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.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 27
10
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Hi TezzaJW

here is part 2 .....

You can however upload an alternatives command set into the onboard flight controls of the 767 which allows higher margins and greater capabilities which are not suitable or safe for commercial operations or commercial airports etc.

This is similar to a flash rom update. A good example is the rudder which is foot-pedal operated. On the runway you have full lateral swing and after take-off the computer allows you merely 25% lateral opening, even if you apply full force to the pedal, you can't go any further, this is done to lower the strain on the vertical stabiliser. You can of course compensate by banking via the ailerons, but pay the price of lowering the uplift and having to change the speed, so you overshoot you radius by miles.

To download the code in a 767 takes hours, the only reason you would do this is to train astronauts in zero gravity simulation, for testing, scientific use or for military purposes. You hijack a commercial 767, it comes with lateral control autopilot hardwired, so you cannot achieve a stunt as shown in the video link you sent me

To summarise. Although the flight manoeuvre is possible to be executed by 767s at the highest margin of their capabilities, for a commercial airliner it is impossible to do so. The board computer cannot be disabled or removed, it is integral and would need re-programming on the ground to change it's flavour and attitude in order to fly like shown. This was obviously done. But this doesn't mean that a pilot controlled the now non-commercial airplane.

To set the plane into a narrow target at this banking angle, speed and radius you need remote controlled flight path autopilot in conjunction with lateral control autopilot, the chances of steering a plane into a target at those conditions are astronomical because of the fact that a split second's pilot delay under those conditions will put a radius-chance of a few miles onto the flight path, provided that the pilot maintains control of anything at those g's, which become a real problem at 30%banking , leave alone 38%, specially in a 767.

So it is a commercial plane altered for non-commercial flying purposes, not steered by a human pilot.




posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by graviton
So it is a commercial plane altered for non-commercial flying purposes, not steered by a human pilot.

Thanks for your research. Cool.

So I take it that you don't believe the official story?



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



At least i do research and can post facts and evidence.

You have no evidnece to support your theory or the offical story.


Rrrrrriiiiggggggghhhhhhtttttttttttttt.
Neither do you.

That statement alone is vastly funny. Allow me to explain.
Someone telling me they use facts and evidence is ALSO the same person that tells me, lets see:

1) The Purdue Simulation video shows the plane breaking up at impact despite repeated shown proof otherwise. Now to give you the benefit of the doubt rather than accuse you of blatant and forced ignorance there is a point where the falling debris from the building obscures the plane crashing through it when it shows the impact as seen from the building face. But either way. Your stating something that is not true.

2) Maintains that because they are a Aircraft Maintenance Tech they are in a position to tell me that hitting the ground (or more sliding along til it comes to rest or pieces) is the same as hitting hit a wall in midair going 500-600 miles per hour. Which is also not true.

3) Frequently dodges uncomfortable questions (and even tries to "use someone's own weapons against them, while refusing to the answer the original question").

4) You attacked plasma (someone who whole heartedly agreed with you and has been showing it for a while before and after) based on the fact he made one statement that can be construed as I had a point at one point.
Shows modus operandi right there the fact you were acting in a knee jerk response to one thing amongst many others things that he said as if it somehow invalidated everything he said before.

I am sure there is more but I am tired.
I didn't flee last night btw. I was tired and sleep is much more preferable to arguing with a brick wall.
And just to show evidence here is the video:


[edit on 24-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
My evidence is as follows:
Hundreds of photos
Videos
Eyewitness accounts
wreckage
physical damage on the buildings
plane fuel
etc..



1. Where are the photos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? Do those hundreds of photos show what planes hit the towers?

There photos of plane wreckage and eyewitness accounts.


2. Where are the videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? Do those videos show what planes hit the towers?

As far as I know, there has only been a CCTV clip released which doesn't show much other then the explosion.


3. The eyewitness accounts would not hold up in court, specially those at the Pentagon.

Unless they were to corroborate what was seen at the scene and in videos (the best ones have not been released yet as far as I know).


5. Plane fuel is not evidence of a particular plane.

I never said it was. It is suggestive evidence that a plane did indeed hit which was in contention with one poster.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
You're just not getting this. I never said I could.


If you believe the official story then you believe that Flight 11 and 175 hit the towers and Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

So if you believe the official story then you should be able to provide evidence to support your claims and the official story.

There is evidence to support the official story. You say you have researched this so you know this to be true.


If not then you have to concede that you dod not know what really happened and have no evidence to support your opinions.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

There is a HUGE difference between NOT HAVING ALL THE EVIDENCE and having NO EVIDENCE. Do you understand that?



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by graviton
So it is a commercial plane altered for non-commercial flying purposes, not steered by a human pilot.

Thanks for your research. Cool.

So I take it that you don't believe the official story?


You still haven't answered my question. Do you believe planes hit the WTC buildings? YES or NO. If NO, what do you think hit the buildings and why?



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to jfj123
post by jfj123

 


Do you believe planes hit the tower?and petagon

And what kind?

And your photos ?? Of all 3 planes



That would help here to make what ever point you have been trying to make

all i see you doing is hearsay

[edit on 24-3-2008 by plasmacutter]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by plasmacutter
 


The Pentagon: 9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

The First Tower:

Google Video Link


And if your going to say those aren't planes like I would almost put money on that you will.
Prove it. Don't just say it. Bring it.

The Second Tower:

Again and if your going to say those aren't planes like I would almost put money on that you will.
Prove it. Don't just say it. Bring it.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to WraothAscendantpost by WraothAscendant
 


And i never said i believe there wasnt planes


I truely believe there where planes

I Just havent seen all 3 !!!!!

So as the OP states what do u need to believe in a conspiracy

Untill I !!!!( ME )see proof of flight 77 verified proof, and proof that physics and thermo dynamics can be changed on any given day!!!

then and only then can the whole issue be solved as far as planes and lots of otherthings not beeing part of a conspieracy( in MY mind )



But the fact still remains even if they where passenger jets,millitary jets, or ufos, dosent realy matter

The fact that the whole thing even happend should be the bigger ??????



[edit on 24-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 24-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 24-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 24-3-2008 by plasmacutter]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by plasmacutter
 


Read the thread I posted.
Interesting stuff and it shows the debris from the plane as well as things like broken lamp posts on the highway where the plane flew in.

hEh We have been buried in evidence.
And I have noticed a creative approach to controlling evidence amongst most "truthers".
So you really have to ask yourself.
Are you not seeing evidence because you want your CTs to be true?
Or are the CTs actually true?

The very ignored Psychology fits in here.
As it always does but few want to admit.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by graviton
reply to post by tezzajw
 


A 757 or 767 will not allow you in any auto pilot mode nor manual flying mode a banking angle of more than 20 degrees max. The stick-shaker speed is calculated at 15% maximum banking angle by the on-board computer and will allow for 15% overshoot , to maintain manoeuvrability.

The absolute maximum values for the plane before it hits a banking-stall are 20% with and 17% overshoot, this is the maximum margin the plane can handle. The board computer will compensate at 20% banking, allowing 17% emergency overshoot and cuts in with corrections. It does this by calculating the roll angle and the minimum speed, so you cannot achieve larger banking then 15%-20% on the controls as the pilot.
graviton


Where do you get this stuff please? I can find no reference to any of this, even on the Boeing or airliners.net websites.

Anyone who ever landed at Kai Tak in a 757 (as I did many times when I lived in HK) will remember that the aircraft frequently approached at an angle of bank between 40 & 70 deg on the right-turn approach. I remember on more than one occasion sitting on the right seat in the passenger cabin looking out of the window straight down vertically into the South China Sea below.

According to what you have posted, the design of the aircraft makes this impossible, yet commercial pilots did it every day.

'Banking stall' is of course mostly determined by airspeed.

Or have I misunderstood something? Are you talking about 20deg aileron movement (which is irrelevant to the eventual angle of bank the pilot finally settles on)?

Explain please.

Thanks.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by plasmacutter
 


Oh.
And you said this:


Do you believe planes hit the tower?and petagon

And what kind?

And your photos ?? Of all 3 planes


Backpedaling now are we?



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to mikesingh
post by WraothAscendant

 


seen it and the clip that they released

seen the gas station footage

seen the the lil wheel from the landing gear seen the engine

All that did was prove it wasnt flight 77

Looks more like an UAV , and engine to me gear to me
images.google.com...

Like i said i want proof of flight 77 not a plane

I know it was somthing flying

But what??? has not been proven yet



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by plasmacutter
 


Geee more creative editing.
The case in that thread is made quite well.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to WraothAscendantpost by WraothAscendant
 


nope im still pedaling forward

I asked him if he did and show all 3 planes in photos to prove his point

has nothing to do with you Do you agree??



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to WraothAscendantpost by WraothAscendant
 


reread that post you are refering to im agreeing with him to a degree jfj123 but

It would have been better for him to show his picture to prove his point to ultima


I believe they where planes dude i have made that very clear

i just havent seen proof of flight 77

[edit on 24-3-2008 by plasmacutter]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
[edit on 24-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I do not agree with anyone that there where no planes.

I truely believe there where planes

I just want proof the planes , are what they are being claimed to be the only one in question is flight 77(in my mind)

and all the info presented here or anywhere hasnt proven that the plane that hit the pentagon was flight 77


all it proves somthing man made hit it.

can i be anymore clear on my Opinion??



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by plasmacutter
 

reply to post by plasmacutter
 




has nothing to do with you Do you agree??


Considering the fact you are trying to gang up on him.
And it is with noting that people that use the argument you just used generally use it because they don't like what the new person is saying.

Next reply.

You say that AFTER I show you a thread that SHOWS proof of a plane hitting the pentagon. Just not photos of the plane actually hitting since there are none in existence.

You can have you CTs all you want. But don't try to pretend that we don't agree with you because its some kind of deficiency on our part.

That is the problem with "truthers".
You provide shoddy evidence AT BEST.
Then expect us to believe you and insult and pretend it is through OUR deficiency that we disagree with you.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
reply to mikesingh
post by WraothAscendant

 


seen it and the clip that they released

seen the gas station footage

seen the the lil wheel from the landing gear seen the engine

All that did was prove it wasnt flight 77

Looks more like an UAV , and engine to me gear to me
images.google.com...

Like i said i want proof of flight 77 not a plane

I know it was somthing flying

But what??? has not been proven yet



Which UAV? Because none of the wreckage ive seen comes close to what a UAV leaves behind when it crashes.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join