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.

 

No Planers Do Dig Up Some Interesting Stuff, Gotta Admit

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chronogoblin
What and interesting video. At first it is compelling, but then I realized that to get the CNN footage of the plane going in, one would have to he on top of something taller than ground level to be able to see over the trees like that. If indeed the footage if real, then you have to wonder just where and on what the camera man stood on.

Chrono


Michael Hezarkhani was standing on the top deck of a ferry when he took that video.



He was standing about 50 ft west of Carmen Taylor who took this photo.





posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by 22-250
 






C) there was not one part of that aircraft that bounced off the side of the building.

Think about that, the very fragile wing tips you could damage with your fist sliced through one inch thick and better steel?



The old "aluminium cant penetrate steel" idiocy

One the exterior walls of WTC were made of lattice work of steel sections
BOLTED together. On impact the bolts were sheared - plane pushed its
way in

Two This picture from WWII

Kamikaze punched hole in Amphibious ship USS HINSDALE (APA 120)



Notice marks left by wings

Still clinging to your conspiracy fantasy?




Your picture actually shows that the wings did NOT penetrate the ship, but rather left an indentation or possibly just damaged the paint.

Your picture actually supports the idea that there is something wrong with the footage of the entire plane disappearing into the building on 911.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by kenlobb
 


Must need eyes checked - notice in photo of USS Hinsdale the wing section
closest to the fuselage did penetrate

Also at WTC aircraft impact sheared the bolts and broke the welds holding
the spandrel plates to the vertical beams - aircraft forced its way in to
the building

Same thing when kicking in door - dont go through the door, but break the
lock free from the door frame. Its the weakest section which gives way

In photos can see the ends of the beams bent inwards from impact



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

You can look at any photo of the holes and see that bolts and welds are broke and that no column was severed. If you honestly think that a 300,000 pound object traveling circa 500mph can't break some bolts and welds, then you've got serious issues to attend to.


Where did the energy come from to break the bolts and welds, and to move the steel sections?

Some of the plane's kinetic energy was used. This should result in a reduction of the plane's speed. Perhaps for the fuselage the reduction in speed would be small due to the large mass, but for the wing tips which have relatively small mass, there should be an appreciable reduction of velocity to account for the energy transfer, which would result in noticable bending or outright structural failure.

I don't support the idea that there was no projectile hitting the towers, however it really wouldn't be that hard to digitally alter the appearance of, say a cruise missle, and mask it with an image of a jetliner.

I mean, digital advertising is used real time in sports games, where they can create advertising banners on the sports field right underneath the player's feat!



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by kenlobb
 


Must need eyes checked - notice in photo of USS Hinsdale the wing section
closest to the fuselage did penetrate

Also at WTC aircraft impact sheared the bolts and broke the welds holding
the spandrel plates to the vertical beams - aircraft forced its way in to
the building

Same thing when kicking in door - dont go through the door, but break the
lock free from the door frame. Its the weakest section which gives way

In photos can see the ends of the beams bent inwards from impact


I'll take your advice and get my eyes checked. Any other health tips?

I'm most interested in the wing tips, which clearly did not penetrate the ship.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
300 miles an hour will drive wood through solid concrete and brick and do much weirder things to much weaker materials. Maybe you need to go through a tornado or two to realize what velocity and mass are capable of.

The entire problem with the 9/11 movement was a need to seriously over-complicate things. You have to think like a prosecutor and concentrate on what you can prove, not what you think happened.

If the movement had stuck with going after the numerous ways in which government agencies failed to intercept the hijackers, mistakes which were admitted, and worked on exposing any possible intentional malpractice in an effort to assign liability and insure none of the people who facilitated the event could ever do so again maybe, just maybe the public would have gotten on board.

I have no doubt the no plane sub movement is some sort of disinfo operation meant to disrupt the overall group. It fits completely with the dame disnfo ops we've seen for UFOs - infiltrate the group with the nuttiest crap you can imagine and discredit everyone else by association.

I spent a year in NYC after 9/11, right there at ground zero and I met more people who saw the planes than I can count. More people took photos then you'll ever know, it's a huge tourist area with thousands of cameras out and ready.

My personal belief is that planes did hit the buildings and maybe, just maybe there were some explosives used on the mass damper system but I'm not convinced enough to believe we'd ever be able to prove it.

What can we prove? Prior knowledge and possible clearing of the way by a few high level government insiders. Even proving that much would be extremely difficult.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
The other thing you need to consider is that the plane crashing into the building is exactly equivalent to the buling crashing into the plane.

If I hurled a large section of steel at 500mph at the wing of stationary aircraft, I would expect the steel to rip the wing off, and for the steel to remain relatively intact. Especially towards the wing tips.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
what a frustrating video.

I'm an open minded person ready to be convinced by either side but..

what stops me is the level of pretentiousness and self obsessiveness that people have when producing videos, 10 whole minutes? with stupid music? with petty in your face type comments in between?

come on, and people want to be taken seriously? i never post on here but i had to post this, it's really frustrating!!!!

can people forget their egos and focus on the educating people, i don't care what ur username is or who you are, i dont care who on the internet has upset you nor do i care to hear your taste in awful music, i just wish to be informed!!!



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by kenlobb
 


Too many live people saw the planes, not just at impact but flying "down the street right over my head" as several put it.

Look at the still photos of the plane just prior to impact. Do you see the flex on the wings? They would have very likely broken off the plane if that speed and rate of descent continued for much longer. The only wings I've seen flex that far are on the coming 787 and on B-52's which were designed to be that way.

When the plane impacted all the energy in the wings was released like a balloon being over inflated. The force of teh speed and descent you see bowing those wings upwards indicates they were full of stored tension. The wing tips could have broken into a thousand tiny pieces and despite the illusion of the plane "melting" into the building there were some debris at the point of entrance. Anything too small to penetrate would have been too small to show up well in the photos and video, mainly because we're talking very, very small.

Anything with any sustained mass to it at all would have pushed the building material inwards or penetrated it. At that speed the sudden impact of airplane into building actually melted some of the aluminum, it's a function of energy transfer and I've seen it dozens of times as a search and rescue team member working plane crash sites. The process of turning an airplane into a million tiny pieces is a lot more complex than you think it is. Energy transfer creates heat, solid materials liquefy and
even burn. Human bodies convert into fragments and liquid, more liquid than you can imagine. All that heat and chemical conversion / burning evaporates humans minus random parts and pieces.

And in the midst of all that horrible destruction it is very, very common to find paper, cloth, plastic - things that were on the people or right next to them perfectly intact. It all comes down to how much mass those materials have and the random path they take.

The average plane crash, especially one where the plane impacts with any real velocity is a smoking hole in the ground with a few parts left on top, in the trees and spread across the ground leading away from the point of impact. That hole in the ground is soaking wet if it didn't catch on fire and burn. Anything heavy will be in the mud buried beneath the parts that survived the moment of impact.

If they "faked" the airplanes and the results of the collision they did one hell of a job of it. That's all I can tell you. Everything, right down to the condition of the remains fits with my real life experience. That includes the engine landing with a sudden stop and not scraping the pavement. Forward momentum was lost and from there it dropped. Nothing more complex than that.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ecoparity
 


Bricks and concrete are great for bearing vertical loads (i.e. the roof of your house), but not so strong when forces are applied from the side. I can take a sledge hammer and knock down a brick or concrete wall easily if I hammer from the side. Try doing that to structural steel.

anyway, I take your point that collisions between different materials can produce unexpected or surprising results.

I also agree with you that people are focussing too much on details such as these, and that doing so will not help to convince the masses.

For all I know, there could have been some exotic weaponry used, or it could have been done very conventionally. There might have been real planes used, or might not have.

Believe none of what you hear, and HALF of what you see.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat

Great. Now explain to me how they did it thru the glass covering the building with no shattering....


There ya go bonez.

The TM in all its glory.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Heres a few people that saw the second plane.
Frank Pastor
graphics8.nytimes.com...


...I came to the station, and let me just say this, the lieutenants here still break my chops, because that morning I came in, and I said to them, "I think we are going to be busy today." And they said to me, "Why?" I says, "Well, it's going to be 9-11," and from thereon -- I remember our normal routine in the morning, go get our breakfast, and we go sit and we cover Red Hook, so we had the view of the city. We were sitting there, and we were looking at the city. All of is sudden my partner says to me, "Frankie, that plane seems to be low."...



...and she yells out, "Frank that plane just hit the building."...



...We can't believe whats going on, and she says -- and I remember my partner, Mala, saying again to me, "That other plane is low." I don't know how much time, 10, 15 minutes, and we seen the other plane hit...


Firefighter Thomas Gaby
graphics8.nytimes.com...


...I also took the cell phone with me, headed back towards the command center outside, and believe it or not, somewhere in between there the plane had hit, the second plane.

Q. The second plane?

A. I saw it coming in, I heard it, and bang. It hit...


EMT Michael D'Angelo
graphics8.nytimes.com...


...Then as I made it through traffic and I was going over the BQE extension to get back on to the Battery Tunnel, I looke and I saw the second plane hit the building...



...Something I noticed from when I was standing in front of the Embassy Suites at the time, I saw that the US Secret Service were bringing somebody, and Arab man in a suit, covered in soot, walking away in handcuffs. I remember that distinctly, because the guy looked right in my eyes...



...I found my car like later, because it ws not able to be moved because it was covered. There was an airplane tire about 10 feet away from it. I remember that...


Chief of the Department Daniel Nigro
graphics8.nytimes.com...


...At some point after our arrival and after we had moved to the west side of West Street, I heard a loud roar of a jet, looked up and saw the second plane impact the south tower...



...At that point I told Chief Ganci I was going to quickly walk around the perimeter of the Trade Center to assess the degree of damage to the two towers, because our vantage point on West Street only allowed us a view of the west side of the building. I took my aide with me. We walked east on Vesey Street, stopped in front of 7 World Trade Center to speak to EMS Chief Peruggia, who gave me a quick update about victims on that side of the building...



...We stepped over small airplane aviation parts, on Vesey, continued west...



...The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very Heavy fire on may floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area suffiecient around to protect our members...


EMT Mala Harrilal
graphics8.nytimes.com...


...That's my assigned area and you could see -- we saw the smoke. There was a second plane circling the building and I kept saying why is he so near the buildings? Within minutes, before even talking about it, he just like slammed into the second building...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Some more...

Firefighter Richard Saulle
graphics8.nytimes.com...


...A young kid, Joe Sullivan, said, "Why is this plane flying through the smoke? Holy #, he hit the second tower." I said. "Get the hell out of here." I stuck my head out the window, and I looked up and I was amazed what I saw. Both towers were on fire, and I said we're in a lot of trouble...



...We got through the tunnel. What we saw on the floor was amazing. There were plane parts, cars wrecked, body parts. It looked like Tales of the Crypt. There were arms sticking up in the air and bodies were just shredded all of the place. There was a car that we drove by that the driver's door and the passenger door were open, and there was a plane motor on the back half of the car. Two inches more, and both these guys would have been dead too. That was their ticket. It was amazing. The car was actually cut right in half with this motor, right there back of the front seat...


Firefighter Mike Zechewytz
graphics8.nytimes.com...


...I remember I was right right by the TV set and I said, "That must have been adrunk pilot." I mean, it was clear outside. So we were like, "Wow, the guy must have had a few last night or something." So then Roger Jackson and myself went out to the front to see the smoke. If you were in front of the firehouse and you looked over to the right, you saw the somke. Then he called and he goes, "Zech." That's my nickname. He goes, "Zech, look." and we saw the other plane going from left to right with its nose down. So then we ran back in the kitchen, and then maybe 30 seconds later the news said that a bomb went off in the second building. But then they saw in slow motion it was a plane...


Supervising Fire Marshal Robert Byrnes
graphics8.nytimes.com...


...I looked our the window. I could see the smoke blowing off the World Trade Center. Several moments later I noticed a second plane and I commented to myself, look at this nitwit, he's so close, and before I realized it, he had crashed into the side of the south tower...


Firefighter Michael Hazel
graphics8.nytimes.com...


...On the way to the Battery Tunnel, we're driving along Columbia Street and I'm sitting across from the proby, and as we're talking and I'm preparing him for the events, what to expect at this job we're going to go to, he just says to me, "Look at this dummy. he's flying underneath the smoke instead of over it." With that I turned to my right and looked at the Twin Towers and I saw the second jet hit...[/quote]


...But we eventually got through the tunnel, and at first we started seeing bitas and pieces, when we turned up West Street, of the plane and what turned out to be body parts. But the closer we got, the bigger parts got, the plane parts and the body parts, and it finally got to the point where I was facing forward and I told the proby, who was facing the rear, not to look anymore because I told him the things he was going to see he'd rather not see and that he would never be able to get it out of his head if he did see them. At that point, Smitty was driving. That's when he started trying to snake his way up West Street. There was a lot of debris in the street and I remember yealling to the Lieutenant to keep going because stuff as sitll landing all around us. We just ppassed a compact car where the engine was running and the door was open, which looked to me like the driver had escaped, but from the back seat to the trunk was crushed by a jet engine...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
A few more...

Firefighter Dominick Muschello
graphics8.nytimes.com...


...As we watched the fire from the third floor, we saw the second plane fly right into the center of the building clear as day...


Firefighter Joseph Sullivan
graphics8.nytimes.com...


...En route to the staging area, we were going down Columbia Street, saw the second plane strike the building...



...I saw one body. Most of it was just pieces of bodies. As we were riding in, we must have ran over some debris from the plane. We saw debris all over the floor. We saw a wheel. There was cars that were flattened...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
When people talk abut the impact of an airliner on the South Tower, you hear a lot of generalizations and that is to be expected. Personally I think that only aeronautical engineers could hazard a guess as to which parts on a 757 would break and in what order, given an impact into one of those towers.

The thing that I think people should remember when citing the speed and mass of the aircraft in making a case for the entry into the building, as presented in the videos, is that once the aicraft hits the building, those same factors, the speed and mass of the aircraft, indeed of the separate parts of the aircraft, start to work against the structural integrity of the aircraft itself and not simply against the forces holding the building's facing together.

None of that shows up in the videos.

I don't have time to discuss this in detail but in addition to previous discussion about eyewitnesses, it's useful to look at this video.



Considering the distance and the direction (some way north of the WTC), it is clear to me that the woman who says "that is not an american airlines . . ." must have been saying simply that the plane did not look like an airliner to her.

I find it hard to believe that she was drawing a distinction, based on what she could observe from where she was, between airline companies by her statement.

Most people north of the towers would not have even seen the second aircraft, prior to impact. Most people south of the towers, the direction from which the second plane came, would have been looking north toward the first tower hit, and would not have seen the second aircraft approach.

People east and west of the towers would have had the best chance to see the second aircraft prior to impact, if they were far enough away from the towers, otherwise they would have been rivetted on the North Tower like everyone else.

Only people far enough away from the scene to have a panoramic view would have an excellent chance of seeing the second aircraft approach.

Unfortunately the downside of being far enough away is that it reduces the accuracy of identifying exactly what it is one is looking at.

I'm only speculating. I wasn't there. I do know that some people have exaggerated what they saw. I think, as I'm sure the "no planers" do, that people's memories have been influenced heavily by what they saw on TV. The no planers believe that the broadcast video was meant to fill gaps in people's perceptual memories with false information.

All I know is that I have a hard time believing the video I have seen of the impacts. I think we should see much more stress on the aircraft.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by wylekat
 



What do you expect to happen when the plane comes in at that velocity? I am not sure what you think should've happened. Maybe I missed it, but please explain it.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


well your friend is lying,

I SAW planes hit the building with my OWN eyes.

believe what you want to believe.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Edited because I am just not going to sink to your sophomoric level.



[edit on 19-10-2009 by wylekat]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


I've been around enough glass to know it doesn't enjoy being mashed in at high velocity. It cracks, it shatters, It makes a big, danged MESS.

The few frames in that video show a plane just going THRU glass, but not INTO it. There was no distortion of the glass, no explosion of glass, no cracking of glass, it was like the plane flew into a fog bank. Metal is one thing. It does weird crap because of it's structure. It's bendable, flexible, dentable, malleable, all sorts of 'able'. Glass BREAKS. That's why they make safety glass- which still makes a beautiful mess- but doesn't slice someone into confetti. Much.

Like I said- I don't do the 'no plane' thing, but that portion of the video just doesn't make SENSE. Not to mention... where's the reflection of the plane on the surface of the building, anyways? Once again... Glass- reflective. I'll buy the 'wrong angle to see one' argument. For some reason, my mind keeps asking where the reflection is, what with the plane right up against the building....

I'll say this one more time- The VIDEO baffles me. I don't need anyone else acting like a jackass. I'll take constructive criticism, or if I missed something in that video (being shown the same brown lump 10-12 times DID make me wall-eyed after a while. I finally decided I was seeing Jabba the Hutt's first dump O the day). So, if someone cant be civil, SHADDUP. K?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
300 miles an hour will drive wood through solid concrete and brick and do much weirder things to much weaker materials.


Actually it's more like 100mph. But thank you for the rest of your words about the no plane COINTELPRO operation
.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join