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.

 

Wow! YouTube Documentary shows WTC Impact/Explosion and No Plane @ (5:40m) ?!?!

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
Guys,

Please check out this German site put together by some independent engineers home.debitel.net...

Have a look at the Pilot Quiz and see what the holes in the tower really look like. Look around at that site because those guys are really good.


Best
D.Duck


Hej på dig, Duck!

And many thanks for the link.

Even though this one here shows the WTC 1, it's still very very telling, as I'm sure
the same will turn out to be in relation to WTC 2!:

home.debitel.net...


Cheers

PS!
The link above doesn't lead straight to the page intended, so click on:

"WTC 1 quite close with detail - - construction of the facade" - when you get there.

This should get you into the page, showing you what was linked to in the first place!





[edit on 3-3-2009 by djeminy]




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

Originally posted by D.Duck
Guys,

Please check out this German site put together by some independent engineers home.debitel.net...

Have a look at the Pilot Quiz and see what the holes in the tower really look like. Look around at that site because those guys are really good.


Best
D.Duck


Hej på dig, Duck!

And many thanks for the link.

Even though this one here shows the WTC 1, it's still very very telling, as I'm sure
the same will turn out to be in relation to WTC 2!:

home.debitel.net...


Cheers

PS!
The link above doesn't lead straight to the page intended, so click on:

"WTC 1 quite close with detail - - construction of the facade" - when you get there.

This should get you into the page, showing you what was linked to in the first place!





[edit on 3-3-2009 by djeminy]


Hej på dig själv djeminy,

Haha, those Swedes show up when you least expect it. I am still living in Sweden and its a small country with only 9 million people.

I lived in L.A. 20 years ago and it was the best time in my life, I love USA and the people there and thats why I am fighting to get to the truth of 9/11.

The people of USA needs to take back their country that has been hijacked by a criminal kabal and they need all the help they can get.

People here in Sweden are waking up and realize that no 767/757 hit the towers.

djeminy, are you living in Sweden?

Skål
D.Duck



[edit on 3-3-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck


Hej på dig själv djeminy,

Haha, those Swedes show up when you least expect it. I am still living in Sweden and its a small country with only 9 million people.

I lived in L.A. 20 years ago and it was the best time in my life, I love USA and the people there and thats why I am fighting to get to the truth of 9/11.

The people of USA needs to take back their country that has been hijacked by a criminal kabal and they need all the help they can get.

People here in Sweden are waking up and realize that no 767/757 hit the towers.

djeminy, are you living in Sweden?

Skål
D.Duck

[edit on 3-3-2009 by D.Duck]



Hej igen Duck,

Follow you all the way!

No, actually: kommer fra den anden side af sundet, but my dear mormor was from
Helsingborg, so there's still a wonderful connection there between you and me!

Now I'm living in Australia, and trying hard to educate the locals in the pleasure of
indulging in marinated swedish Herrings followed by ice cold danish Aquavit. ('Snaps' to
the uninformed)!

When they thus are overcome with feelings of utter contentment, open-mindedness and
joviality, then is the time to hit them with the tragic fact, that 9/11 was the biggest con
job in the history of the United Bluff!
It's amazing then, to find how receptive the australiens are to the idea, and how little it
really surprises them!

Skål in return

and cheers



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   


To accomplish the 40 miles distance in the time span given by NTSB, the B767 would have been flying way beyond acceptable safety parameters, and with great danger of experiencing structural damage, or simply would have broken apart under such strain


Safety limits are set by manufacterer/FAA - they are designed to avoid
overstressing airframe to prevent metal fatigue and for passenger
comfort.

When you are going to slam it into a building in 10 minutes you do
not care if you are overstressing the aircraft or if the passengers are
enjoying the ride.

Its like my car - I can go 120 mph (200 kph), but I dont - its not safe and
wears out the vehicle



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
but you still get the derailers that claim that the NPT is a bad thing for the 911 cause.

Must be the 9/11 disinfo cause, because the professional research organizations and others involved in the 9/11 truth movement have taken measures to distance themselves from NPT by letting their members know that they do not support NPT.

Other websites, such as Loose Change and 9/11 Blogger have it written right in the forum rules that NPT is disinfo and anyone peddling it will be banned. Nobody in the 9/11 truth movement supports NPT and most call it disinfo from disinfo artists like the one I busted in this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



To accomplish the 40 miles distance in the time span given by NTSB, the B767 would have been flying way beyond acceptable safety parameters, and with great danger of experiencing structural damage, or simply would have broken apart under such strain


Safety limits are set by manufacterer/FAA - they are designed to avoid
overstressing airframe to prevent metal fatigue and for passenger
comfort.

When you are going to slam it into a building in 10 minutes you do
not care if you are overstressing the aircraft or if the passengers are
enjoying the ride.

Its like my car - I can go 120 mph (200 kph), but I dont - its not safe and
wears out the vehicle



Thedman,

This is what happens when you fly a plane over its limit.

www.youtube.com...

If you fly a plane over its limit is the same thing as if you are driving your car at 120 MPH in 5th gear and you suddenly put it in 1st gear at the same speed and that's over the limit of what the engine can handle, well you know what happens.

D.Duck


[edit on 3-3-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 


The limits are not always cut and dry. Planes have flown past their limits for short periods of time all the time. It's not like you hit the limit and the plane instantly breaks apart. Flying a 767 over the limits for the amount of time that it did before it hit the tower is NOT impossible.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by D.Duck
 


The limits are not always cut and dry. Planes have flown past their limits for short periods of time all the time. It's not like you hit the limit and the plane instantly breaks apart. Flying a 767 over the limits for the amount of time that it did before it hit the tower is NOT impossible.


Well I think these guys knows what they are talking about.

Aeronautical Engineers Confirm Impossible Speed Of United Airlines Flight 175 phone call made by Jeff Hill.

Paul Furnee
www.pumpitout.com...

Ben Eadie
www.pumpitout.com...

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Your responses are particularly incisive.

It appears that you are using intimidation tactics, which only brings suspicion upon you concerning your motives.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 


Engineers have been wrong before. Just because they have "Aeronautical Engineer" in their title doesn't mean they're infallible. After an Israeli F-15 landed minus one wing all the engineers asked came to the conclusion that there was no way that one could land minus a wing until they were shown the pictures. The planes SHOULD have failed, but that doesn't mean automatically that they did.

EgyptAir flight 990 withstood a lot more than engineers thought it could before structural failure.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
but I have NEVER EVER seen this particular clip which is at 5:40

The clip at 5:40 is the clip with the "missing left wing" and they just took the whole plane out. It's a fake.


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
pre-planted explosives

Pre-planted explosives would have to have been on the outside of the building for all to see because explosives don't suck things in, they blow things out. The building was pushed IN, so no explosives were used in place of planes.



Yep, the pic shows huge chunks of building pushed IN by a big plane. Nothing to see here......



You obviously dont know how explosvies work and are coming off quite ignorant. Anyone who has any experience with explosives knows that you can direct an explosion at any which way you want due to practical design, Therefore YOU CAN USE AN EXPLOSIVE TO SUCK A BUILDING WALL IN HOW THE HECK DO YOU THINK DEMO TEAMS IMPODE BUILDINGS? YOU THINK THERES A THING CALLED IMPLOSIVES?

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Winterwinds]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Isn't it amazing how the physics laws took a day off on almost all accounts on 9/11. So did the statistics department of our world. 9/11 defied the law of probabilities hundreds of times and also the laws of physics and yet we're suppose to chalk it up to reality.

There is a point where some have to ask how is it possible. But it appears that there are select groups that just listen to anything the media says the government told them. I'm one that doesn't get fooled by the propaganda.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Winterwinds
 


that photo is one of bonez's most favorite. If you follow all his postings within the 911 threads you will see that he really likes that one and may know more than we about its coming to be. You will find that pointing anything out will be excruciating and the beginning of a tiresome circle.

Little proof is provided but many rants and attacks will ensue. Don't feed the trolls.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
Well I think these guys knows what they are talking about.
Aeronautical Engineers Confirm Impossible Speed Of United Airlines Flight 175

Those AE's do know what they're talking about. The NPT crowd just doesn't understand what those AE's are talking about, or purposely twisted the AE's words.

The AE's are correct, you cannot take off in a 767 and climb to 800 feet and attempt to come close to 500+mph. The engines on a 767 aren't powerful enough to reach those speeds in the thick atmosphere down here. You can reach 35,000 feet altitude, then descend to 800 feet and go as fast as you want within the aircraft's capabilities. 500+mph is within the aircraft's capabilities, so it's not unreasonable that the aircraft was doing those speeds when it hit the south tower.

The aircraft that hit the south tower was not going level when it hit the south tower. It was coming down from a higher altitude. Unless you extend the flaps while descending and decelerate the engines, you will gain speed. Hell, you could turn the engines off and still reach and exceed 500+mph at 800 feet altitude while descending from a higher altitude. You don't need engine power to reach 500+mph when descending from a higher altitude.

The AE in the audio link even said you can't reach 500mph at 800 feet while flying level. A real researcher would have asked if the plane could do 500mph at 800 feet after descending from 35,000 feet. He would have said YES. But once you reach 800 feet and keep flying at that altitude, the speed would bleed off because the engines wouldn't be powerful enough to maintain that speed.

To sum this one up, the NPT crowd didn't understand the AE's, or they purposefully twisted the AE's words to suit their own agenda, which wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last.



Originally posted by Winterwinds
You obviously dont know how explosvies work and are coming off quite ignorant.

Done any research lately? Probably not as you already debunked yourself. Yes, explosives in demolitions can take out supports to make an entire wall COLLAPSE any way they want. Explosives don't suck debris in, they BLOW debris out.

Some of the steel columns in that picture are pushed in as are huge chunks of building. There is no "collapse in" in that picture, only "push in", from a plane.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I have also accepted this cgi theory, as I do not believe in coincidence.



Let's say you were going to animate a plane into a building. The best way to do it is create a motion map that is true to scale. This could have been done as seen in this footage by launching a trajectory away from the building with GPS monitoring to succesfully be able to create a motion map. The plane would then be mapped and readily animated from several pre-selected areas for shooting.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by 12.21.12]

[edit on 3-3-2009 by 12.21.12]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Little proof is provided but many rants and attacks will ensue. Don't feed the trolls.

Says the person who just spent a whole post attacking me instead of posting something on topic as the forum rules say.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 12.21.12
 


That is really interesting, and very plausible. This footage was from a couple of weeks before I think. I saw this a few years ago and it could have been what they used to get their CGI in sync with the cameras of the MSM.

Thanks for pointing that out...



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


Well I was publicly ridculed for making this thread here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But for whattever it's worth, I hope the information is helpful. There was a discussion in this thread about the Woolworth building and an alleged missile that was launched from it's rooftop.

Also take note that the trajectory is about the same level that the plane struck.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by 12.21.12]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


If I am not mistaken. That footage was taken one year prior to 9/11.

Oh the irony.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by 12.21.12]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
OP asked for a video of plane hitting the building that wasn't fake so here's about 50 of them all rolled into one




I think that 4:35 is one of the cleanest amateur videos and they even comment that "another f* plane hit the building."

Just in case you're serious about the original video you presented. The planes pictured in that video are of really low quality so its hard to see the detail when they hit. When the plane does hit you can clearly see debris on many higher quality videos.

The real question you should be asking is wtf hit the pentagon?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join