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.

 

Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 27
2
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   

An invisibility cloak that works in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum has been unveiled by researchers in the US. The device is the first practical version of a theoretical set-up first suggested in a paper published earlier in 2006.

The cloak works by steering microwave light around an object, making it appear to an observer as if it were not there at all.


www.newscientisttech.com...




posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Still want to know where those projectors were though, and where was the missle/UAV that hit the Pentagon launched from if it was not a hologram. Also, how could remote control be more stable than a pilot? Just curious.


I darn well answered this a couple of pages back. Does nobody actually read anything here?
You CLOAK it. The projector, missile, sound system, everything. Also, remote control would be foolproof if you program the coordinates correctly, which would not be hard to do. Point A, Point B, hit the Big Red Button and Go!

While I'm not a subscriber to the theory, I don't deny the possibility and potential for an operation like this to take place. It's all very possible.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   
John lear : the final straw

In single post

“ john lear “ appealing to the authority of his alleged pilots credentials made this statement .


In the last 60 seconds he is going to cover 8 miles during which he can't vary even one degree to hit the target


This is referring to the handling characteristics of the BOEING 767 ,whether it could be flown into the WTC tower

That is so wrong – it hurts . < now I do need an aspirin >


Three words “Rate onehalf turn “ demonstrate lears claim to be so fallacious that it beggars belief that a pilot who claims to have 19000 hours in his log book would make such a statement :

To paraphrase the various web resources I have browsed , a rate one half turn is a turn of 1.5 degrees / second – and is the standard rate of turn for routine aircraft maneuvers at airspeeds of > 250 kt

Not being a pilot – I will leave it at that – as the actual calculations can be skewed by the incidence of bank , and flap settings and From what I have read turn rate and radius is proportional to velocity squared – so at double the airspeed [ 500kt – as flown by the wtc jets ] – the rate of turn could be as low as 0.5 degrees / second

But even at that rate – the WTC jets could easily have made 30 degree corrections in that final minute

But bear in mind that neither aircraft at WTC hit the buildings in level flight .

I would welcome the views of a real pilot , asto this issue . Lear has already excluded himself from eligibility to comment on aircraft flight characteristics .

Lastly Just to for the heck , I cannot resist addressing this later quote :


] But if you are going to practice hitting a tall building there has to be a TALL BUILDING!!!


For a man [ lear ] who prides himself on his alternative thinking and “ analytical mind” < sic >

I would have thought that a man who presents himself as a pilot whold have realised that you do not need a tall building to practice flying into one

At its simplest – flying into a building

How is this is any harder than landing ? the “ glide path approach “ system of approaching a run way – seems to me to be a simple exercise of flying through imaginary “ boxes “ in the air – each one is smaller , and at a lower altitude than the last – until you are passing through a box the width of the runway , at altitude zero

During a landing – you have flaps , stall speed , attitude , altitude , landing gear etc to deal with too

Flying into WTC you have some leeway in your altitude – all you have to do is hit the building between its corners

Ape out


[edit on 26-10-2006 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by RiotComing

Originally posted by esdad71
Still want to know where those projectors were though, and where was the missle/UAV that hit the Pentagon launched from if it was not a hologram. Also, how could remote control be more stable than a pilot? Just curious.


I darn well answered this a couple of pages back. Does nobody actually read anything here?
You CLOAK it. The projector, missile, sound system, everything. Also, remote control would be foolproof if you program the coordinates correctly, which would not be hard to do. Point A, Point B, hit the Big Red Button and Go!

While I'm not a subscriber to the theory, I don't deny the possibility and potential for an operation like this to take place. It's all very possible.


In order for holos to work, they have to have an origination point. Where were they? A simple, they hid it does not cut it. In order to pull it off, you would have needed to have at least 4 locations to project if my study of holos is correct, since the planes came in different directions, opposite of each other. So, in addition to using holographic images, AND using a hidden 100,000 watts sound system that was installed on the enitre island, AND the 'missle', you want us to beleive that they also used cloaking technology to hide it all.

2 questions- Who piloted or programed the remote jet with the Big Red button, and where was the missle fired from?



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Originally posted by ignorant_ape



Not being a pilot – I will leave it at that – as the actual calculations can be skewed by the incidence of bank



I'm not familiar with an "incidence of bank" Ignorant_Ape. Could you please enlighten me? There is 'incidence of a wing' which refers to the angle that the chord of a wing meets the fuselage, but it is nothing you can change in flight unless you have a fancy military airplane with variable incidence. There is an 'angle of bank'. Yes, thats probably what you mean.


...and flap settings....


Flap settings at 500 mph? No I don't think so. Most initial setting of flaps are limited to around 250 because:

No. 1 you don't need flaps above 250 knots and they're locked out anyway.,
No. 2 it would take too much structure. If I remember correctly FAR Part 25 limitations for flaps extended is positive 1 G, negative 1 G.


and From what I have read turn rate and radius is proportional to velocity squared – so at double the airspeed [ 500kt – as flown by the wtc jets ] – the rate of turn could be as low as 0.5 degrees / second


Could be as low? Sorry Ignorant_Ape rate of turn is not variable for a given true air speed for a 'standard rate turn'. Either its standard rate or its not. If its 0.5 degrees per second for a 'standard rate turn' it does not vary. A standard rate turn requires a 25 to 30 degree bank. The Naudet film shows them straight and level, maybe a slight bank but sure as heck not 30 degrees to give you 0.5 degrees/per second! Must have been some pilot to have needed only 0.5 degrees/per second of turn rate IN THE LAST FEW SECONDS!


But even at that rate – the WTC jets could easily have made 30 degree corrections in that final minute.


But that fact is they didn't make the 30 degree banking left and right turns for those corrections. So how did they make the corrections? Maybe with their experience they had it nailed from 8 miles out? Both of them? Hamdililah!!! Praise be to Allah!!!.


I would welcome the views of a real pilot


Theres a great joke that goes along with that statement. (But not tellable on a family forum). Would any 'real' pilots care to comment? My comment is "Shucks Honey, I'm not a real pilot!


I would have thought that a man who presents himself as a pilot whold have realised that you do not need a tall building to practice flying into one
At its simplest – flying into a building. How is this is any harder than landing ? the “ glide path approach “ system of approaching a run way – seems to me to be a simple exercise of flying through imaginary “ boxes “ in the air – each one is smaller , and at a lower altitude than the last – until you are passing through a box the width of the runway , at altitude zero.


I am not sure if you were aware of it or not but there was no ILS (glide path approach is an ancient term) to either of the World Trade Center buildings.


Flying into WTC you have some leeway in your altitude – all you have to do is hit the building between its corners


The problem is not the leeway in your altitude. Your altitude could vary several hundred feet and you would hit your target. Your problem is CONTROL of your altitude at 500 mph. 6000 fpm rate change is equal to 100 feet per second of altitude change. Do you think a hijacker with minimum experience WAS THAT GOOD?


Ape out


Let me recommend a few books for your edification. Modern Airmanship by Neil D. Van Sickle might be good for starters. Then Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators (NAVAIR 00-80T-80). Old books but the principles are the same.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Hi John Lear can I just ask what you think brought the wtc down do you think the planes were holograms or remotely flown or what?



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Originally posted by g60kg




Hi John Lear can I just ask what you think brought the wtc down do you think the planes were holograms or remotely flown or what?



All the evidence is not in. As a matter of fact most of the evidence was stolen. Right now it looks like they were remote controlled. The hologram theory remains a theory if only because of the hysterical crowd against it. I probably would have dropped the hologram theory long ago if it hadn't been for the absolutely violent and infuriated posts against it. Its like saying the atmosphere on the moon is breathable. People dare not think.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

All the evidence is not in. As a matter of fact most of the evidence was stolen. Right now it looks like they were remote controlled. The hologram theory remains a theory if only because of the hysterical crowd against it. I probably would have dropped the hologram theory long ago if it hadn't been for the absolutely violent and infuriated posts against it. Its like saying the atmosphere on the moon is breathable. People dare not think.


I see so you just like to aggravate people, stir things up a little, so do you thing the moon does have an atmosphere??

on a serious note where else do you thing the hologram technology could have been used, and did you ever witness the testing of these systems



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Originally posted by g60kg




so do you thing the moon does have an atmosphere??



G60kg, I respectfully request that you get yourself informed on the atmosphere on the moon. Start with the Encyclopedia Britannica then read the last few pages of "John Lears Moon Pictures on ATS." Pay particular attention to the pictures of the moon I posted taken by the Lick Observatory. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
wow that is amazing stuff I thought you were being sarcastic, millions of kids are being taught a load of crap in school thats not cool (no wonder im so thick) ha ha



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
ok - i will address the spurious diversions and petty attention to minute details later [ if required ]

but first - a repost of what lear painfuly avoided adrressing

In single post

“ john lear “ appealing to the authority of his alleged pilots credentials made this statement .


In the last 60 seconds he is going to cover 8 miles during which he can't vary even one degree to hit the target


This is referring to the handling characteristics of the BOEING 767 ,whether it could be flown into the WTC tower

Three words “Rate onehalf turn “ a standard aircraft manouver

you claimed that they could not turn at all why ?

the claum is so clearly false - it is assanine

i regularly view planes over my home town making course corection of 10 to 40 [ estimated from ground ] degrees dependant on the fligh path , and they take between 10 seconds and 1 minuite



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   

The Naudet film shows them straight and level, maybe a slight bank

As nether plane hit the face of a WTC tower level – they must have had a bank

But can you give a Google or you tube link – and a time stamp of there I should be looking to confirm this claim
Because I have watched the Naudet film – and only recall the planes being visible for seconds – so you cannot possibly know what course corrections were made off camera .

but sure as heck not 30 degrees to give you 0.5 degrees/per second! Must have been some pilot to have needed only 0.5 degrees/per second of turn rate IN THE LAST FEW SECONDS!

Holy straw man lear boy
You seem to be at pains to avoid addressing the obvious fact that an aircraft can make second by second course adjustments .
Starting from your chosen “ 8 miles out “ – the pilot – of any skill , can make slight correction to his altitude and heading , in real time
Why are you ignoring that ?
PS – thanks for admitting they can turn now

When you are driving your car , do you let go of the wheel for 1 minute periods ? – I hope not , you adjust the steering constantly – to keep your desired heading .
Why do you seem to think that planes are different ?

Maybe with their experience they had it nailed from 8 miles out? Both of them?

Didn’t have to – I have already addressed this – its called real time course adjustment – people who are attempting to navigate visually do not stay on a bearing they know to be wrong – they correct as and when required .
Why do you pretend this is news to you . ?


I am not sure if you were aware of it or not but there was no ILS (glide path approach is an ancient term) to either of the World Trade Center buildings.

Yes I am – and I am also aware that thousands of runways do not have instrument approach aids [ or what ever they are called ] but the pilots landing at these locations still manage to land correctly .

So what is the difference between managing to approach a runway with no navigation aids – using only the aircrafts on board instruments – and approaching the WTC with a view to ramming it ?
PS – so I am actually learning something what is the correct term for an aircrafts approach to a runaway




[edit on 26-10-2006 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Originally posted by ignorant_ape



When you are driving your car , do you let go of the wheel for 1 minute periods ? – I hope not , you adjust the steering constantly – to keep your desired heading .
Why do you seem to think that planes are different ?



Thanks for the post ignorant_ape. Are planes different from cars? Lets just agree to disagree. OK? Please keep in touch if you know what I mean.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks for the post ignorant_ape. Are planes different from cars? Lets just agree to disagree. OK? Please keep in touch if you know what I mean.


yes planes are different to cars - do you not know that ? [ see i can take things out of context to ]

but the basics of course correction to account for errors / deviation are identical

both require interbention to maintain a desired course .

dishonest evassion noted - i guess you are not going to answer the question in the previous post .

as the other guy pointed out - you are just trolling .

fun while it lasted .



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

But subduing two pilots, who are strapped into their chairs? Easy.


Easy? OK. Take me through it step by step. Remember they had no guns. They had box knives.



Even easier is for hijacker A to enter cockpit holding knife to stewardess B's throat and order the pilot out of his chair.


Your silence on this subject is taken as assent, John.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I don't think John Lear is here to answer all your questions, howlrunner. John is a guest here at ATS and we would do well to respect that..

As for the situation you describe, I can think of many ways it could play out. Keep in mind they have precautions against that kind of thing, it may not be as simple to execute as you think.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Is ev'ry body happay?!!!

Oh. I'll come back later...





By the way, just an observation: It seems t' me that John Lear wholeheartedly believes everything he says, but only when he says it.


Did I get that right, John?



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Steve,

No, it may not be. But that was my first thought as to how control could be taken. When you make a person responsible for the continued well-being of a third party in your control, they tend to acquiesce relatively quickly to your demands.

However, were I in the mood to plan a multiple hijacking and had time for pilots to be trained, you bet I'd plan the take-over in detail, and run it several times to find wrinkles and re-plan it and basically prepare everyone for when the plans of mice and men go awry and a little improvisation is called for.

My father was a prison guard for a decade. When "taking down" a violent prisoner, one who is enraged or intoxicated or high, speed and surprise are what you need. Like any martial art, speed and surprise will defeat reach and strength. When taking over a plane, speed and surprise are what you need.

When defeating an armed opponent, speed, surprise and training are what you need. Who was trained in armed, hand-to-hand combat, the pilots or the hijackers?

If I'm claiming to have a bomb strapped to my chest, as Flight 93 tells us, who is going to refuse my orders? Remember, I'm a terrorist.

Remember how poor security was on domestic flights prior to and on the day of the WTC attacks?

How many hijackings have been successfully subdued in the air in the moments they began?



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
We are all guests here at ATS, so I am not sure about that statement. The terrorists that stormed the cockpit were trained to kill. They took multiple dry run flights leading up to 9/11 to study the practices and knew the exact times of the airlines personnel for specific things done during flight. They were also in first class.

If you are concentrating on flying a plane, which Mr. LEar states is very difficult, the last thing you are expecting is someone to burst into your cockpit and slit your throat. THey were probably discussing a footbal game from over the weekend and had no time to defend themselves. The element of surprise. They were trained for years to do something that would take less than a minute. It becomes second nature it is played over in your head so often.

I am still waiting for a good explanation on the use of the remote control(where was is controlled from) or the holographic imaging placement in multiple locations. Where, and how, and what happened after the attacks. Who came in and removed the equipment? Bigfoot?



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
I don't think John Lear is here to answer all your questions, howlrunner. John is a guest here at ATS and we would do well to respect that..

As for the situation you describe, I can think of many ways it could play out. Keep in mind they have precautions against that kind of thing, it may not be as simple to execute as you think.


Is John Lear in the Illuminati?
When I mean "in the Illuminati", I mean working with and have knowledge of at least some of their plans. It seems as though he knows a good deal of the top secret information, so I have been moved to fire up this question. At times, he doesn't respond to questions and leads me to believe that he may not be cleared to release some information.
While I'm at it, Mr. "SteveR", I'm still learning about some things about this website so this question that I'm about to ask maybe considered "dum" to many, but I still must know the answer.
You have "Illuminati agent" under your member name where "member" would normally be. What does this mean? Are you really an Iluminati agent?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join