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.

 

Clear Image of Flight 175

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Originally posted by SteveR



The photo has been around for a while. I thought it was pertinent to shine a light on it here for all hologram and missile 'theorists'. Ofcouse there are other 9/11 images and tapes that were released months and years after the event.



Which are all faked too. But thanks for the reminder SteveR, sometimes I need to be reminded how gullible people are.

My opinion of the fake photo is that the appendages on the lower right side of the airplane (which don't belong on any Boeing 767) were purposely put there to give people something to argue about instead of questioning whether or not there was a really a plane in the first place.

Whether or not there was a hologram (which I believe there was) is not important. Whats important is that there were no planes that hit either the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or crashed in Shanksville.

It was a a hoax, a Psyop to fool the gullible. And from the looks of things it has been very sucessful.


Thanks for the post and the reminder.




posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I cannot prove it was UA Flight 175. I see no ID numbers on the plane to match to the data bank of scheduled flights on 9/11.


But conversely, it can't be proven that it isn't either for the same reasons. It definitely appears to be a plane resembling the one it's claimed to be is about all we could conclude.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

But conversely, it can't be proven that it isn't either for the same reasons. It definitely appears to be a plane resembling the one it's claimed to be is about all we could conclude.


That is not a valid point of argument. This is why:

nobeliefs.com...

"List of common fallacies"

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Capt Lear,

You have 144,440 ATS 'points'. You've been around here a long time.

You also have an incredible record, in your lifetime, of, well...records achieved and broken.

I've just begun to listen to recordings of your interview on Coast to Coast, must be a few years ago...I wanted to say, while I have had some heartburn over some of the things you post here on ATS, I am pleasantly surprised by your continued courtesy, and by your interesting audio interview.

Back to the heartburn issues...if you care to scroll up, or check my thread history on this one...I put forward a question that has, to my knowledge, not been adequately answered yet. Four airplanes were dispatched, I am sure there were witnesses in Boston and JFK and IAD and EWR...sorry, Kennedy and Wasington Dulles and Newark...who saw the various airplanes board and depart, not to mention the agents who handled the check-in, not to mention the reservation records in Sabre, in the case of American Airlines. I know United Airlines has a sophisticated computer system as well...don't know it's name.

Anyway, this topic has nothing to do with the Pentagon or Shanksville. It is about a clear picture of a UA B767 just before it hits the second WTC Tower. IF it is a hologram, it is the best damn hologram I have ever seen, except on Star Trek the Next Generation. It has the shadows, the sunglints, even the correct paint scheme...it even has the two VHF antennae on the belly!

In a fairly steep angle of bank, looked like at least over 40 degrees, with some Gs being pulled, as one would expect, the wingtips were flexed up as I would expect them to be under those flightloads. Now, you know, that a sustained 60 degree angle of bank exerts 2Gs. SO, a 40 degree angle, with a little up elevator, may or may not equal 2 Gs...even if more than that, the airframe would survive until impact.

OK...I've seen the still pic, the frame 'grab'. It does not look 'PhotoShopped', so it is either a real airplane, or an incredible simulation. (i.e., hologram)

Capt, you've flown the NAT Tracks...you know what an airplane looks like, close up...heck, you've probably been closer to another airplane, in your career, than I ever have.

Thanks for your comments....



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Thanks, Orion,

No, I do not think there has been, or are now, B767 'drones'. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one. If you think they exist, and can point to clear and concise evidence of such, then by all means fill us in.


I am going by the photo of the KC-767 in ex-USAF officer Dr. Tiradira's book, and what he stated the capability is to convert Boeing commercial passenger jetliners into drones. I did not simply take his word. I had already done my own research on that at least a couple of years ago.

To me, who cannot distinguish the models of one Boeing commercial passenger jetliner from another, it looks like an other basic 767 commercial passenger without windows, except in the cockpit. They are supposed to be manned tankers. UAV KC-767s definitely exist.

The UAV technology in commercial passenger jets has been available since at least 1984.

militaryphotos.net...

"Being able to extend the persistence of UAVs with aerial refueling "is an interesting idea," Bernardis says, that "we are following. The rules [to permit it] are very tough. But, I think even the present UAVs could be fairly easily adapted to aerial refueling if enough resources can be dedicated. It's a matter of choices. Right now, taking control of UAVs from [manned] aircraft is already a given."

That interface between manned and unmanned fleets is a mission Italian defense planners also see for their KC-767 and C-130J tanker fleets.

"You can take control in order to refuel the UAV and to fly it wherever you want," he says. "You can have multiple controls for multiple missions. That's a possibility." Among those possibilities is the politically sensitive issue of arming UAVs. While it may take time, "we think it's the right way to go," Bernardis says. "UCAV is already on the horizon, and cheaper [versions soon] will be at hand."

The following link is a Boeing 720 successfully tested as a UAV in 1984:

en.wikipedia.org...

"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."

Therefore, it is not a matter of accepting UAV KC-767s with no substantiation. Or accepting another person's accounting without doing my own research.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Pre-9/11, I had flown both domestically and internationally. Not once can I recall, on any domestic flights, being asked for anything but proof I had bought a ticket. Which leads me to this question? Why would anyone be checking any passports on domestics flights pre-9/11, of people already in the US flying domestically? I do not recall there being racial profiling prior 9/11? If so, could someone provide validation of that? Thank you in advance.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Which are all faked too. But thanks for the reminder SteveR, sometimes I need to be reminded how gullible people are.


johnlear, welcome and thanks for the post. How gullible you deem people who see a plane in the sky and proclaim "it's a plane" really are, is a matter for another thread. Hopefully one that also explains why this is more gullible than seeing blue casts in Aristarchus and proclaiming "alien fusion reactor!" (sic). Reality beckons however, and for most sensible people the photographs should alleviate any doubt that a Boeing 767 struck WTC2.


Originally posted by johnlear
Whats important is that there were no planes that hit either the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or crashed in Shanksville.


What's important is what you call something that flys in the sky johnlear and looks like this? I'm sure you are best qualified to answer the question.




[edit on 2007/12/24 by SteveR]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Pilgrum

But conversely, it can't be proven that it isn't either for the same reasons. It definitely appears to be a plane resembling the one it's claimed to be is about all we could conclude.


That is not a valid point of argument. This is why:

nobeliefs.com...

"List of common fallacies"

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

But then, by your own reasoning, your assertion of the opposite is equally invalid in the absence of sufficient evidence to decide either way and that was the point I was alluding to - insufficient detail for either of us (or anyone else) to conclude what flight number it is or is not.

If I said it could very well be the flight in question - would that be a logical fallacy by your interpretation?
(carefully avoiding any absolute declarations
)



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Originally posted by weedwhacker



Back to the heartburn issues...if you care to scroll up, or check my thread history on this one...I put forward a question that has, to my knowledge, not been adequately answered yet. Four airplanes were dispatched, I am sure there were witnesses in Boston and JFK and IAD and EWR...sorry, Kennedy and Wasington Dulles and Newark...who saw the various airplanes board and depart, not to mention the agents who handled the check-in, not to mention the reservation records in Sabre, in the case of American Airlines. I know United Airlines has a sophisticated computer system as well...don't know it's name.


Thanks weedwhacker. Here is one account of the flights that you allege took off and crashed on 911:


According to BTS (Bureau of Traffic Safety) statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights.

Although Flights 11 and 77 have the above data meticulously logged on 9/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9/11, even when every other plane that took of that day had been recorded and logged by the BTS.


www.rense.com...


Two of the 9/11 airliners were never 'deregistered' and remained on the 'active' flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the classification officially changing only a month after two inquisitive flight researchers made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inquiring about the strange irregularity.

The two planes in question were Flight 93 and Flight 175, both owned and operated by United Airlines and, according to the official story, both destroyed on 9/11, one in Shanksville, Penn., and the other crashing into the South Tower of the WTC.

Usually a normal procedure after an airliner is destroyed, why it took United more than four years to 'deregister' the airplanes and fill out the official FAA paperwork remains a mystery and never has been fully explained by the FAA, United or the government.


www.rense.com...


Anyway, this topic has nothing to do with the Pentagon or Shanksville. It is about a clear picture of a UA B767 just before it hits the second WTC Tower. IF it is a hologram, it is the best damn hologram I have ever seen, except on Star Trek the Next Generation. It has the shadows, the sunglints, even the correct paint scheme...it even has the two VHF antennae on the belly!


In my opinion it was the first official use of the holograph projection and it seems to have worked very well. Holograph projection technique is available to certain segments of the public specifically the television industry. The people who have seen it demonstrated were amazed.

The military has far better and more advanced holographic projection technology which is indistinguishable from the real thing.

Most of the public, however, think of holographs in terms of darkened rooms with faint images of revolving ballerinas. And that is what contributed to the illusions presented on 911.


In a fairly steep angle of bank, looked like at least over 40 degrees, with some Gs being pulled, as one would expect, the wingtips were flexed up as I would expect them to be under those flightloads. Now, you know, that a sustained 60 degree angle of bank exerts 2Gs. SO, a 40 degree angle, with a little up elevator, may or may not equal 2 Gs...even if more than that, the airframe would survive until impact.


It is my opinion that no 911 perpetrator would risk crashing a real airplane into a building. Too many things can go wrong. It is just not logical. 4 planes out of 4 hit their target? I don't think so.


OK...I've seen the still pic, the frame 'grab'. It does not look 'PhotoShopped', so it is either a real airplane, or an incredible simulation. (i.e., hologram)


Yes, it looked real to most. It was supposed to. Nobody was going to try and fake an "Arab highjacker crash" without the best technology available. They didn't want anybody standing around saying, "I don't know, it looked like it might have been a holograph."

I am currently reviewing the alleged Flight Data Recorder information for Flight 93. Just a quick once over I noticed that at the final second before the crash the airspeed was 487 knots and for the left engine N1 was 58 and N2 was 82 and for the right engine N1 was 42 and N2 was 80. I can assure you that no Boeing 757 ever went 487.5 knots with those engines at that alleged power setting. They would have had to be 100% across the board at the very minimum, as they were about 140 knots above Vmo which is maximum speed at sea level. Whoever is faking those Flight Data Recorder numbers don't know what they are doing.

Oh, yes and unlike the altimeter setting fiasco on the FDR of Flight 77, the altimeters were not reset descending through Flight Level 180.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Originally posted by SteveR



What's important is what you call something that flys in the sky johnlear and looks like this? I'm sure you are best qualified to answer the question.





Thanks for the post SteveR. That's called a holograph. Here is a little more information on holographs:






Thanks for the post.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
They would have had to be 100% across the board at the very minimum, as they were about 140 knots above Vmo which is maximum speed at sea level. Whoever is faking those Flight Data Recorder numbers don't know what they are doing.


Probably straying slightly from the topic but wouldn't those figures be less unreasonable if the aircraft was in a terminal speed nose dive a second before it 'bought the farm'?



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Originally posted by Pilgrum



Probably straying slightly from the topic but wouldn't those figures be less unreasonable if the aircraft was in a terminal speed nose dive a second before it 'bought the farm'?



Not a chance. There is a 'drag rise' which cannot be overcome by gravity. You have to have brute power and lots of it.

By the way, in my opinion, none of those airplanes, if they existed, ever, went over 400 mph in any part of their flight.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Not a chance. There is a 'drag rise' which cannot be overcome by gravity. You have to have brute power and lots of it.

By the way, in my opinion, none of those airplanes, if they existed, ever, went over 400 mph in any part of their flight.

Thanks for the post.


Does that apply to suicidal maniacs at the controls (if there were) whose least concern would be preserving the engines by keeping them within normal operating limits?

Merry Xmas to you and family John



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Thanks for the post johnlear. Especially, for backing up your words.

To add some context for those that don't know:




2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the
concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space
force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school
environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The
views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the
United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.
This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or
events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.
Mention of various programs or technologies throughout this paper does not imply Air Force or DOD
endorsement of either the mission, the program, or adoption of the technology.



I'm not sure if I'd trust Air University to have the inside scoop on the latest black technologies, but that's just me.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Originally posted by Pilgrum




Does that apply to suicidal maniacs at the controls (if there were) whose least concern would be preserving the engines by keeping them within normal operating limits?


Sorry I should have made that clear. The'drag' I was refering to was 'induced drag' or that drag created by the airplane itself when it reaches a certain speed. An engine at one third speed will only contribute to the drag because its just hanging there and not contributing to the thrust.


Merry Xmas to you and family John


Thanks and to you too, Pilgrum.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
In my opinion it was the first official use of the holograph projection and it seems to have worked very well.

johnlear

First off, there are a great many things about what happened on 9/11 that I simply have no firm opinion of. Did FL93 crash at Shanksville? Undecided. Was Building 7 brought down in a controlled manner? Undecided. Did FL77 hit the Pentagon building? Undecided. And so on and so on.

One aspect I feel I'm clear about is that one large commercial aircraft struck WTC-1 and another struck WTC-2. Thus far, and despite remaining 'open' (albeit reluctantly, if I'm being honest) to alternatives, I remain convinced of this.

I look at the photographs included in this thread and elsewhere on the Internet and I see an aircraft. What do you see that I'm missing?

I have to ask you, as a high profile proponent of an alternative view: by what process did you arrive at your view and upon what evidence is it based? I mean this with no disrespect. I simply want to know whether this is the 'gut feel' of an aviation expert, or the reasoned, evidence-based conclusion of an investigative process.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
But conversely, it can't be proven that it isn't either for the same reasons. It definitely appears to be a plane resembling the one it's claimed to be is about all we could conclude.

The picture in the OP shows what *could* be a Boeing 767, painted in colours that *could* be those of UA, *appearing* to fly towards the WTC building.

NOTHING identifies that plane as being the alleged UA 175 that allegedly crashed into the WTC building. Nothing even suggests that plane did hit the building. We only have one picture, not a sequence of pictures to show the alleged collision. Nothing.

I'm far less likely to believe what I see anymore... the lies and deception run so deep, it's scary.

(I might have missed it in the thread - but has the photographer been identified and confirmed? Pictures without a photographer are too suspect for me to believe.)



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

I know how you feel tezzajw

What's a 1 liner?



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
(I might have missed it in the thread - but has the photographer been identified and confirmed? Pictures without a photographer are too suspect for me to believe.)


Very good question.

The picture comes from this gallery

Aaron C. Traub is the photographer. He owns the pictoral website HereIsNewYork.

His resume (no longer available from www.atraub.com...) found at:
Who is Aaron C. Traub
"School of Visual Arts Fall 94 to Spring 97

"Completed a Master's Degree in Computer Art with concentrations in Internet and virtual reality programming and design. "State of mind" is a real-time Virtual Reality application written in C allows users to navigate and interact in a realistic 3D environment. "



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I think it looks 'shopped in. What airline company is it from too? I don't recognise it. (Not too familiar with US companies. I've only seen very few being in the UK)

Also, is the scale of the picture right? I've never seen a skyscraper either, and I know that 747s are huge - So I'm unclear on the scale of things.

Another thing, isn't the picture a bit too clear? Catching planes in mid-flight is quite an achievement, so to catch one just milliseconds is a bit too good for my liking.

Interesting picture though.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join