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: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:00 AM
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:



Yes but when you watched it live on the news it didn't happen, and its not like that on the archives.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
(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.)


I'm sure Boeing would love to hear about how Balsamo and his merry boys claim that a wing will rip off one of their 767's at 450 knots at 1,000 feet.

The FAA mandated safety factors built into these airliner aircraft are 1.5 for structural components (wings, fuselage,etc.) and 2.5 safety factor for engines and landing gear, and control surfaces. What this means is that the aircraft has to be able to withstand 1.5 times the "g" loading design limits in order to be certified. An aircraft will not show signs of destruction until it reaches 1.5 times the design speed limit or its "g" limit.

The 777 wing strength was tested to and failed at 154% beyond the design limit load (that would be a wing deflection of over 24 feet).

If a wing can survive that sort of (and that far) beyond-the-design-limit load on pos or neg g wing input, I have no doubt a 767 would survive a 450 KIAS high-speed run at 1,000 feet.

Tell Cap't Bob to go back to the drawing board.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
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......


well i guess according to thedman we can rule out a super duper reinforced plane.

well thanks for making it a pretty easy multiple choice dman... that would mean...................errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr uhh

oh yeah, a drone/missle or NO PLANE!



u da man dman



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
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.


too bad for you, its a fact you've never won any such debate.

thankfully we have the ATS search feature and archive to prove it.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I've already won the last time a no-planer challenged me to a debate.


repeating a lie over and over won't make it any more true bonez... sorry.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The reason why I won is because you have no evidence to convince others of your claims.


PKB bonez...


[edit on 23-10-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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_]


The "poor video compression/frame sync" argument has been addressed repeatedly and yet to prove or disprove anything you're claiming.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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.


still clinging to that old failed argument are you bonez?


you really need to get some new material



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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.



Its not a case of proving there were no planes. Its a case of proving there were, after all its your claim there WERE, and you personally werent there so you have no proof. Holograms and the ability of modern technology to deceive are amazing things..



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

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:



Yes but when you watched it live on the news it didn't happen, and its not like that on the archives.


ROFLMAO! yeah, I'm SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE you watched that clip LIVE on the news OVER AND OVER and in slow motion


what a riot you are.

so how much are you getting paid by the perps for this weeks postings?

and I'd love to see the "archives" you're talking about.

go right ahead and post that footage and show everyone what its REALLY LIKE... don't worry, i'll wait.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

This was 60 years ago. Just think what could be developed by now! The military has always been the driving force of technological inventions (because they are well funded) and been waay ahead of anything the public could conceive of.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
oh yeah, a drone/missle or NO PLANE!

Couldn't have been a missile as it doesn't have a 160-foot wingspan, nor do missiles travel as slow as a plane.

Has to only be a plane as too many people saw it and there are dozens of videos confirming the witnesses.

But we know how the NPT disinfo goes. All the witnesses are liars and all the videos are fake.




Originally posted by Orion7911
too bad for you, its a fact you've never won any such debate.

thankfully we have the ATS search feature and archive to prove it.

I have to wonder if you actually went to the debate forum, or you are just blatantly lying because you were either too lazy to go there, or you don't know how to use the search feature. Here's the debate, right near the top of the debate forum:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So very sad....



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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.




What did you win?- was there a prize?

I don't get you people- you haven't won anything, noone has- arguing amongst yourselves in cyberworld is pointless- it doesnt change anything, you might think you've won some kind of battle- but you haven't, the official story of 9/11 still stands.

To all the no planers, what happened to the people?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Its not a case of proving there were no planes. Its a case of proving there were, after all its your claim there WERE

I school no-planers all the time with facts of planes, I'll school you on a legal term.


burden of proof -

If in some situation there is a proper presumption that something is true, anyone seeking to prove its opposite is said to bear the burden of proof.


Since there is a proper presumption that planes hit the WTC, then it's up to the no-planers to prove the opposite.

Sorry, but just because you don't have any evidence to support your disinfo, doesn't mean you can shift the burden of proof off onto somebody else. It doesn't work that way. Show some scientific or professional analysis of the original videos you've obtained, proving they were fake once and for all, or you're just peddling disinfo and nothing more.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
BoneZ, do you agree with PFT that the second plane had to be a super duper modified plane if it was a real plane that hit?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
BoneZ, do you agree with PFT that the second plane had to be a super duper modified plane if it was a real plane that hit?

Nope. Regular, every-day, standard, unmodified 767's hit the towers.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by ATH911
BoneZ, do you agree with PFT that the second plane had to be a super duper modified plane if it was a real plane that hit?

Nope. Regular, every-day, standard, unmodified 767's hit the towers.

So is PFT peddling disinfo with their new video?

(and didn't you used to think it was a super duper modified plane not too long ago???)



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
So is PFT peddling disinfo with their new video?
(and didn't you used to think it was a super duper modified plane not too long ago???)

I've yet to see the video, so I can't comment one way or the other. And show me a post of mine where I said the planes were structurally modified.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

Before your oxygen tank explosion theory, I recall you saying that the flash had to do something with something modified on the plane to help it enter the building easier. Did you not say something like this?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


It's not a theory. Weedwhacker posted a schematic of a jetliner and showed where the oxygen tank was and the flash comes from that exact location. That case is closed.

I theorized that some sort of explosive may have been added to the nose. But that has nothing to do with modifying the structure of the plane like you're suggesting. Got a point?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Very interesting.
Thanks for posting.
The more events that show up the better the pieces will fit.
A man in New Mexico saying he sold green dye to people asking
for dye for skin before Roswell makes sense to some people.
Imagine we might have had blue aliens.

More and more people coming forward is all it takes.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Its not a case of proving there were no planes. Its a case of proving there were, after all its your claim there WERE

I school no-planers all the time with facts of planes, I'll school you on a legal term.


burden of proof -

If in some situation there is a proper presumption that something is true, anyone seeking to prove its opposite is said to bear the burden of proof.


Since there is a proper presumption that planes hit the WTC, then it's up to the no-planers to prove the opposite.

Sorry, but just because you don't have any evidence to support your disinfo, doesn't mean you can shift the burden of proof off onto somebody else. It doesn't work that way. Show some scientific or professional analysis of the original videos you've obtained, proving they were fake once and for all, or you're just peddling disinfo and nothing more.



first off bonez... how about you tell everyone what PHILOSOPHICAL JOCKEYING means.

second, any rational person thats done indepth research on 9/11 knows the case for the official theory has not been proven to begin with.

So the issue of burden of proof in the case of 9/11 is not as black and white as you'd like people to believe and your use of proper presumption
is for starters out of context especially as it relates to 9/11 and science versus law.

This is just more of your disinfo tactics and anyone with a brain can see through it



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join