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.

 

Pilots4Truth suggesting no-planes? Their new WTC video

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Just finished watching Pilots for 9/11 Truth's new DVD 9/11: World Trade Center Attack. Synopsis of the video:


The long awaited release from Pilots For 9/11 Truth analyzing the events which took place in New York City on the morning of the 11th of September 2001. Analysis includes Black Box Recovery, Radar and Speed data analysis, Aircraft Control, and "Hijacker" Pilot Skill. Interviews with 757/767 Captains from United and American Airlines.


Pilot's conclusion seems to be that not only would it be nothing short of a miracle that a stock 767 could accurately hit one of the twin towers at either of the official crash speeds from Flight 11 and Flight 175, even if they were piloted by the most skilled pilots, but that they highly doubt a 767 could even physically hold up at those speeds at those near-sea level altitudes.


(Clip from Pilot's new WTC DVD showing a simulated 767 breaking up in mid-air. They show this clip over and over throughout their video.)


They also overwhelmingly debunk John Bursill's alleged Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175 so much that they make Bursill look like a laughing stalk.

So if Pilots4Truth think 767's at the claimed speeds could not have hit the WTC, what do they suggest hit the towers?

We all saw those videos that show planes hit the towers and officials and schools calculated the speeds of the planes based on the videos.

Are Pilots4Truth suggesting no-planes? They do have a couple no-planers in their organization, such as John Lear.




[edit on 15-10-2009 by ATH911]




posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I don't think they are saying that. They probably would opt for a military jet disguised or something like that. They of course, could address this specifically themselves.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
It's hard to say what really happened on 9-11. We've all seen the tons of video of the 'planes' hitting the towers and i doubt it could all be faked or photo shopped. It would have to be a military drown or something along those lines. Watching the videos its hard to explain how the 2nd 'plane' just gets sucked into the building. It just seems surreal... Still more questions...



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Eventually, the truth WILL come out that NO PLANES HIT THE TWIN TOWERS ON 9-11

It takes time, especially with all the disinfo agents around the internet. All the anti-no planers, planehuggers or ignorant conspiracy theorists out there that post on forums like these would make most people believe that planes hit the towers and if you believe anything to the contrary, you are crazy, but the truth is,

There were NO Planes on 9-11



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
The article below has never been debunked.
I shortened it for the mod's.
Check out the rest, it is telling.
No doubt these modified A3's could be connected.
Check out the players and what happened to them.



This article comes from

Tom Flocco.com
tomflocco.com...

Witnesses link missile to small military jet parts found at Pentagon on 9/11
Date: Monday, May 23 @ 01:59:41 EDT
Topic: 9-11 Attacks


Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon

Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon

Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks

by Tom Flocco

Fort Collins, Colorado -- May 26, 2005 -- TomFlocco.com --
According to two civilian defense contractor employees working at commercial corporate facilities at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (left), in the months before the September 11 attacks U.S. Air Force defense contractors brought in A-3 Sky Warrior aircraft under cover of darkness to be completely refitted and modified at the small civilian airport in Colorado.

The revelations are important evidence for a reportedly ongoing secret 9/11 probe because widely available Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) photographs taken during the attacks clearly show that the few aircraft parts found at the Pentagon belonged to a small jet very similar to a modified A-3 Sky Warrior--not the American Airlines Boeing 757.

It is not known whether all members of Congress are aware of the under-the-radar-screen grand jury proceedings, who has already testified, and whether the probe is purposefully being kept from public knowledge, according to government intelligence sources.
The two witnesses say that separate military contractor teams--working independently at different times--refitted Douglas A-3 Sky Warriors (above) with updated missiles, Raytheon's Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders, and radio-radar-navigation systems--a total makeover, seemingly for an operation more important than use as a simple missile testing platform for defense contractor Hughes-Raytheon.



The employees asked not to be identified for personal safety reasons and fear of job retaliation; but both told 2008 independent presidential candidate Karl Schwarz (left) "the Air Force brought in separate teams to do top-secret military work unrelated to commercial aviation at our airport, and we were told by our bosses not to discuss what we had seen with anyone."

The witnesses were quite fearful about several recent "suicides, car wrecks--mysterious deaths--directly related to the aviation experts" working on the systems that were installed on the A-3’s at Fort Collins-Loveland--having breached the government-blocked information flow at great personal risk, according to Schwarz--but providing more evidence for a New York 9/11 investigation.

Schwarz, a former Republican from Arkansas now living in Georgia and running as an independent to clean up government corruption and crime told TomFlocco.com that he met with the employees for about an hour in February to discuss the issue.

The witnesses told Schwarz that each jet was placed in a hanger just big enough for a work crew and one A-3 Sky Warrior; and "we were under strict orders not to discuss what the military teams were doing or what we saw."

The presidential candidate told us "there are about 150 retired and active U.S. military and federal intelligence officers who will come forward and testify regarding government involvement in the September 11 attacks--but only if there is a serious criminal grand jury."

Small plane evidence moved at Pentagon

The approximate 16-foot entry hole at the outside facade of the Pentagon on 9/11 has been the subject of countless questions by those who say the hole was caused by an air-to-ground missile (AGM) fired from a small military jet rather than an impact from a Boeing 757.

Interestingly, the Hughes division manufactures the AGMs; and the Raytheon division maintains the last few A-3 Sky Warriors in operation save 2-4 Air Force jets--while also manufacturing the Global Hawk UAV remote control systems.

Some reasons cited to support a missile hole include evidence that a) the wings and rear stabilizer caused virtually no damage to the outside walls and windows at point of impact, b) no 757 interior or exterior parts were found at the scene, c) the soft nose of a 757 would have had difficulty piercing through three Pentagon wall rings, and d) three aircraft parts found were similar to the somewhat outdated but still serviceable Douglas A-3 Sky Warrior military attack jet rather than the much larger Boeing 757.

Air-traffic controllers from the Washington, DC sector originally said the incoming plane was a military jet according to reports; but no grand jury has called them to testify and they have been strangely gagged from speaking out.

One air traffic controller from another Northeast sector revealed to a 9-11 widow that FBI threats were made of both a personal and career nature: "You are ordered never to speak about what you saw on your screen during the attacks; and if you do, things will not go well for you and your family."
Curiously, a large piece of wreckage was found in the entry hole; but the public was kept from closely observing what appears to be a sheared-off piece of wing from a much smaller jet than a Boeing 757.

A group of military personnel and federal officials in suits tightly covered the piece of wreckage with a blue tarp and carried it away to a waiting truck. No reporters or independent aircraft experts have been permitted to examine any of the recovered aircraft parts and no subpoenas have been issued to hear public grand jury testimony from the "movers."

Other government officials who looked more like FBI agents than rescue workers were also photographed moving evidence around immediately after the crash; but none have been subpoenaed to publicly testify as to whether they were bringing evidence to or removing it from a mass murder crime scene.

As if they had prior knowledge, within minutes after the Pentagon crash--FBI agents quickly confiscated a) video tape from a gas station security camera aimed directly at the exact point of impact while recording the size of the plane and/or missile, b) security camera video film from a nearby Sheraton hotel and c) film from a Virginia Transportation Department freeway overpass camera.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath

There were NO Planes on 9-11





John Lear said there were no planes.


Check out this thread:


The John Lear Hologram Challenge



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
I don't think they are saying that. They probably would opt for a military jet disguised or something like that. They of course, could address this specifically themselves.

They do ask in their video if it's a "modified" Boeing 767 that's seen in the videos, because they say it's impossible that they could be stock 767's, but they seem to ask it as just a logically question to ask after proving stock planes at the official speeds couldn't be used.

Even though the state at the beginning of their video that Pilots4Truth as an org does not engage in theories, each individual in their org has to have an opinion if they don't think stoke planes were possible.

The only two logical conclusions based on their conclusions would have to be some super duper modified drone 767, or no-planes.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I read somewhere that these jets were reinforced with titanium wings and/or overall reinforced structure that was able to handle the extra structural flying stress therefore ultimately being able to slice through the buildings and that the second plane was LOADED with flammable liquids to create the explosive effect that was so useful for propaganda.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by star in a jar
I read somewhere that these jets were reinforced with titanium wings and/or overall reinforced structure that was able to handle the extra structural flying stress therefore ultimately being able to slice through the buildings and that the second plane was LOADED with flammable liquids to create the explosive effect that was so useful for propaganda.



Well check this out.

The wing disappears right before the 'plane' strikes the building:





posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by star in a jar
I read somewhere that these jets were reinforced with titanium wings and/or overall reinforced structure that was able to handle the extra structural flying stress therefore ultimately being able to slice through the buildings and that the second plane was LOADED with flammable liquids to create the explosive effect that was so useful for propaganda.


If I was hired by the government to tell people the simplest stupidest story out there, I would have made this up.

Not putting you down, but it's a "perfect" explanation for anyone without brains to think for themselves.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by star in a jar
I read somewhere that these jets were reinforced with titanium wings and/or overall reinforced structure that was able to handle the extra structural flying stress therefore ultimately being able to slice through the buildings and that the second plane was LOADED with flammable liquids to create the explosive effect that was so useful for propaganda.



Well check this out.

The wing disappears right before the 'plane' strikes the building:




The reason for this is because the video you are watching is Computer generated imagery or CGI for short. It was made BEFORE the morning of 9-11 and shown to the world on the morning of 9-11. That is why the wing disappears, it does NOT prove a hologram. However, I do believe that it is likely the people on the ground who believed they saw an airplane strike the tower, saw a hologram, but what you are watching here is CGI, not holograms. I completely support you though, I agree for the most part.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Pilots4Truth suggesting no-planes? Their new WTC video


No, they are just presenting the evidence. The evidence seems to be suggesting modified aircraft and highly experienced remote pilots.







[edit on 16-10-2009 by HennyPen]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by star in a jar
 





I read somewhere that these jets were reinforced with titanium wings and/or overall reinforced structure that was able to handle the extra structural flying stress therefore ultimately being able to slice through the buildings and that the second plane was LOADED with flammable liquids to create the explosive effect that was so useful for propaganda.


Titanium is expensive and requires special facilities to fabricate it. To do such a job would be easy to trace as there are only a very few facilities
able to do such a job - so why has nobody ratted them out ?

Oh I get it its a sooper sekrit black arts clandestine hush hush program?

Also why would anybody need to load such a plane with flammable liquids
when a normal aircraft is ALREADY FULL OF FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS!

No wonder people ridicule truthers as kooks......



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
What they are saying is that almost every aspect and 'proof' that was offered by the 911 commission and officials is quite stupid and ment to be sold to the laymen.

I personally believe that the 911 story was meant to be full of holes as to create conspiracies that would most likely cause such a wash over a true investigation that they can now claim that any truth found was just a conspiracy whackos delusion.

The truth is there, Dont believe the debunkers or CNN. Some of the people are willfully ignorant, ignorant, afraid to believe that their officials know nothing or are lying to them, afraid their delusional world will crumble and that there are more intelligent people out there than them.

There is an info war going on right now. Follow your hearts and dont be swayed by people that say it isnt so. Every good lie contains 80% truth so learn to weed out the whackers.


Hundreds of PHD's. military officials, 911 commission members have all questioned the official story and found the evidence to be fraudulent.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
but the truth is,

There were NO Planes on 9-11

Too bad for you and the rest of the few cult members of the no-planer disinfo camp, the truth will never come out because there is no truth to your claims. And you will never prove otherwise because there is no proof.

I've said it before, I will debate any no-planer in the debate forum, and win. I've already won the last time a no-planer challenged me to a debate. The reason why I won is because you have no evidence to convince others of your claims.

So do yourself a favor and take your no-plane disinfo back to the place whence you came because it will just be debunked and pushed down into the dungeon like the rest of the no-plane threads.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

Titanium is expensive and requires special facilities to fabricate it. To do such a job would be easy to trace as there are only a very few facilities
able to do such a job



Wrong.

You are wrong in saying that such a 'job' would be easy to trace. That is why you were unable to provide us with any sort of information or substantiation that would indicate you are not wrong.






posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
John Lear said there were no planes.

He did, but he was also messing with people.

Read this:


Originally posted by johnlear
My name is John Lear and I don't have a shred, not a single shred of evidence for my speculations/opinions on space, gravity, planets and ET's. Let me put it this way, my speculations/opinions would be more accurately classified as sheer science fiction. Having said that, my opinion may well, at some time in the future, turn out to be fact.

But I am clearly and specifically not presenting my speculations/opinions as fact or that there is the slightest bit of evidence that my speculations/opinions will turn out to be fact. One of my friends once called my speculations/opinions, "Lear leaps in logic", and I would have to agree with him.


The last no-plane thread that invoked the name of John Lear is sitting in the HOAX forum here. So let's dispense with the no-plane disinfo and get back to real-world topics, thanks.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Well check this out.

The wing disappears right before the 'plane' strikes the building:

Yeah, that's called poor video compression and frame-rate sync issues. Maybe to the gullible lay person, you could get them to believe the no-plane disinfo, but you're not fooling the rest of us.





[edit on 18-10-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
The reason for this is because the video you are watching is Computer generated imagery or CGI for short.

Care to show us some kind of professional analysis that gives you that conclusion, or do you expect gullible people to just take your word for it?

Unless you've obtained an original copy of the video and had it professionally analyzed for CGI fakery, then you can't tell people that it is CGI because that would be disinfo.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Thanks for posting the video, I never really understood how the no plane theory held water, but that was fascinating. Now, assuming that there were not any planes (which I can't say I believe, although currently interested) why would they screw up the hologram at the end? There was clearly a lot of effort put into the whole plot, so why the mistake? I was thinking perhaps they had to cut the image so it didn't slice through the building, but then I'm sure their graphics are better than that, soooo......?




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join