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: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


About 3 months after 9/11 I was on a flight leaving L.A. to the east coast....I was in first class and David Hyde Pierce was sitting behind me. I spoke w/ him about random things. The person next to him asked how he was doing regarding David Angell

It was sad to see him tear up.

Anyways, this doesn't add much to the topic....but since you mentioned it, it brought back that memory.




posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





Text

No one has seemed to find any plane parts they can prove actually came from alleged UA Flight 175. If then cannot prove there was an alleged plane as reported in the "official" report, how can anyone prove any passengers were on a plane no one seems to have proved actually existed?


As an esteemed ATS member, what is your evidence when you claim that "no one has seemed to find any plane parts they can prove actually came from alleged UA Flight 175"?

How many times has a commercial jetliner been intentionally flown into a building in recent memory? In your lifetime?

Commercial jets have had, as required equipment since the late 60's, both a CVR and an FDR. Technology advances have made the FDR better, that is, it is now a DFDR. The CVR, as far as I know, still uses a 30-minute continuous loop audio tape...that's what they told us, anyway.

I will admit, in both the AA11 and UA175 airframes, and associated DFVRs and CVRs...whatever is supposed to survive a 'normal' accident, these two incidents were far from 'normal'. The point of the recorders was to be able to piece together a chain of events, or more accurately, a 'break' in the chain of events that led, ultimately, to the accident (crash) ... after the fact.

This, after years of history, meant that the focus was on the human factor. The bias was always, that it was an error, or more specifically, a 'chain' of errors, that resulted in accidents. It was expected that, barring catastrophic mechanical failures, many airline accidents were due to a human element. Hence, the adoption of the CVR and the FDR, per FAA mandates.

These data have served well, until 11 September 2001. The Recorders were destroyed and no data recovered, from the WTC Towers, or so we are told.

Hence...conspiracy theories sprout...

The Recorders, commonly referred to as 'Black Boxes' in the media, are actually painted bright Orange. AND their workings are not 'black', but perfectly understandable if you know a little bit about aviation and engineering. These Recorders are designed to survive most accidents, even fire...that's why they are located in the aft part of the fuselage...but they were never intended, nor did anyone expect, they would have to survive a suicide ram into a building.

Please feel free to study past accident info, there should be links at the NTSB (National Transportaion Safety Board). I used to subscribe to their reports, it was free......

I realize there are many who would disagree, or even outright challenge me, and my qualifications. I will state, once again, that I have flown the B767 for thousands of hours...I have records, but I am estimating here...because I am not that anal...In normal airline operations (domestic), we cannot fly more than 1000 hours per year. I averaged about 60 or 70 per month, but then you factor in vacation itme...so let's say while I was on the B767 for 5 years, I have at least 2,500 hours in the B767 alone. (I haven't included the B757 time...it is a Type rating common to both, and we flew both...)

Was the 'Clear Image of Flight 175', as posted by the original poster, a lucky shot, an accidental capture of an airplane jsut before impacting the second tower? Let's look into who is credited with taking this picture. Perhaps the photographer was using a shutter speed, and f/stop to capture the smoke from the burning Tower? By pure chance, he/she captured that image of an airplane (UA175) about to impact the other Tower?

Instead of shouting about how it was 'photoshopped' or otherwise faked, could not it simply be what it appears to be? Incredible coincidence, but not impossible. Great photos are often accidental....

I daresay, if there were pictures of the sinking of the HMS Titanic, someone would come along and try to refute those too....



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
These Recorders are designed to survive most accidents, even fire...that's why they are located in the aft part of the fuselage...but they were never intended, nor did anyone expect, they would have to survive a suicide ram into a building.


While that may be true, I find it fascinating that this survived intact.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Hello, SteverR...

I admit I am just getting my feet wet, so to speak, in the conspiracy aspect of those events of six years ago...

Looks like you posted a copy of a passport, assuming it was one of the hijackers' passport.

I had heard, seen, accounts of the 'magical' passport found in the rubble. Some had said it was 'unscathed' (I paraphrase, of course...not sure what description was used, exactly, but it left the impression that the passport that was found seemed untouched. However, the image you posted shows it to be obviously distressed.).

Why would these terrorists carry their passports with them? Hmmmm...prior to 9/11 there was no need for them, of course, unlike the severe 'security' we undergo now.

I know that when I travel in a foreign country I always have MY passport somewhere on my person. Or in my personal bag...and this was years ago. An argument that this passport was 'planted' is a strawman argument...amazing thngs can survive unusally, it is shown over and over on 'Amazing Videos', or some such channels that convey such weird happenings.

Anyway, thanks for starting this thread, it's a great photo and it will, I expect, continue to foment controversy!!

Happy New Year!



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

As an esteemed ATS member, what is your evidence when you claim that "no one has seemed to find any plane parts they can prove actually came from alleged UA Flight 175"?


To my esteemed opponent, I offer this consideration from Morgan Reynolds.

nomoregames.net...

"III. Phantom Flights

Before examining physical evidence-our principal task-many facts about the alleged flights subvert the official account. The Colgan Air flight 5930 Portland-Logan is riddled with questions1 and AA Flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled that day.2 Official BTS data are meticulously kept because of liability issues. The two American Airlines Boeing 767s in question - tail numbers N334AA and N644AA - were deregistered January 14, 2002, months late but with no proof they were involved in the alleged flights.3 Mohammed Atta supposedly left a rental car at Portland International and absurdly left a second car full of incriminating evidence at Logan, in other words, government agents over-planted evidence. And was Gate 26 or 32 used for the unscheduled flight 11? The two United Airlines aircraft that allegedly crashed that day-tail number N612UA for Flight 175 and N591UA for Flight 93-were in the BTS data base but only deregistered four years later on September 28, 2005, despite a requirement that destroyed aircraft be deregistered within 24 hours.4"


There is some information on all four flight numbers. It seems the blogger on the following website discovered some strange information, regarding both alleged Flight 175 and Flight 93. Since it is a blog, I am hesitate to use even exceprts due to copyright laws. However, I am presenting the link to that site, and the information, posted by one of their members, is easily located. It is the third post down:

edschultz.invisionzone.com...

It is such serious discrepancies, which make me doubt any information about 4 alleged flights is accurate or true in "official" reports.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


If the cockpit mic was on in any of the airplanes, all voices would be also recorded at the nearest FAA control center. I recall reading the transponders were shut off, but not the mics recording back to the FAA control centers. Meaning the FAA has the recordings as well, if the mics to the control centers were not shut off. At least, that is what I recall when I paid my relative visits where he worked at an FAA control center.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


When someone posted the credentials of the photographer in this discussion, it stated the photographer's specialty is virtual reality and creating illusion. Since we do not know if that is what he did with the photo presented in the first post starting this discussion, it is most difficult to determine if the photo is authentic or illusion. Not without the photographer stating one way or another.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dampnickers
Something else...

All of the "photographs" of the aircraft on that day are relatively clear. If we are to assume that these aeroplanes were travelling at hundreds of feet per second, and the "photographers" were using standard, unzoomed, cameras why is it that none of the photos of that day show a "plane shaped blur"?

I would have expected that in the confusion, and especially on the blogs of witnesses to the event, any and all shots would be put out there... If I'd certainly managed to get a shot of an aircraft heading for a WTC tower (no matter how blury) I would get it out there for all the world to see. Yet, I haven't managed to find a single photo that is not "clear".

I would have expected at least one or maybe two pictures to have slipped through the net that were taken on cameras with slow shutter speeds that allowed the planes to become a blur, whilst the rest of the image (towers burning, etc) remained in focus.

Any thoughts on this idea ladies and gents? Or better yet, can anyone show me a link to a photo that was released on or around the event with a "blurry" image of a plane about to hit the towers.

I will conceed that I might well have been wrapped up in too much cotton wool and simply missed these blurry images, but would love to know.


here ya go



[edit: fixed image code]

[edit on 26-12-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

[edit on 26-12-2007 by powerdive]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   
The pic doesnt work anyone got another link?



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

...if you among those who believe that actual airliners crashed anywhere on 911 your actual authorized nomenclature is "plane hugger".

Hope this helps.

Merry Christmas.


I'll accept that lable Mr. Lear, even though it's pretty hard to wrap your arms around a 767.

And Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you as well!



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


About 3 months after 9/11 I was on a flight leaving L.A. to the east coast....I was in first class and David Hyde Pierce was sitting behind me. I spoke w/ him about random things. The person next to him asked how he was doing regarding David Angell

It was sad to see him tear up.

Anyways, this doesn't add much to the topic....but since you mentioned it, it brought back that memory.




David Hyde Pierce ??
Oh, wow! And First Class too! I'm sooooooooo impressed but you poor thing you, having to watch him cry about 9/11 months after it happened.

Sounds like you're name dropping here Greeneyedleo ... this has nothing to do with Flight 176.
Jeesh!



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Originally posted by greeneyedleo




Anyways, this doesn't add much to the topic....but since you mentioned it, it brought back that memory.



Merry Christmas gel.

Off topic for a second. You mentioned your husband was going into the space program at Colorado Springs. How is he doing? If he gets into the real good stuff he has to say goodbye to all of his old friends as the inductees can have no contact with former friends or associates. This is to preclude any accidental slip of information.

Has this happened yet?



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 



hi i cant seem to access that photo can you relink? is it something in the UK stopping me seeing it?
ah never mind i see it in an above post


[edit on 26-12-2007 by infowarrior uk]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Nice broken link.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by powerdive
 



fixed it. Used the wrong link



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
here is an excellent photo of a UA boeing 767 in almost the same position/angle. The only thing that strikes me is the length of the wing in shadow, its almost curved top line, and the flash of light (reflection?) on the body of the of the craft in two places.

baaa-acro.com...



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Umm off the side, there has never been a missle theory for the twin towers. That was the pentagon



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
There was no cockpit mic because the plane was a drone. The plane would crash as if it was a shell with fuel in the tanks. That is probably why there are no planes theorys.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:40 AM
link   
What is clear, is that there is something highlighted by the sun attached to the right hand side just ahead of the right engine. So if it’s part of a normal plane of this type (can someone tell me what this part is?) or else its a modified plane and I'd then go with my other conviction, that just like the pentagon its a missile, which is it then?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


If the cockpit mic was on in any of the airplanes, all voices would be also recorded at the nearest FAA control center. I recall reading the transponders were shut off, but not the mics recording back to the FAA control centers. Meaning the FAA has the recordings as well, if the mics to the control centers were not shut off. At least, that is what I recall when I paid my relative visits where he worked at an FAA control center.


Sorry, Orion, you seem to be misinformed.

There is something called a 'Cockpit Area Microphone', abbreviated 'CAM' in accident transcripts easily obtained from the NTSB, when the CVR survives the crash. The CVR also records both Tranmitter/Receiver channels (Comm 1 and Comm 2) and also the interphone. Oh, since the ACARS uses Comm 3, that probably gets recorded now too. Also, for over-water Ops we use HF; HF 1 and HF 2. So, modern CVRs have more than the original four 'tracks' of older jets, circa the 60s and 70s.

There is NO WAY in heck that the CAM info is EVER transmitted to the FAA during normal operations. Do you understand how VHF transceivers work?
There is a button, 'push-to-talk' (PTT). Self explanatory, one presumes. There is a PTT switch on the control wheel (each control wheel) that rocks between transmit via radio, or transmit via interphone. The control wheel PTT is used in concert with a boom mic as part of the headset. Of course, there are also hand-helds mics. In any event, the tapes at ATC record whatever is transmitted on the specific frequency pertinent to the facility and its various sectors.

Once again, no casual CAM sounds are just 'routinely' recorded by the FAA. In fact, in accident investigations, it is considered inviolate that the CAM recording is never made public, out of deference to the families and loved ones. The data can be 'recreated' using actors reading the transcripts, as was the case in an accident in Detroit, Michigan some years ago. This is used for instructional purposes, within the industry, in Re-Current Training.

Hope this clears up a few misconceptions.

[spelling and punctuation]


[edit on 27-12-2007 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join