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.

 

"ZERO" by Giulietto Chiesa....New/Unreleased 9/11 Documentary.

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by CityIndian
 


Firstly, how could you possibly know how fast any of those planes are going in the videos above unless you're sitting at the controls? One or two of those videos looked like the plane was doing close to 500mph.


an equally important question is how could you or weedwhacker know?

I'm sure just as many people would say what you have about "what it looked like".

Now what would be interesting is getting the expert opinion of an experienced and professional pilot thats flown one of these jets.

My opinion supports what Cityindian points out.

But aside from that, I find it interesting neither you nor weedwacker remotely addressed cityindians last post which to me is the real issue.

However since you and WW's m/o involves evading issues that you have no answer for to support your agenda, its not much of a surprise.




posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


C'mon you can tell they're not going that fast, and they're nowhere near as low as the pentacon plane would have had to have been.

When you can show me a 757 being flown by a novice for the first time, doing a provable 500MPH and flying 6 meters off the deck, after hitting light poles and then hitting a target perfectly, I'll listen.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
an equally important question is how could you or weedwhacker know?

I go to many airshows during the summer months as a hobby and have been for years. When you have years of experience, you can tell roughly what speed something is travelling at.



Originally posted by Orion7911
Now what would be interesting is getting the expert opinion of an experienced and professional pilot thats flown one of these jets.

There are numerous pilot's forums on the internet that you can go to get those expert opinions. Instead of typing it, you should've just went.




Originally posted by Orion7911
I find it interesting neither you nor weedwacker remotely addressed cityindians last post which to me is the real issue.

I see nothing in Cityindian's last post that merited addressing. Please point out what you would like addressed.



Originally posted by Orion7911
However since you and WW's m/o involves evading issues that you have no answer for to support your agenda, its not much of a surprise.

Then maybe this will come as a surprise: I am a 9/11 truther, WW is not. So there is no "m/o" or "agenda" there. Wanna try again?



Originally posted by CityIndian
C'mon you can tell they're not going that fast, and they're nowhere near as low as the pentacon plane would have had to have been.

To the unexperienced person, maybe. And the second to the last video, the Airbus A310, is about 6-7 meters above the runway at :28 seconds.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Sorry, BoneZ....the videos are not showing 500MPH airplanes....

Some of the low passes were over 250knots, allowed because of the Airshow.

Indian, whether a pilot has 100 hours, or 10,000 hours...flying is flying.

As to all three controlled, targeted collisions, the WTC and the Pentagon, the airplanes were NOT flown level all the way, a dive will allow a rapid increase in speed...dosn't take much of a 'down' angle, either. (Proper term is 'pitch attitude' -- angle of the axis of the fuselge to the horizon). Even s little as 10 degrees 'nose down' pitch, with power on (full throttle) will result in very, very rapid speed increase. Ten degrees is quite shallow, easy to pull level from within a few seconds.

Just for comparison sake, during a normal takeoff we 'rotate' at between 2-3 degrees pitch change per second...and THIS at only around 140-160 knots (depending on airplane) to achieve an intial 'nose-up' pitch attitude of 12-15 degrees for lift-off and climb.

EVEN with the nose up, the airplane continues to accelerate once in the air. At 1,000 feet AGL, the nose is lowered slightly as acceleration continues, and the flaps/slats are retracted.

My point is, with high thrust settings, the airplane accelerates even with the nose up!! Of course, there is a point where acceleration is balanced by drag...it's really all about energy management....kinetic and potential energies.

Hope this explains a bit.....



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Sorry, BoneZ....the videos are not showing 500MPH airplanes....

Never said any of them were. I said 1 or 2 looked close, maybe at least around 400mph.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Indian, whether a pilot has 100 hours, or 10,000 hours...flying is flying.


Huh? Just like driving is driving, or swimming is swimming?

Do you think a person who has had a couple of hours in an automatic sedan could jump in a Peterbuilt fully loaded, and drive it cross country with no problems, and then back it into a loading bay first attempt?

I think a 757 is far more complex, and has far more handling issues to be concerned with, than a truck, no?

Why do people think an aircraft is just point and go? How did the novice pilots know how to line up for the target, and do it first time as ALL 3 did?
How did they know the turning radius, and how long out to start lining up? They only had to be slightly off and they would have had to go around, yet all 3 novice pilots in a 757 for the first time did it perfectly.

How did they know the light poles would not have cause them to crash before hitting their target? Why would they take that chance and not make a steeper decent hitting the center of the complex? Why go so close to the ground and risk crashing? And how did they fly so close to the ground without crashing? Novice pilots doing what expert pilots would regard as difficult to do first pass.

It simply makes no sense, and nothing the government has told us rectifies this.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by CityIndian
Do you think a person who has had a couple of hours in an automatic sedan could jump in a Peterbuilt fully loaded

You're stretching a little bit. He said 100 hours, not a couple. And driving a car or a Peterbuilt is still the same concept. Flying a Cesna or flying a 757 is still the same concept.

I've flown flight simulators for years and yet have never been in a plane. But I bet you that within minutes I could get that plane going and off the ground with no problems.

The difference between a car and Peterbuilt are the controls, but driving either one would be the same concept. Once you've flown one plane, you can fly any plane once you learn the controls.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
"Zero" is a good documentary of 9/11 , however it is not new , I posted about it some time ago.www.abovetopsecret.com... It is available on youtube although it comes in 10 parts. Part 1
Part2
And Part 3
All the rest of the videos are on youtube.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I literally am begging any ATS member, lurker, spectator or what have you to watch this video. It is by far the most compelling collection of evidence ever assembled in regards to seeking the truth for 9/11!

No one ever said the truth would be easy to handle, and in this case that would be the understatement of the century. Such realizations will be extremely difficult for many people, particularly those that will have to face the hard conclusion that we truly are living in a matrix of disinformation, deceit, greed, and mind manipulation.

DENY IGNORANCE! SEEK THE TRUTH!




posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You're stretching a little bit. He said 100 hours, not a couple. And driving a car or a Peterbuilt is still the same concept. Flying a Cesna or flying a 757 is still the same concept.
I've flown flight simulators for years and yet have never been in a plane. But I bet you that within minutes I could get that plane going and off the ground with no problems.
The difference between a car and Peterbuilt are the controls, but driving either one would be the same concept. Once you've flown one plane, you can fly any plane once you learn the controls.


Yes anyone can learn, but these guys had no time to learn. They had one go at it and they were all successful! Don't you get that point? I mean what are the odds of 3 inexperienced pilots, in a new plane for the first time, all hitting their targets first go around? I guess this argument is lost on you though, as you seem to think it's a matter of just pointing ya joy stick at the target.

It would be like 3 people, who have never driven a tractor trailer, backing into a dock 1st time perfectly. That just doesn't happen no matter what they drove before. One might pull it off but all 3 no way.

No the difference is not the controls, it's how it handles. How fast it turns etc.

I fly flight sims also, Forgotten Battles and Micro flight sim. Yes you would get a feel for the instruments and how things operate, but flying the real thing is a whole other story. No re-fly option. Full on realism, that computer flight sims don't even come close to.

Why do you insist on thinking it's so easy? I know, because you fly computer flight sims.

Were you here when John Lear offered to pay for a real flight sim session for anyone who wanted to take on that challenge? Well no one did.


John Lear: Well, you know, five minutes after it happened, I knew that it was a scam. ... No Boeing 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 ever crashed at Shanksville. ... And no Arab hijacker, ever in a million years, ever flew into the World Trade Center. And if you got 30 minutes I'll tell you exactly why he couldn't do it the first time. Now, I'd have trouble doing it the first time.

Rob Balsamo: Yeah, same here.

John Lear: Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour.

Rob Balsamo: Yeah, as a matter of fact, one of our members, he was a 737 Check Airman. He was in the sim at the time on September 11 and right after it happened they tried to duplicate it in the simulator and they said they couldn't do it. They were trying to hit the Towers and they couldn't do it. ...

John Lear: Yeah, it would be an amazing feat of airmanship. ...


Research what real pilots are saying...

[edit on 20-5-2009 by CityIndian]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by CityIndian
 


Actually, as to the Lear challenge, I offered...

Your example of backing a Semi into a loading dock is not accurate.

And, quite frankly, flying a real airplane is actually easier than a Sim.

Remember, these guys had time in actual B757/B767 simulators. So, they had a familiarity. They knew how to engage the A/P, how to use the Mode Control Panel, how to tune the VORs (and where the transponder controls were).. They didn't take-off, raise the landing gear or slats/flaps....all that is what you describe as a skill set, sure, they didn't have that knowledge.

Capt Lear's challenge was loaded with lots of conditions, from the outset, as I recall. Such as starting five miles out, from a 'freeze' position at 1,000 ft AGL. Totally not representing the events accurately. Also, since real airplanes don't 'freeze' in mid-flight it is unfair to assume someone could just "start flying" from dead stop without some acclimazation.

In actual airline training, at my company, there is a goal to strive for as much real-time realism as possible, yet still, because of time demands, we will be 'frozen' and slewed to a new position, before being 'released' to accomplish a procedure and get another task checked off. BUT, we are fully cognizant and there is never a rush, and no surprises. These 're-positionings' are usually to accomplish rejected take-offs and Engine Failure/Fire Procedures, as well as multiple Instrument Approaches, without having to 'fly' all the way around the pattern each time.

Indian, you'd be surprised at yourself if I put you in a Level D full-motion B767 sim with daylight visuals....I think you'd do quite well, if all that was involved was point and crash.....



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by CityIndian
 


You're assuming that pilots flew any of the planes at all. I don't think any human was flying the planes that hit the towers and lack of evidence shows no planes hit the Pentagon and Shanksville.



Originally posted by CityIndian
Research what real pilots are saying...

First off, I was part of the staff of Pilots for 9/11 Truth until I resigned, so I know what "real" pilots are saying. Secondly, there are many adjectives I could use to describe John Lear after reading his disinfo statement of how no planes could have hit the towers, but suffice it to say he has no idea what he's talking about, or he's just "lost it", and he's uncredible for either of the above. That's the end of that discussion.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
I watched this on The History Channel a few hours ago and this would have to be one of the worst 9/11 documentaries I have seen.

Any film that asserts at this point that no commerical aircraft hit the Pentagon does not deserve to see the light of day.

I found Dario Fo's demeanour in this video appalling and offensive, and I found it hard to stop myself from putting my foot through the TV to rid the screen of his googly eyed ridiculous grin.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by discombobulator]



If everything is made up of light energy, then couldn't they just use a type of hologram energy that is real yet it is made inn likeness of the real plane but is not infact the real plane.

This hologram plane however is ENERGY adn therefore can still cause the explosion we see which is real.

It really hits the towers, yet it is not real to us as we know. It would be a different more advanced form of energy, one we are not familiar with in the public.

Could this be the case?



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
I watched this on The History Channel a few hours ago and this would have to be one of the worst 9/11 documentaries I have seen.

Any film that asserts at this point that no commerical aircraft hit the Pentagon does not deserve to see the light of day.

I found Dario Fo's demeanour in this video appalling and offensive, and I found it hard to stop myself from putting my foot through the TV to rid the screen of his googly eyed ridiculous grin.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by discombobulator]



My question is why are so many people adamant that a plane hit the pentagon? Is it the 5 FRAMES of video, that is less than a second in video length in real time? Why so much video coverage of the TOWERS but when it comes to the pentagon, they release 5 FRAMES. Towers = 25 videos - PENTAGON = 5 FRAMES. Do the math, it doesnt quite add up.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by imeddieone4202003]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by imeddieone4202003
Towers = 25 videos - PENTAGON = 5 FRAMES. Do the math, it doesnt quite add up.

Actually, it's 45 for the towers. 2 for the north tower and 43 for the south tower. And 80+ for the Pentagon, but we only get to see 5 frames plus the hotel and gas station videos which didn't show anything.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



BoneZ, you know I like quibbling with you...but, you've surprised me with this statement:


You're assuming that pilots flew any of the planes at all. I don't think any human was flying the planes that hit the towers and lack of evidence shows no planes hit the Pentagon and Shanksville.


The overwhelming evidence from the recovered UAL93 SSFDR and CVR, and the AAL77 SSFDR (CVR was unreadable) confirm human activity on the Flight Deck of both airplanes. I can link the NTSB reports, if you'd like.

Unfortunately, we don't have the Recorders from AAL11 and UAL175...although Recorders are designed to withstand tremendous forces, no way could they survive being crushed by buildings as massive as the Towers -- regardless of what cause the collapses.

You seem to not subscribe to the Capt Lear 'theory' of incredibly sophisticated 'holograms' and space-based 'directed energy weapons' (he is still sticking to that story, as of his interview in January, 2009, on Coast-to-Coast). SO, are you theorizing some sort of remote control? Because, if so, that's even more implausible than terrorist pilots, seems to me....but, whadda I KNOW, hmmmm?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The overwhelming evidence from the recovered UAL93 SSFDR and CVR, and the AAL77 SSFDR (CVR was unreadable) confirm human activity on the Flight Deck of both airplanes.

I never mentioned 77 or 93. I specifically said the planes that hit the towers only.




Originally posted by weedwhacker
Unfortunately, we don't have the Recorders from AAL11 and UAL175

Actually, we do!


But the FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered.

There has always been some skepticism about this assertion, particularly as two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them.

A source at the National Transportation Safety Board...says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB.

"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."
Source

If they can find tiny bone fragments, certainly they can find some bright orange boxes. What's on those black boxes that they need to hide? What's on the 80+ videos of the Pentagon impact that they need to hide? Too much hiding and covering up of evidence and not enough transparency.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
SO, are you theorizing some sort of remote control?

It has been theorized for many years, but it is only a theory.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Well...I'd doubt your CounterPunch 'source'....it states that the UAL93 data Recorder was damaged beyond recovery...(although I've seen the NTSB readouts)...THEN your same source has a link at the bottom called "PROOF" from UAL93's 'black box altitude readings' that United was shot down....(I am paraphrasing, from memory...)

Why do they have it both ways????

Seems to diminish their cred.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well...I'd doubt your CounterPunch 'source'....it states that the UAL93 data Recorder was damaged beyond recovery...(although I've seen the NTSB readouts)

No, it says "allegedly" damaged beyond recovery as that was the official story back then. Notice the Counterpunch article was written in December of 2005. With the exception of a partial transcript of Flight 93's CVR, the contents of any of the black boxes remained unknown to the public until August of 2006, when the National Security Archive published the "NTSB Reports" including flight path and other studies of those flights.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Seems to diminish their cred.

I hope the "credibility" of the Counterpunch article is restored for you.



[edit on 22-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Well, my understanding has been that because it was an ongoing criminal investigation, and not just an accident investigation, public disclosure was delayed.


...the contents of any of the black boxes remained unknown to the public until August of 2006, when the National Security Archive published the "NTSB Reports" including flight path and other studies of those flights.


Catalyst for the disclosure seems to be the Moussani trial.

The NTSB SSFDR data for AAL77 and UAL93 were completed in 2002, I recall. The report is in the NTSB archives.

There is another link somewhere of the actual FAA ATC transcripts pertinent to UAL93, along with hand-written notes from all of the controllers involved. (Link is on of these 9/11 threads, sorry can't remember where...I'm borrowing a computer today).

There is a preponderance of evidence the 'no-planers' wish to ignore, in favor of certain mis-leading and mis-conceived 'public domain' info that infiltrated the web during the time before official documents were released -- hence, the notion of "cover-up" blossomed.

Reminds me of "Moon Landing Hoax" theories, to be quite honest...but, that's been reserved for somewhere else!!



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join