Flight 11 vs. 175 -- Impact Study & Fakery Anomalies

reply to post by titorite

Thunderstorms happen. Thats a reality. Sometimes having a reflective paint or primer in such a situation can help ground control help a pilot...

Firstly, this is NOT off-topic, because the notion of "radar reflective paint" is used by no-planers to "prove" that there were no airplanes because they would have been seen so easily by radar and shot down....or whatever the latest crackpot idea is floating around today.

I have already explained to you, here and U2U, because you (and others) have asked, why it is untrue that 'reflective paint' is used on airliners. You are refusing to pay attention. I even pointed out the FACT that American Airlines airplanes have hardly any paint at all!!!!!!!! Take a moment and look at a photo.

Look:



A red/white and blue stripe on the fuselage, and the vertical fin is painted gray, with logo.

NOW, you've just demonstrated that YOU are not a pilot with that ridiculous comment about ground controllers 'helping' pilots in thunderstorms!!! Wrong!

We have radar ONBOARD. We see the thunderstorms because they are dense with the water...the heaviest, densest portions (the wx 'cells') are the most dangerous and have the most destructive turbulence. ATC radar is not designed to detect weather. It is not the controller's job to 'steer' airplanes around weather. Sometimes their radar will paint some really strong cells, so they will see it and are able to advise small airplanes, and such...or there is sometimes technology that has a satellite feed that the controller can refer to. You may be 'Joe Sunday Pilot' with 50 hours in a Cessna or something, but you are out of your league if you try to tell ME that I don't know about aviation!

Which you obviously are not. If you were you would of known that and not made such a ridiculous counter argument.

Pot? This is kettle.

ahh they'd do better to wrap flight data recorders inside passport material, or a red bandana.

Those seem to be impervious to these "plane shattering ka-booms".

Or they could just realese any of the 70-80 odd CCTV cameras that were aimed the side of the pentagon that was blown up, instead of confiscating them. *shrugs*

Maybe we then might see what hit the pentagon?

reply to post by Nola213

Or they could just realese any of the 70-80 odd CCTV cameras that were aimed the side of the pentagon that was blown up, instead of confiscating them.

70-80 CCTV cameras?? "pentagon"??

This thread is about AAL11 and UAL175 -- NYC

But: Know what CCTV stands for? What the initials mean? And,,,"70-80"??? You can't be serious.

Your flight recorder joke was just stupid. Two out of the four DFDRs were recovered, but the two in the WTC rubble were not. They did not get thrown clear during the crash sequence.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Does it say that the tire embedded 90 stories up, and they fell together as one??

How do you think that tire got embedded in that facade piece?

This ought to be interesting.

reply to post by ATH911


"embedded"???

It's in one of the openings....that's not 'embedded'.

How did that happen? Who cares...it's a bloody picture!!!

Tell ya what --- let's say someone tasked YOU to 'stage' a scene with some debris, and gave you a tire as well to add...HOW would YOU (or any average person) placed it?

Oh...and do you have any idea how large and heavy those tires are?

So...sure....stay with the fantasy of scene 'staging'.....yeah.

reply to post by Nola213


*headslap*

This has to be one of the most ignorant comments to make about debris and what can survive. Ah so a passport and a red bandanna are recovered from the debris, I wonder if they also recovered any other passports, towels, underwear, clothes, from the rest of the passangers? Or shoes? Or hats? When Flight 1771 went down years ago they recovered the suicide note written on a barf bag. GAsp! According to you, that must mean a conspiracy and it was planted by someone right?

I just heard an Airbus 310 went down off the coast of eastern Africa with 153 people. a CHILD is the only survivor right now out of that plane load. Must be a conspiracy too right? Somebody must have planted the kid.

I thought Abovetopsecret was all about denying ignorance.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by ATH911
I do find it interesting that no plane debris remains in either of the two WTC gashes.

I find it interesting that people think a 300,000 pound object travelling at circa 500mph is going to stop on a dime and leave parts sticking out the impact hole.

There's really only 2 possible explanations for that:

1- they're too ignorant to realize that it's ridiculous, so just post what you have to say a couple of times and be done with them. Don't get wound up by them, their ignorance is their own problem in life.

2- they're just posting something to get a rise out of somebody.... anybody will do. You know, trolling.... This takes longer to realize that you're dealing with one of these guys, but once you realize it, also realize that it serves no purpose to engage them.

One of the past members here - ULTIMA1 - was a perfect example of this. After he got banned here he went over to JREF, where he baited those crazies one day to allow him to make over 325 content free posts in one day.

Don't be an enabler.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ATH911

 

"embedded"???

It's in one of the openings....that's not 'embedded'.

How did that happen? Who cares...it's a bloody picture!!!

You guys were the one's who brought that photo up to try to debunk my point that I thought it was weird that there are no visible evidence of plane debris in either of the two gashes.

I'm just curious how you think that tire got in between the opening of that facade panel lying on the ground?

reply to post by ATH911


The panel was from south face of WTC 1 (North Tower) - it was dislodged
by aircraft debris after it passed through the building . From looks of it
aircraft tire from AA11 lodged in window opening of exterior panel -
the window opening are 3ft across.

As WEEDWACKER said aircraft tire weigh several hundred pounds
combined with that section of wall which weighs several tons meaning
it is not likely anyone could put it togather. In addition how does one
place it middle of Manhattan street in broad daylight without anyone noticing ?

Suppose you have some bizarre claim about that?

The artifact was only there for about hour before being buried by collapse
of South tower at 10AM





Same chaotic destruction pattern you see in tornado where all sort of strange happenings occur with debris

Here is picture of aircraft seat embedded in back of car -

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ATH911

 

The panel was from south face of WTC 1 (North Tower) - it was dislodged by aircraft debris after it passed through the building . From looks of it aircraft tire from AA11 lodged in window opening of exterior panel - the window opening are 3ft across.

As WEEDWACKER said aircraft tire weigh several hundred pounds
combined with that section of wall which weighs several tons meaning
it is not likely anyone could put it togather.

So what you're saying is one of Flight 11's tire wedged in the gap of a WTC facade panel and the heavy tire and HEAVIER steel facade panel fell 90-stories and landed on the street with the tire still wedged between?

reply to post by ATH911


Yep. Next.

Yes, a fast moving wheel assembly wedged into the window opening and it fell to the street in front of witnesses.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911

 

Yep. Next.

Yes, a fast moving wheel assembly wedged into the window opening and it fell to the street

Well, some people believe in Bigfoot, so...

in front of witnesses.

Source?

reply to post by thedman


Hmmmm A few things wrong with that photo of the wheel embedded into the structure.

First of all its not on fire, its not melted for what it has been through it looks relatively ok for the wear.

Then we hit photo 2... We see the inside of that tire. The rim looks like it has suffered more damage than the rubber itself.

So let us say the evidence was planted? How could they get it there with out anyone ever seeing?

Photoshop, thats how. The hard evidence was never there.

Photo 2 seems to have longer columns then that of photo one.

If anyone knows how to analyze digital photos could you do a work up on the three photos provided? I mean some nasty pixilization is clear in photo 2.. but I do not have a degree so I would ask that some one with more experience in the field to look at said photos...



[edit on 1-7-2009 by titorite]

reply to post by titorite


ok - now is part where you start playing games?

Tire was not exposed to fire (or only briefly) because it flew out the
building! Travel time from North (impact wall) to South (exit) was about
1/4 second!

Here is picture of landing gear from United 175 which hit south Tower



I suppose you will claim it fake because not burned and damaged enough
Right!

This hit street in front of witnesses - so much for being FAKE!

Right behind us on the southeast corner of West and Rector was a landing gear assembly from an aircraft lying against the curb and some scaffolding. PAPD Det. Edward Rapp Source

After that, an FBI agent came down the block. He identified some landing gear that was in front of our rig, asked me to make sure no pedestrians came down the block to interfere with any type of metals and debris that were there, because they were trying to identify to put the pieces back together for the plane. FDNY firefighter Sidney Parris

As for pictures I posted - come from NYPD source, Suppose they were in
on planting evidence? Right?

interesting... 3 months later and still no response from swampy.

swampy, bonez, whacky,,, you guys kill me! If i had a dime for everytime you guys disappear from a thread, i'd be richer than Larry Silverstein

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ATH911

 

Yep. Next.

Yes, a fast moving wheel assembly wedged into the window opening and it fell to the street

Well, some people believe in Bigfoot, so...

in front of witnesses.

Source?

reply to post by Orion7911


Eh??? Your attacks are growing tiresome. Your thread is pointless, been shown to be baseless assertions. Happened on PAGE 1.

_BoneZ_, who BTW is a camper on the "Truther" side, destroyed your OP immediately.

SO, complaining about why no one visits this thread anymore?? Worse, trying to be snide about it, is pretty weak. It is boring, here. But, you've managed to sneak it into the cycle, again, by mentioning it on Seventh's thread...clever.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Eh??? Your attacks are growing tiresome.

of course they are to those who keep losing and getting debunked over and over.

but then you're the pot calling the kettle black... your attacks are beyond tiresome. In fact your posts are grade-A sleeping pills here. I'd rather sit around and read about michael jacksons funeral.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Your thread is pointless, been shown to be baseless assertions. Happened on PAGE 1.

so I guess you missed all the pages after page 1 where I and others answered and debunked your nonsense line by line.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
BoneZ_ who BTW is a camper on the "Truther" side, destroyed your OP immediately.

If he destroyed the OP at all, he and you along with some other pseudo truthers would have been able to counter the responses that debunked what you claim was immediately destroyed.

As I said, like swampy, you all disappeared and dropped out of the thread offering no response or counter-argument showing how and where my response was wrong.

sorry whacker

Originally posted by weedwhacker
SO, complaining about why no one visits this thread anymore?? Worse, trying to be snide about it, is pretty weak. It is boring, here. But, you've managed to sneak it into the cycle, again, by mentioning it on Sevenths thread...clever.

There's many many threads i've posted in that none of you disinfo agents and trolls visit anymore because you were destroyed and debunked line by line for which you had no choice but to run away like wounded dogs.

you got WHACKED one by one.

Sevenths post was a great find and there's similiarities to the impact study thread which makes my bump relevant.

Glad you can help me bump it again whacker... it was under-rated, ahead of its time, and needs to be REHASHED for newbies.

many thanks pal

hehe


[edit on 5-9-2009 by Orion7911]

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Orion7911]

reply to post by Orion7911


You may continue in your fantasy world. I prefer reality.

The arrogance of the "Truthers" is well-represented in your style. Falacious reasoning, and when it is pointed out as your attack pattern, the final resort to the ad hom retort, to simply follow a school-yard "I'm rubber, you're glue" approach.

A common tactic, evident here. This thread. Totally shown to be nonsense, as all who are in the No-Plane camp eventually fail to ever make a valid case.

The reason this thread died has already been mentioned. "Bumps" notwithstanding, it is still DOA.

AND, your attempt to claim 'relevence' to Seventh's thread? Seems you misinterpreted his point, in that one.

In any event, the continued attempts to find things that aren't there, in the Tower impacts, show a complete lack of clarity or understanding of the real world and how events unfolded.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

You may continue in your fantasy world. I prefer reality.

Or iow, your fantasy world.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The arrogance of the "Truthers" is well-represented in your style.

Pot kettle black... thanks for illustrating your hypocrisy.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Falacious reasoning, and when it is pointed out as your attack pattern, the final resort to the ad hom retort, to simply follow a school-yard "I'm rubber, you're glue" approach.

Pot kettle black... thanks for illustrating your hypocrisy, again.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
A common tactic, evident here. This thread. Totally shown to be nonsense,

so you claim without any proof whatsoever... not even an example

iow, making more claims you can't back up... as usual.

thanks for proving your hypocrisy... again and again.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
as all who are in the No-Plane camp eventually fail to ever make a valid case.

except the facts and debunkings prove otherwise.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The reason this thread died has already been mentioned. "Bumps" notwithstanding, it is still DOA.

says you...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND, your attempt to claim 'relevence' to Seventh's thread? Seems you misinterpreted his point, in that one.

uh huh... i see... yaaaawn.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
In any event, the continued attempts to find things that aren't there, in the

But unfortunately for you, you've failed to prove what i've pointed out isn't there.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Tower impacts, show a complete lack of clarity or understanding of the real world and how events unfolded.

and you offer so much evidence to prove that as well.

LOL

pathetic whacker, truly pathetic.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Nola213

 

*headslap*

I just heard an Airbus 310 went down off the coast of eastern Africa with 153 people. a CHILD is the only survivor right now out of that plane load. Must be a conspiracy too right? Somebody must have planted the kid.

I thought Abovetopsecret was all about denying ignorance.

Ouch! Hey, thanks though I needed that. I got a bit off topic here.

and I pulled you off too, I have no idea of the incident your speaking of, who knows how the child survived. Did the child survive without even a scratch or burn mark on them? Because a piece of cloth did.

I find it hard to believe because I would think a child would be alot more durable than a piece of cloth.

But point taken, strange stuff does happen I suppose. But on 9/11 TOO much "strange" stuff happened for it to be coincidence.

Oh and Weedwacker, yes I do know what CCTV is, and I do know there were over 70+ cameras aimed in and around the genral direction of the Pentagon. All of which were confiscated.

If they have nothing of value to show, well then let's see them. The government could go a long ways in proving thier "story" by doing that.

Maybe they are in the process of "editing them" before they release them? It's probably just taking so long cause they don't wanna cock any of em up by putting the wrong date on the timestamp?

But good "work" weedwacker.Keep on keepin on!

But as far as the wings of the planes reacting differently at the Twin Towers, and the Pentagon, and Shanksville...., well that would be expected I think since they all supposedly hit different types of material. (i.e Aluminum/Steel, Concrete, and Soil.) So I don't see much of a case there.

But I do agree the Naudet film does show some very odd explosions(well what looks like explosions) where both wing tips impact. Which is in complete contradiction to what we see on the second strike on Tower 2. So yea, same material in the path of near identical planes, yet we see two very different results on impact.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Nola213]