Ok I've come to the end but can anyone tell me what the dark object is seen darting across the sky just after the second tower gets hit I've seen it in one video but cant remember which must have been moving hard to capture on freeze frame but definately there

It was a bird, close and out of focus.

Either that, or a passport.

So IF no planes actually hit the WTC, where did the planes and all the passengers go? Or were the people who died that day just holograms too? It's theories and topics like this really make me wonder how involved the government/black ops are in counter-propaganda on sites like this. It's to the point that we can never really know what is fake and what is real anymore.

:shakes head:

I can't believe I just read all the way through this thread - I suppose it's for the same weird reason we try to look at accidents on motorways...

I do wonder why you are trying to engage with these "no planer" people? You might as well try arguing with some who thinks the towers were brought down my the Evil Wizard Zarg slapping them with a large wet mackerel (if you zoom in at 2.36 into the video you can clearly make the head of the mackerel just as it strikes the tower...no that's nothing to do with digital compression...etc)

Amongst the stupidty this post did stand out a bit for me though:

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
I don’t understand. Is half the ATS readership going crazy?

Quite a small percentage, it seems to me, and half of them have a surname that sounds like smear.

Why aren’t more paying attention to what John Lear has said. He’s been repeatedly stating that while 500 mph at sea-level might be possible for a 767, at speeds above Vmo (357 knots) deafeningly loud alarm noises go off inside the cockpit making the plane un-flyable for amateur (highjacker) pilots. If people (foolishly) insist on arguing with him, they should at least address his very specific points, such as that one.

Soooo....the experts at Boeing have installed a "safety" system that, once the plane is outside it's recommended parameters, deafens the pilots and makes the plane un-flyable? Genius. The only feature Boeing need to add to this is a 6000W halogen light that pops out of the dashboard and shines directly into the face of the pilot making sure he or she gets the message.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Soooo....the experts at Boeing have installed a "safety" system that, once the plane is outside it's recommended parameters, deafens the pilots and makes the plane un-flyable? Genius.

Thanks for your post FLD. No, actually it doesn't deafen them. Its a 'clacker' that 'clacks' at a rate and pitch that is designed to get your immediate attention and slow the airplane down. If you can't disable the clacker it becomes very difficult to think logically other than to slow the airplane down and get rid of the noise. The warning device has no capability to make the airplane unflyable.

The only feature Boeing need to add to this is a 6000W halogen light that pops out of the dashboard and shines directly into the face of the pilot making sure he or she gets the message.

I am sure that you made this comment in sarcastic jest but in fact there are many warning lights that, while not shining directly in the pilots face do insure that he or she 'gets the message'. However to my knowledge there is nothing as bright as a 6000W halogen light and we prefer to call the 'dashboard' the 'instrument panel'.

Thanks for your post, it is greatly appreciated.

Sorry, I just HAD to reply to this one.

Soooo....the experts at Boeing have installed a "safety" system that, once the plane is outside it's recommended parameters, deafens the pilots and makes the plane un-flyable? Genius. The only feature Boeing need to add to this is a 6000W halogen light that pops out of the dashboard and shines directly into the face of the pilot making sure he or she gets the message.

LOL!

Great post!!

Thanks.

Originally posted by iskander

Flying large jet aircraft is ENTIRELY different from tiny single engine props. No ammont of flight simms will prepare a pilot for slow response time and tendency to overcorrect.

(etc, etc, diatribe)

While I appreciate your tangent, please understand that I was not making any argument about the pilots on the day or the ease with which the airplane could be flown or anything else for that matter. My only argument was that, using a standard physics model, I would posit that any 767 could likely sustain the speeds we saw on 9/11, at least for a short time, without compromising the structural integrity.

There really should be a smiley that depicts the guy with a tin foil hat. Actually make that 2 additional smileys - one with the hat and one with his hat on just a little too tight.

You would think step one in a theory about how a 767 did not hit the WTC, would be to figure out how to explain the wreckage of the 767 that actually hit the WTC. Apparently Mr. Lear can't do that. Kind of renders the entire theory null and void until you explain that. Did they actually crash a 767, to cover up the fact they couldn't crash a 767?

[edit on 26-9-2007 by b309302]

Matter can not be created or destroyed? Okay go stand in front of an atomic bomb, it won't hurt you then. 4 hydrogen atoms fuse to form helium. Helium weighs less then 4 hydrogen atoms. Sounds like you loss some matter to me. Transformed into energy. Matter and energy are the same thing hence E=mc2, and can be converted back and forth. An explosion is not going to vaporize anything, just blow it apart, possibly into tiny tiny pieces, but not vaporize it. That means taking it apart at the atomic level. That would take so much energy NY would be a crater.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by b309302]

My only argument was that, using a standard physics model, I would posit that any 767 could likely sustain the speeds we saw on 9/11, at least for a short time, without compromising the structural integrity.

At what wing load?

You would think step one in a theory about how a 767 did not hit the WTC, would be to figure out how to explain the wreckage of the 767 that actually hit the WTC.

I for one not making ANY theories, I just ask basic questions. In this case, what was the total weight of the wreckage, when and where was it found (GPS mapped location is a standard practice), what are the serial numbers found on the parts, where the maintenance are records?

Basically regular FAA/NSTB stuff that goes on after ANY airline disaster, aka - PROCEEDURE.

If that engine on the picture is identified, where are the other three?

Ok have you forgot that 9/11 was an inside job and that there were explosives in the building, completely capable of destroying the engines and everything else.

Nope, because I’ve never stated anything to that account. I did ask basic questions.

Law of Conservation of Matter
Matter can not be created or destroyed, energy can only be transferred.

That was the point.

Now this is all nice scientific fact but then where did the engines go? Well the explosives will have vaporized what was left of the engines.

What explosives? Were there recorder explosive traces at the site? What was their type, saturation, and dispersal pattern?

I did not know that, so there were explosives at the site?

Remember that even though something is vaporized that does not mean they suddenly disappeared. They are still there on the wreckage.

The fact is that not a SINGLE jet engine was EVER vaporized in ANY crash.

If you are aware of such an occurrence, please let me know.

Check for residue of titanium on wreckage that is found to be around the same floor of the plane crash.

That would’ve been a good idea, but we’ll just never know, would we? Other then that, I find it hard to believe that while ONE engine supposedly survived the alleged “vaporization”, while the other did not, but hey, a RUBBER tire managed not to burn, while it’s located right by the engines… puzzling…

What kind of futuristic rubber aircraft tires are made out of? Maybe they should send some to the guys in NASA so they can use it instead of ceramic tiles.

Here’s a question, given an approximate TOTAL weight and VOLUME of the wreckage shown in the pictures, would it be physically possible to PLACE them, or is it simply impossible?

Wreckage spread also has distinct dispersal patterns, so how do those pieces fit? A physics model I can take a look at somewhere?

Originally posted by hamalahamala
help im stuck in your girlfriend

WOW, you gonna get banned kid.


Back on topic, I've flown plenty of jets perfectly fine in Flight sims at whatever speed you're talking about. Hey, it's as close to actually flying one any of us will get.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Gorman91]

Back on topic, I've flown plenty of jets perfectly fine in Flight sims at whatever speed you're talking about. Hey, it's as close to actually flying one any of us will get.

I wasn’t talking about speeds. I don’t know enough about wing stress loads at low altitude air pressure and turbulence.

As far a sims go, have you ever seen a wing flex heavily when encountering turbulence? Such flex acts as a shock absorber, and has its very specific limits.

Flying a Piper / Cessna is easy. Taking of and landing is what’s hard. Friend of mine owns a Piper, and when I used to live in Seattle he let me mess around when we went up flying.

About two years ago he certified on twin engines, and plans to go jet as soon as the dollar is low enough to buy one.

He’s German, so buying a jet with Euros against falling dollar is a good deal.

Anyway, flying in a Piper is like gently floating. Very relaxing sensation.

Back in the 90s I flew into Magadan on Mavial air during some bad weather. I knew the pilots so they never had a problem letting me observe their landings.

That TU-154 was drifting all over the place, and pilot had to compensate very carefully. It did feel like I was in a huge bus hurtling through the skies. A WORLD of difference from single engine props. Think of it as driving a bus full out on an icy freeway. Scary stuff.