prove my point that the article is accurate, tell us what struck the Pentagon on 9/11?


(post by Informer1958 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I've noticed that you continue to stall on presenting those demo time lines that I have requested.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I've noticed that you failed to answer the question as to what struck the Pentagon on 9/11.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409



I've noticed that you continue to stall on presenting those demo time lines that I have requested.


I haven't stalled on anything, I and LapTop have already debunked your time line. and gave you a challenge about it.

We are still waiting for you to challenge the presentation that LapTop gave to you about your silly time line and Seismic Data?

Yet you run away when we ask for it and all you continue to do is post Popular Mechanic pseudo, silly, photo of their debunked seismic data.


I've noticed that you failed to answer the question as to what struck the Pentagon on 9/11.


I am not going to give my "opinion" to what stuck the Pentagon, however it was NOT flight 77.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



I haven't stalled on anything,...


You still haven't answered the question as to what struck the Pentagon.


... I and LapTop have already debunked your time line. and gave you a challenge about it.


That is false and your references have been debunked because the physical evidence have proved you both wrong.

edit on 13-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409



That is false and your references have been debunked because the physical evidence have proved you both wrong.


BUSTED! how many times have I cough you lying? Here is the Challenge that LapTop gave you about your phony Seismic data


originally posted by: LaBTop
These are the challenges to you, skyeagle409, from other members regarding your above post at page 71, ( I suppose you made a typo ) :

wildb :

skyeagle409 : I want to post the evidence that demo explosives were used and for a very specific reason.

I can't wait, seems you are a bit frustrated.. I wonder why, hum....

PublicOpinion :

a reply to: skyeagle409
I want you to do so as well. Btw., did you ask RJ LeeGroup, Inc. for clarification regarding their dust-analysis or will you accept their work by now?



My Blanchard-linked big post at this same thread's page 2 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The few best ATS-Searches results and a few more that are NOT picked up by the ATS Search.... :
REFERENCE POSTS about " Brent Blanchard " (about 41 to 46 results),
www.abovetopsecret.com...

LaBTop, Jan, 30 2013 : I did some off-line investigation in August 2006 at PROTEC, and lo and behold, what a pity sir, but by some strange accident, all these handhold seismograms have been absent from our repository for a long time already.

REFERENCE POSTS about " Blanchard " (about 289 results),
REFERENCE POSTS about " Brent " (about 638 results),
REFERENCE POSTS about " BrentBlanchard " (about 47 results),
REFERENCE POSTS about " PROTEC " (about 64 results),
REFERENCE POSTS about " Protec " (about 65 results),
Proof of the Gash on WTC-7 ? page 5, LaBTop, May, 21 2007 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
AHA, found my post back for R. Mackey from Randi.org's JREF forum (now ISF) :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
AHA, also the next post by bsbray11, about the Cardington steel tests :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
REFERENCE POSTS about " Protec 2006 " (about 18 results),
You'd expect my argumentation with Brent Blanchard to be in there somewhere :
--- www.abovetopsecret.com... (24 pages)
Or in this one : www.abovetopsecret.com...
--- www.abovetopsecret.com...

A couple of little factoids just to set the record straight :

Blanchard is certainly no expert. He has very little explosives demolition knowledge. He is not an engineer. He just travels around to demolition sites to take pictures. He also sets seismographs up to record vibration. CDI doesn't even allow him to be around their projects. Look at his website. Notice the lack of CDI pictures as compared to other demolition companies? There was a special on ABC that called him and his partner the "Beavis and Butthead of Implosion".


Below, bsbray11's post about column oscillations after impact, and the 14 and 17 seconds discrepancy between plane impacts and radar times of those same impacts :
--- www.abovetopsecret.com...

REFERENCE POSTS about " portable field seismographs " (about 27 results),

REFERENCE POSTS about " www.implosionworld.com " (about 72 results) :
This is the earliest date : Aug, 25 2005, I found up to now, with a post with that link in it :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

REFERENCE POSTS about " Blanchard's " (about 43 results),
Title : A look at Mr. Blanchard's .pdf, by bsbray11, Aug, 10 2006 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com... ( ?,not picked up)

Read this whole following post, it's pure logic at work :
www.abovetopsecret.com... ( ?,not picked up by ATS Search, while it has the word Blanchard several times in it.! ) :


bsbray11 : Where are these handhold seismic records from Manhattan?
Only the 34 km away at Palisades based LDEO ones were ever released to the public, and they were not analyzed in any detail.

Most of the next seismic events go unexplained (labeled by FEMA simply as "further collapses" with no further analysis), and WTC7's seismic records show, again, that more energy was exerted before the building moved than during the global collapse. WTC7's records were also released later than the rest by LDEO, but I promise you it wasn't because the waves took longer to reach their lab. It was because they couldn't account for what had happened, and of course they never tried to analyze what was going on there.




posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Just a reminder..

The 911 Forum is under fairly strict moderation and can result in an account termination due to such things as..

Attacking another Member

Trolling

Snide comments

ETC

You have been warned

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST




posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Busted??? I don't think so!! Let's take a look.



Conspiracy Theorist Misread 9/11 Seismic Data

Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

Fine Lines: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

Seismic Data Chart 1

Seismic Data Chart 2

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground.

Translation: no bombs.

www.popularmechanics.com...


That explains why demo explosions are not heard in any WTC video and why you are unable to post the time lines that I have requested in the WTC videos.

In the case of American 77, witnesses reported an aircraft striking the Pentagon, not a missile.
edit on 14-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
This thread, important to honest 9/11 Truth finding, has been hijacked, again, just as on 9/11.

I see after another three pages, one OS-Truster succeeded again in derailing this Pentagon Attack thread into totally different subjects than my opening post.

An opening post about false, far too high proposed bank angles for a North of the CITGO gas station flying, commercially looking plane, probably AA77.
Which honest video-taped reports by hardworking men make an officially proposed SoC flying AA77 plane an impossibility.

THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD :
Far too high bank angles for a NoC flying plane, of more than 73 degrees, promoted by military career men posting here and at other Internet forums. And put on a firmly OS-defending website like 9/11Myths.com.
While I give sound evidence in my OP's that such a NoC flying plane could have easily flown in a 35 degrees angled bank, at 230 KTS. And then its specific trajectory fits as a glove all 23 NoC eyewitnesses and their remarks.

Not one of the airline pilots here, such as Captain Ivan_Karlsen, has yet told us that such a NoC flight path would be impossible. I don't count remarks by skyeagle409, he has no flight hours in a Boeing 757. And I don't take him serious at all anymore, after his earlier and especially his following remark.

I will react one last time, since this kind of thread flooding and derailing is a disgrace to any attempt for honest 9/11 research.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   


This above Popular Mechanics hit-piece diagram is deliberately trying to MISLEAD the masses, they did write down the 4204 and 5777 nanometers per second ground motion for the 2 Twin Tower collapses, and also the much smaller 288 and 206 nm/s ground motions for the two plane impacts, HOWEVER, they drew/showed them as having the same kind of amplitudes, which is of course a clear case of DELIBERATE misleading.

This is the TRULY comparably drawn seismograph diagram below, which awfully looks alike that next diagram, don't you think so.?






posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Posted on page 4 by skyeagle409 :

That sound is not the result of explosives, that is the sound of structural failure.


Well, a most peculiar structural failure then.
According to NIST, but in fact the company they outsourced their WTC-7 research to in its 5th year, column 79 failed and that started the 8.5 seconds of penthouse toppling into the WTC-7 roof area, and then its real 6 to 7 seconds global collapse started :

Which global collapse was not 1 column failing, but ALL the core and facade columns in WTC-7 its 47 floors high building, FAILING, PLUS all other steel crossbeams, girders and concrete with steel re-barred floors.

And you deducted that the sound of ONE column failing, picked up by that video camera, would be so much louder than the whole BUILDING with the rest of its columns etc., failing.???

Any would-be 9/11 OS-researcher, can clearly hear in that video that ONLY that deep sound is audible, the rest of the event is FAR less audible, in fact you hear next to nothing beside the usual loud shouting of the bystanders.

So, please stop immaturely insulting the intelligence of this 9/11-forum's READERS.
Our readers are far more intelligent than you hope for.
Logic is our strongest defense against illogical posters.

This one will be my last direct reaction to skyeagle409.
It should be yours too.
Silence is golden in his case. He's clearly baiting us.

He is just not worth it.!!!



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join