New Video - No real planes hit World Trade Center (Continuous Pieces)

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 

I missed this post,
If he was part of a cover up why not kill him outright?
The pole could have just killed him right there.

Much better than leaving a loose end.




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
has anyone watched september clues? plane or no plane, this set of videos actually points out how and why the videos are fraudulant, and it IS clear as day.

www.youtube.com...

now, I believe we should all stop and think, and come to an accord. stop arguing whether or not there were planes on that day... Those of us who WERE NOT there DO NOT KNOW what happened. Those of us who WERE there either saw planes hit, or through traumatic circumstance believed they saw something simply to rationalize why it didnt add up. EITHER WAY.

we are NOT fighting about this, remember, we are clearly accepting that these videos pumped over and over on the news and main stream media are completely doctored. there are clips in there that are UN DE NY A BLE.
planes or no planes, the news outlets have most people fooled with the videos depicting the airliners hitting the towers. it is very possible there were planes that day, and that the videos were created and doctored to cover up what was really happening.
we lose ourselves in the argument and forget why we are arguing. we are all on the same side. guys, if you are like me and were NOT there, then we simply cannot know what happened. what we CAN see is that these videos are showing impossible situations. if you were one of the unfortunate ones to witness this horiffic attack on america by american tyrants, then what you saw is what you saw and no one can tell you that you are wrong, but you must watch the videos and know that something doesnt add up. we are on the same side, lets realize what point it is we are trying to make.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Does someone have that clip of the plane crashing into the south tower where it looks like the plane enters the building with no problem? Must admit that one looks pretty weird.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by screwedagain
 


I know what you mean that's the worst 911 video I've seen in a long time.
Now to start trying to find a clean version



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by screwedagain
 


Heres 3 good ones no flicker




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


That third video looks like a stationary camera, was it on a tripod?

If it was a security cam then wouldn't it have caught the first plane hitting the tower? (although I can't see why you would need a security cam there though!)

Anyone know who took the film?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


Well lets not discuss the first two aye?

It was a news crew filming the burning building.
Yes I believe it was on a tripod.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Sorry, I only asked.

So what do you want to discuss about the first two? I can't tell by your posts if you believe the NPT.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Sorry, I only asked.

So what do you want to discuss about the first two? I can't tell by your posts if you believe the NPT.



No I don't believe in the NPT. It's ridiculous. As I stated earlier there is plenty of eye witnesses, plenty of video not to mention still photos!

It was covered live. This is just yet another example of people who were not there and only watched it on TV or later on youtube and listen to people who were also not there spin yarns about some tinfoil conspiracy made up in their moms basement!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Sorry, I only asked.

So what do you want to discuss about the first two? I can't tell by your posts if you believe the NPT.



No I don't believe in the NPT. It's ridiculous. As I stated earlier there is plenty of eye witnesses, plenty of video not to mention still photos!

It was covered live. This is just yet another example of people who were not there and only watched it on TV or later on youtube and listen to people who were also not there spin yarns about some tinfoil conspiracy made up in their moms basement!


alright, since you guys fighting the theory are simply talking and clearly NOT reading the other posts, i will copy and paste mine here... hopefully you guys will actually read it this time.

has anyone watched september clues? plane or no plane, this set of videos actually points out how and why the videos are fraudulant, and it IS clear as day.

www.youtube.com...

now, I believe we should all stop and think, and come to an accord. stop arguing whether or not there were planes on that day... Those of us who WERE NOT there DO NOT KNOW what happened. Those of us who WERE there either saw planes hit, or through traumatic circumstance believed they saw something simply to rationalize why it didnt add up. EITHER WAY.

we are NOT fighting about this, remember, we are clearly accepting that these videos pumped over and over on the news and main stream media are completely doctored. there are clips in there that are UN DE NY A BLE.
planes or no planes, the news outlets have most people fooled with the videos depicting the airliners hitting the towers. it is very possible there were planes that day, and that the videos were created and doctored to cover up what was really happening.
we lose ourselves in the argument and forget why we are arguing. we are all on the same side. guys, if you are like me and were NOT there, then we simply cannot know what happened. what we CAN see is that these videos are showing impossible situations. if you were one of the unfortunate ones to witness this horiffic attack on america by american tyrants, then what you saw is what you saw and no one can tell you that you are wrong, but you must watch the videos and know that something doesnt add up. we are on the same side, lets realize what point it is we are trying to make.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by mosey]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mosey
 


Actually I have been reading the posts as I always do. Ive also watched september clues (including the revised editions), 9/11 taboo and tv fakery when they first came out and many times since, plus numerous other docs on the subject.

And I think there is something in the NPT as I have said many times in lots of other threads.

So don't try and tell me my onions!




posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I agree with the original post which states that a Jetliner cannot go as fast as claimed by those who have supposedly analyzed the alleged videos (500kts+)

The problem with those estimates is not that the engines could, or could not, produce enough thrust at 1000' Above Sea Level for those speeds because obviously they could.

The real problem is that Airliners are not able to go those speeds at 1,000 feet ASL is because of structural limitations of the aircraft which all 4 presumed aircraft substantially exceeded.

The typical jetliner takes off at speeds under 300kts and raises the nose to a 7 degree up attitude (maintaining the lower speed) and climbs at power established by the flight director to an altitude of 35 or 36,000' (for example) and then lowers the nose and using thrust accelerates to 500kts+ cruising speed.

Of course the throttles and aircraft attitude are controlled by the flight management computers and autopilot and this keeps the aircraft speed well under what's called the Vne speed (velocity never exceed speed).

The Vne speed is never exceeded because numbers above Vne are guaranteed to cause structural damage to the aircraft, i.e., the wings or tail sections will definitely separate from the aircraft, or the control surfaces (and flaps) if used.

Further, as the Vne speed is approached (usually on descent) the clacker goes off like a machine gun in the cockpit and then it's assh***s and elbows as the pilot's scramble to reduce speed by either pulling back on the throttles or changing nose attitude to adjust the aircraft speed below the Vne speed.

500kts+ at 35k is possible due to the thinner atmosphere and colder temps but as the aircraft descends the Vne speed reduces and the aircraft stays well under the structural limits once again by nose attitude and throttle adjustments.

Checking the flight manuals will give the Vne speeds at every altitude and once again, at 1000' ASL that speed is well below 350kts.

Military jets are able to fly 500kts+++ at 1000'ASL because they're structurally built for it, but if those Jetliners were flying as fast as the video analysis suggests then they were headed straight down without wings, tail feathers, and control surfaces.

Next time you're walking through an airport ask any heavy jet driver you see about Vne on his airplane.

Further, the chances of any pilot with only small aircraft experience being able to jump into the left seat of a heavy complex jet and fly it, is less than ZERO. And certainly none of the alleged hijackers had the ability to do it.

Flying heavy metal is a very touchie feelie skill which takes considerable training to accomplish and if you imagine the momentum of 100 tons and a wide wing span you'll realize that once that momentum gets away from the pilot the wings could be ripped off trying to get it back (if the bird doesn't go over on its back).

Further, the flight directors and/or auto pilot will not operate at speeds (above Vne) and will disconnect requiring that the pilot hand fly the aircraft, which again requires considerable skill which none of the hijackers had.

These realities suggests to me that normal Jetliners could not have been flying at the claimed speeds as supposedly proven by video analysis nor could they have been flown by inexperienced pilots PERIOD......

And, it's a lead-pipe cinch that the aircraft which maneuvered over the pentagon could not have flown at the speeds suggested or have been flown by the hijackers as suggested. But of course, in the case of the both the Pentagon (and Penn.) there's no wreckage to suggest that a Jetliner crashed in either place anyway.

Therefore, since those speeds weren't possible at 1000'ASL, and flight by unskilled pilots wasn't possible either, the real question for me is where are those airplanes? And where are the alleged passengers that were supposed to be in them? Or, where are their bodies?



[edit on 25-3-2009 by swami don]

[edit on 26-3-2009 by swami don]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
True airspeed was about 602 mph at 22,200 feet.



Originally posted by Zaphod58
0.86 at 22,000 is about 603 mph.


Zaph, you claimed .99M 602 mph for EA990 at 22k. Now you claim 603 mph is .86M at 22K?


Zaph, you are so lost.

Its not "arrogance". You are the one who displays arrogance through ignorance.



[edit on 28-3-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757
Now tell us what "Vne" was at 22,000 feet in terms of "mph".


At 25,000 feet Vmo/Mmo is 501mph/Mach 0.72. Vne/Vmo are speeds not to exceed INTENTIONALLY in flight or you RISK structural damage. It doesn't say that if you exceed them you WILL break apart.


The point being that while it DID break up from excessive speed, it ALSO broke up from excessive G forces from diving, then pulling up,


Yeah, because UA175 didnt "pull up" at all?

UA175 wasn't in a near vertical dive, and then pull up hard enough to zoom up 6,000 feet. UA175 was in a much shallower dive, with a much easier pull up at the end.



First of all, please reference Vmo/Mmo. Jets dont use Vne (well, not in this case at least).

You may also want to re-check the NTSB report on EA990 as "it" wasnt past "Vne" for "several minutes". Matter of fact, it was past "Vne" for approximately 30 seconds before losing all aircraft power indicating some type of structural failure. The continued uncontrollability effects witnessed by primary radar in a short period of time further indicates a broken airplane due to excessive speed and perhaps 2.4G (less than Transport Category G limits).


As noted Vmo/Mmo is 501mph/0.72 Mach. EA990 exceeded Mach 0.86 (max operating speed) and was at 0.99 Mach at 0150:23. The aircraft pulled up at 16,000 feet and at 0151:15 the second dive began and lasted until impact. That's over a minute at speeds exceeding maximum operating speeds. UA175 could have easily been at the speeds shown for the length of time it was until impact.



No one said it did. But, Manufacturers place limits on airspeed for a reason, and yes, it has alot to do with the health of all on board, not some arbitrary number.


If you don't care about the "health of all on board" what does it matter if you exceed Vne for a short time?



First you agree it broke apart due to excessive speed, then you add G loads, now you say its due to impact? Make up your mind. It would also be nice if you could provide such a quote from the NTSB.


The excessive speed was a contributing cause. Excessive speed, combined with G loads will cause an airframe to break apart. That's what happened to the F-15 that went down in November of 07. And I said that the NTSB said that the aircraft impacted the water before breaking up. I saw reports that said it both ways. This report says that the accident cause was departure from controlled cruise flight and subsequent impact with the Atlantic Ocean.


Obviously you missed this little tidbit...



Seven primary radar returns from the airplane were recorded during the second dive; the altitude estimates from these returns are subject to potentially large errors, which introduces significant uncertainty into the performance calculations during the second dive.


During the SECOND DIVE. That means that it was intact at least up until the point that it stalled after pulling out of the dive. Which means that it successfully passed Vmo/Mmo and Vne and remained intact through pulling out of the dive, at those speeds.

[edit on 3/28/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
At 25,000 feet Vmo/Mmo is 501mph/Mach 0.72.


Thats not what i asked (by the way, your numbers are incorrect for a typical October night in the NE and STD adiabatic lapse rate).

I asked what is "Vne" for a 767, at 22,000 feet, in terms of mph? The NTSB already posted .86M is "Vne" at altitude. Now you want to change Mach number?

Zaphod, you only constructed 3 pieces of the puzzle, the fourth (and most important i might add), you conveniently omit. When asked? you choose obfuscation in terms of completely different numbers.

Now, i dont think you do it intentionally, i just think you came to a battle of aero knowledge, unarmed.

So, anytime you want to address .86M in terms of mph at 22,000, let us know. We know you are unable to figure such a number as indicative in your reply.




UA175 wasn't in a near vertical dive,


Neither was EA990.


and then pull up hard enough to zoom up 6,000 feet. UA175 was in a much shallower dive, with a much easier pull up at the end.


Great. It apears you have the FDR tabulated data and animation reconstruction provided by the NTSB. Please share.

So, let me get this straight... a trained 767 Capt pulls to "zoom up" 6,000 feet to break the airplane, but a "hijacker"with zero time in type has the finesse to "baby" the aircraft... 150+ knots over Vmo, into the WTC? Uh huh.... and i suppose the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate cam...


Hey, want to buy a bridge? I got one for sale cheap. Its in Brooklyn!




As noted Vmo/Mmo is 501mph/0.72 Mach.


.72M is not limiting on the 767 at altitude. Its .86M.


EA990 exceeded Mach 0.86 (max operating speed) and was at 0.99 Mach at 0150:23.


Very good, now tell us what .86M is in terms of mph at 22,000 feet like you were asked and dodged.

Max operating is .86M or .72M? Which is it Zaph?



The aircraft pulled up at 16,000 feet and at 0151:15 the second dive began and lasted until impact.


According to primary radar which the NTSB admits..



the altitude estimates from these returns are subject to potentially large errors, which introduces significant uncertainty into the performance calculations during the second dive


... yet you take as gospel...






If you don't care about the "health of all on board" what does it matter if you exceed Vne for a short time?


Let us know when you establish .86M in terms of mph at 22,000 feet. Then we'll talk on this matter.



The excessive speed was a contributing cause. Excessive speed, combined with G loads will cause an airframe to break apart.


Glad you agree, and glad i quoted you. But that is not what you said the NTSB claimed. Short memory perhaps?

Say, any chance you'll want to debate P4T on the matter? How come you never registered there?


During the SECOND DIVE. That means that it was intact at least up until the point that it stalled after pulling out of the dive. Which means that it successfully passed Vmo/Mmo and Vne and remained intact through pulling out of the dive, at those speeds.


Really, and you have the FDR/CVR data proving as such?

According to the NTSB, the entire aircraft lost power shortly after "peak" .99M, descending through 22,400. But i guess you trust primary radar when the NTSB themselves admit there can be huge errors.

Edit: Fixed tags

[edit on 28-3-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 


If Vmo is a constant, then how can it be as low as it is at 700 feet? If it's that low at sea level, then it has to be lower than the 0.86 until you reach cruising altitude.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If Vmo is a constant


Who said Vmo is a constant? Its clear you do not understand why Max operating is expressed as Vmo/Mmo.


then how can it be as low as it is at 700 feet? If it's that low at sea level, then it has to be lower than the 0.86 until you reach cruising altitude.


Mmo is only valid at "cruising altitude"? Is that what you're telling us?


So, what happens when a "crusing altitude" is 11,000 feet CVG-ATL? Is .86M limiting?

What if an aircraft has a Vmo/Mmo of 365/.84?

Does that mean such aircraft can accelerate to .84 at 9,000 feet CVG-DAY since that is "cruise altitude" for such a leg? (FAR's notwithstanding)

You are so out of your league Zaph its not even funny.

Zaph... anytime you want to give us the airspeed in terms of "mph" for Mmo .86M at 22,000 feet as defined by the NTSB themselves... we're waiting.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 


And I thought I had seen arrogance around here.


0.86 at 22,000 is about 603 mph.

And here I thought ATS was for discussion, not being an arrogant jerk when someone is wrong. I guess I was wrong about that, it's more about telling off the person that's wrong, instead of showing them where they're wrong and having a discussion. Its all about being right I guess. Have fun with your "discussion".



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You'll have to use the "ignore" button. Rob has been like this for quite some time and I don't think he'll change anytime soon.

Your figures do appear to be correct.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join