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.

 

Can anyone of you debunk the debunkers?????

page: 12
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

... Why don't you tell us when American Airlines started to paint their planes green and red?


Giff, could it be the light green primer which was reported as seen? You can see this green quite clearly on the piece of AA77 wreckage about 1/3 down this page:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'


This image shows the light green primer used on the primary structure components in the 757 (Boeing uses the same yellow primer and the same green primer on almost every single part of every single 757 and 767 built)


You see this is one of several pieces of wreckage with the red/silver logo of AA on the outer skin, and the green primer clearly visible on the inside. With some of the metal so twisted up it might be difficult for the untutored eye to distinguish between what was originally the inside and what the outside.

Then again, it might have been the zinc chromate cited by Weedwhacker. Probably one or the other.




posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bovarcher
 


Thanks for clearing that up. I was thinking the primer was the zinc chromate.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker

WW:

A few weeks/months ago, weren't you planning for half a dozen pilots of varying abilities to rent a 757 sim for the day & fly repeatedly through the AA77 flight line as reported on the DFDR to discover how easy/hard it might be to do what Hanjour did? I seem to remember the infamous JL intended to be in on the experiment, yes?

What happened about this plan?

Sorry if you reported on the outcome and I missed it, but sometimes I don't log on to ATS for a couple of weeks due to travel & other business so do miss developments.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bovarcher
 


Also, bovarcher, some chromate primers are a darker green....some are the lime green color, others are more of an olive green. Don't ask me why there's a difference. Could be the way different people perceive color, as well??



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bovarcher
 


bovarcher, it was in response to JL's challenge to fly a B767 into the WTC Towers, actually.

Taken off the front burner, with JL's absence, but not forgotten. It is still simmering on the back burner of the stove-top, so to speak.

In less than three weeks I am taking a cruise on the Baltic, (Copenhagen, to Stockholm, and ports in between. Only city I've been to before is Berlin....but, of course, we must port at Warnemunde, and it is a fair distance from the city...) and will be occupied for most of July. I've mentioned to an Amigo that anything that may happen will have to wait until this Fall, 2008.

My first thoughts, being 'Amerocentric' (Is that a word?) was United Airline's facility in Denver, being centrally located....for US residents.

Since I got a smokin' deal on British Airways to Europe...in Business Class...I've been hunting through their website, and BA offers Simulator time to purchase. (I just saw an advert, didn't look deeper yet...)

But, there's an idea.

Point being, maybe a bunch of ono-pilots wishing to rent a simulator just might, possibly, be frowned upon, at first blush. Of course, serious discussions and explanations should allay any concerns. BUT, I've only, as yet, seen BA actually advertise the idea, on their own website!!

Another thought I had was...it is quite possible to imagine that many Simulator databases have deleted the WTC Towers from the Visual portion of their programs. I do not know this, just supposing.

However....I'm going to 'guess' that any Simulator built circa 2000 will still have the same database. AND, we also have to insist on a Level-D Sim, with 'daylight' visuals, in order to complete a valid test.

The 'test' being, for those who have just dropped by, whether or not a fairly in-experienced pilot, after a few hours of acclimatization, could fly a B767 (or B757, since they are very similar, from the cockpit, in look and feel) as we saw on 9/11.

That's the gist of it....



[edit on 6/19/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I think that green is a reflection from the grass on the aluminum. There are a few small bent pieces not facing the ground that are silver.

Also, for the record, I don't trust some of those interior Pentagon photos. I've been following this story at other sites from the beginning and those photos just showed up one day out of nowhere. The anonymous "Catherder" was the only source, and he subsequently used them as the basis for his detailed analysis that "proved" a 757 had crashed at the Pentagon, which makes me question his impartiality, identity and motive. In my mind, the official story that AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon hasn't been conclusively proven. Craig and CIT have an interesting theory, which would resolve some of these inconsistencies. If the government would release any of the 80+ videos they confiscated, perhaps their story could be proven. But until that happens, it's apparent they're covering something up.

UA 93 at Shanksville, PA is almost certainly a fraud. There was very little at the crash site except a smoking V-shaped gouge in the ground. Wreckage and remains were found scattered over a 5 mile radius, so the plane was most likely shot down, as first rumored.

Nothing about the official story of 9/11 should be taken at face value.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Right - thanks for the clarity. So it's still alive?

If you would please keep me informed of any developments, I might be interested in joining in - depending of course on cost & time. I suppose we're talking somewhere in the US$1000/participant area for a day's sim time necessary to get some kind of consensus result?

I am not rated on this class of aircraft, as the 9/11 hijackers were, but am JAA-PPL & all-weather nav & met competent on singles so it would be an interesting experiment for me.

Neither am I US-resident but visit North America several times each year and with enough notice could and would arrange it.

However if the chosen sim visprog no longer includes the WTC towers and it cannot be re-installed for the day, then it can't be a conclusive experiment can it? If you can't line up on one of the towers, open the throttles and dive into it then how can you demonstrate it possible for an amateur to do it? Choose another similar landmark? The WTC were taller than anything else on the NYC skyline so very easy to line up and hit.

Let me know you decide please.



[edit on 19/6/2008 by bovarcher]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


GF....there is a very nice UAL93 video on YouTube, by RKOwen4....I've referenced its link somewhere, maybe this thread....but I tried t bring it here, and unfortunately I 'embedded' it, and that's a no-no.

If you take a little time, search through YT, under that user name, refine your search to UA93, perhaps you'll find it.

Have fun!



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Thanks, I'll look for it.

You should be able to embed YouTube videos by clicking on the YouTube button and copying the 11 digit YouTube video number into the dialogue box.

As for simulators, I know it's been tried, at least for AA 77:

www.911hardfacts.com...


From the essay 'The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training', by Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer and pilot:

"I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)

"Furthermore, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot. At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan - until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings."


In response to Sagadevan's essay, a pilot contacted the writer to report the following. And while it doesn't reference Flight 77 specifically, surely the comments apply to all flights that morning. Including AA 77:

"Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the 'hijacker's' final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a 'hit'. How these rookies who couldn't fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension."



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bovarcher
 


bovarcher.....I lose track of the threads sometimes, sorry...

Mentioned here, I believe, that BA were offereing Simulator time....it's in their 'Corporate Entertainment' link on thier Great Britain website....

In a nutshell (such an American idiom!) it looks like about 500GBP per person. Bigger groups will get split into more Simulators.

Most of the programs offered will include refreshments, and of course, a briefing....this will be conducted in a room, with large photographs of the various cockpit panels, by an instructor. These briefings usually last about one to one and a half hours.

There might be a printed syllabus, to help those who are less proficient in airline procedures, to follow along....to know what to expect, in essence.

There is an old adage, for airline pilots in the training environment....sometimes your brain shuts down, once you sit in the seat.

You can brief all you want, but when stuff starts to happen, well....that's why there's a 'freeze' button for the Instructor to use!!!




posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by bovarcher
 


Also, bovarcher, some chromate primers are a darker green....some are the lime green color, others are more of an olive green. Don't ask me why there's a difference. Could be the way different people perceive color, as well??


Well as an auto body repair person I can give some info on this... Epoxy or Zinc Chromate is used under primer to protect the metals from rusting, or in this case of Aluminum "Corroding" since aluminum doesn't rust, per say.

As for the color the most common is yellow, but green is also used, only one coating is required but you can add a second coat. The more coats you put on the metal the darker the color appears as it is a translucent color.

There technically is no green primer although you can tint primers with a bit of paint. The reason you would want to tint primer is to get it close to the color your going to use to paint so that you could get away with using less paint to hide the primer or get a better coverage. So if you were going to paint something green then you could tint the primer with a little bit of green paint. This is very common in my field of work.

If you were going to paint a plane white, you would not want to use green primer. You would want white primer. If you were going to paint it red then you would use a white or gray primer and probably tint it with red paint so that the paint would cover better.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Thanks, GF...but I screwed up by 'embedding YouTube vids....I used the http address, which I guess is wrong??

I think ATS wish us to provide a link, not an embed....and, here I am, talking llike I know something about computers!!!!

Wow, amazing what one can pick up, just by paying attention.....



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Oh....and GF....as to that 'impossibility' that you just posted...I've debated this on another ATS thread....in fact, that was the actual title here on ATS!!!

Perhaps a quick search will find the old thread....

I, for one, have flown simulators under 'bridges', into 'buildings', etc, etc, etc.

Ain't that difficult!!!

Thing is, in a Sim....the modern highly advanced Sim, you usually have to turn off the motion, or else it can cause physical damage to the machine when you 'crash'. Then, the engineers get all pissy, and complain.

Better Sims will 'crash', but recover with no damage...but, then the Instructor complains, because it takes time to re-set, and eats into the increasingly limited alloted syllabi time, and the Instructor is under pressure to get all the 'students' done in the time alloted....because the airlines keep trimming and trimming, with FAA blessings, in order to save training costs.....

Sharp Instructors will have their finger on the 'Freeze' button, in order to save time. Oh, let's not forget the 'Reposition' button.....makes some pilots crazy!!!

Lateral thinkers, beware!!! You focus, you fly for six or seven minutes in a fairly realistic manner, then you get 'frozen'.....and then suddenly 're-positioned' 20 miles behind where you think you are....and you have to mentaly adjust to an incredibly incredible thing....some just can't do it, especially under the pressure of time...and are told to 'do it again'.

I've seen this so often, it can be disorienting, to some. After 20 years of it, pffft! No problem to me! I have a situational awareness, and that's the key....

Sorry, had a moment there....carry on! Just do it!

A vicious circle, if you ask me.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

I found that UA 93 video you were referring to. As is the case with so many debunkings, I can prove that his allegations are false. He says wreckage was only scattered over a 2 mile radius, mostly lightweight materials that were downwind from the crash site. He also claimed that no wreckage was found from where the plane had flown.

NBC reporter: "that's really all you see is a large crater in the ground", debris scattered over 3-4 mile radius:



UA 93 engine found 1/3 mile from crash site:

web.archive.org...:/www.sharon-herald.com/localnews/recentnews/0110/ln100801c.html


For the first two or three days, Marshall walked the surrounding countryside looking for airplane parts.

"I found a lot of parts," said Marshall, who was awarded a 2000 Law Enforcement Agency Directors award for identifying a man nearly four years after he was found murdered.

"The biggest part I found was one of the plane's engines. It was about 600 yards from the crash site itself. I think they took it out with a winch on a bulldozer."

1,000 pound piece of engine found "a considerable distance" from crater:

archive.southcoasttoday.com...


While the FBI and other authorities have said the plane was mostly obliterated by the 500 mph impact, they also said a 1,000-pound piece of one of the engines was found "a considerable distance" from the crater in the wide open spaces of the Svonavec Coal Co.

FAA employees verify F-16 in area; FBI says debris scattered over 8 miles:

www.pittsburghlive.com...


Meanwhile, speculation continued to swirl around reports that a military fighter jet was seen in the vicinity immediately after the crash.

According to the Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph, FAA employees at an air-traffic control center near Boston learned from controllers at other facilities that an F-16 “stayed in hot pursuit” of the 757.

By 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, the Air Force had taken control of all U.S. airspace, the unidentified controller told the Telegraph. A few minutes later, the Boeing crashed in Stonycreek Township.

The F-16 made 360-degree turns to stay close to the 757, the Telegraph reported. “He must’ve seen the whole thing,” the FAA employee said of the F-16’s pilot.

[FBI Agent] Crowley confirmed that there were two other aircraft within 25 miles of the United flight that were heading east when it crashed, scattering debris over 8 miles.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Ummmmm...GF.....didn't you just, within your own post, contradict what you said was a 'lie' from the YouTube video???

I mean, YOUR sources speak about finding debris, even engine parts....yet you quibble about whether it's a two-mile or four-mile or larger radius??

Did I misunderstand somewhere??

Admittedly, I just perused your post....but it made my head spin as I tried to read it. I'll take notes, and try to understand your point, later.

Busy watching keith Olbermann right now....



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Oh....and GF....as to that 'impossibility' that you just posted...I've debated this on another ATS thread....in fact, that was the actual title here on ATS!!!

Perhaps a quick search will find the old thread....

I, for one, have flown simulators under 'bridges', into 'buildings', etc, etc, etc.

Ain't that difficult!!!

It wasn't claimed to be impossible in a simulator. But he did say after repeated tries, more than two-thirds of the pilots who attempted the maneuver failed to make a 'hit'.

I have no doubt that you'd be part of that one-third.


The aeronautical engineer's challenge was real-life:

"The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). i.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile."


[edit on 19-6-2008 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Cool, a Keith Olbermann viewer. You can't be all bad...

I'll condense it to a few sentences.

I'm refuting his claims that only lightweight debris was carried by the wind over a two-mile radius, as might be the case if the plane crashed in one piece, as was claimed.

Instead, an engine and a 1,000-pound piece of an engine were found 1/3 of a mile and "a considerable distance" from the crash site. The FBI said debris was scattered over 8 miles.

That's some pretty strong wind...



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Did I win the 'Can any one of you debunk the debunkers?????' challenge?

And Captain Weedwhacker, will you come to my defense the next time someone says no CT has ever proven that the official 9/11 story is false?


[edit on 19-6-2008 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


OK, GF....we're mixing up the stories....

As to UAL93, you'll agree that much debris was scattered....some of the more lightweight items were carried several miles. papers, pieces of cloth, etc.

Now, you also, in either the same post, or in two concurrent posts, mentioned something about a commercial jet at 20 feet off the ground at 400MPH or more for over a mile.

Well....I can think of two examples, off the top of my head, that are sufficiently flat to allow a 20 foot low pass for a 'mile or so'....that would be the ocean (or lake....counts as one place) or the Salt Lake Flats.

Someone, somewhere, in the vast internet that we call the desert....or, is it the vast desert we call the internet....no matter (shaking head)

Someone has seemingly tried to use the concept of 'ground effect', a phenomenon well known by pilots when in the LANDING CONFIGURATION to somehow equate to a clean, high-speed low-altitude pass.

Thoroughly debunked, it is seen in many videos from countless airshows...high-speed, clean low passes by large jets.

AND, in the case of AAL77....it DID NOT fly for a mile or more at 20 feet!

While I can see the Pentagon parking lot as I drive by on I-395, it certanly is NOT a mile wide....(although those who get the worst parking spaces may think so).

The B757 could easily come in, low and fast (oh, say 400 feet? Depends on obstacles) and a last minute run at the base to complete the impact.

Ironically, I think if the Camel Jockey flying had any sense, he would have known he'd cause more damage if he had hit higher up....more debris, or 'shrapnell' if you will, would have carried accross the center courtyard (affectionately known as Ground Zero, or so I've seen on the History Channel) and possibly damaged more of the building.

Thoughts?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


OK, GF....we're mixing up the stories....

Thoughts?

Ahem. I'm not mixing up the stories. I can't prove that it's impossible to fly a 757 20 feet off the ground at 400 mph. That's only what an aeronautical engineer claims.

But I can prove, at least according to MSM reports, that if an engine and other large pieces of UA 93 were found more than a third of a mile away from the crash site, it didn't happen the way we were led to believe.

And if an F-16 was tailing it right before it crashed, as verified by FAA employees, I think the implications are clear.

My question is, if this part of the story is demonstrably false, why should we believe any other part of the story?

Isn't that the way perjured testimony works in a court of law?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join