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 Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

page: 19
19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
Neformore... perhaps the more pertinent question should be how any 150 ton airliner could even reach and/or maintain 590mph near speed of sound ASL well over 100+mph VNE at the hands of amateur pilots


VNE? Thats for prop planes. You mean VMO. The VMO for a 767 is about 360 knots, which is 414mph. VMO is guidance for airlines that want to get mileage out of their engines and their airliners without unduly stressing them.

Guess what. VMO means diddly squat to someone who doesn't give a damn about the condition of the engines or the plane because the damned thing isn't ever going to be used again. You think the hijackers thought "oh no, I best stick to the safety limits while I'm crashing this plane into a building" ??

Those engines were running full throttle in a shallow dive. You only have to hear the audio to pick the howl of them out. The max cruising speed of a 767 is 568mph. In a shallow dive it could hit 590 easily.

As for the amateur pilots bit, who said the professional pilots were dead at any point up to the final run into the towers? Makes sense to me that if you can't fly the plane you get the people who can to do it up until the point that you don't need them anymore, at which point you are lined up and hit the throttles full forward. You don't have to be einstein to do that. Did you ever consider that idea?



let alone plough into the side of a STEEL building with reinforced concrete designed to withstand multiple impacts without ANY reaction to the plane whatsoever clearly violating newtons law of motion.


Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that memo. You must be talking about a different building, because I'm sure you mean the towers, which were possibly designed to withstand the hit of a 707 lost in the fog at about 160knots? - because thats all the towers were theorized to have been able to withstand according to the man who designed them, a man who, incidentally, can't prove he actually even did that at all?

See... the burden of "no plane" proof lies on the people who claim there were no planes there, because those people are calling the eyewitnesses to the event, who saw planes hit the towers, liars.

Why are you calling the eyewitnesses to the events liars?

And, if you are so sure of your theory, why will no one actually come and talk about it live on air?

To his credit, Bonez discussed his theory, and had his say. How come you guys won't do it?




posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Proven to be
This theory here is one of the worst ones. Worse than the alien and bombs within theories. Okay so there are millions of people in New York on September the 11th, 2001. This explosion happens on the WTC and there plane increment hanging out of it, and there on PRIVATE HOME VIDEOS.

So your telling me that the US government somehow videoshopped every single cable network, tv set, and electronics goings into home in the world whom have the channel on that day? Also that all the people who saw the planes crash must have had their eyes reverted to just seeing things? There is also plenty of evidence about a plane crashing into the Pentagon and the field in PN. For the field in Pennsylvania part, there were freaking plane parts strewn about the place! And for the pentagon, uhhh the big plane on that building might make the difference there!


To briefly summarize for brevity, We're telling you that the msm and alleged amateur footage of planes hitting the towers contain fakery and were tampered with and the msm footage showing planes that went out to the world likely originated from a central source or control room likely run by or connected to black op miitary that involved either near real time fakery, and/or pre-produced cgi. It was a hollywood production and magic show or more specifically, military PYSOPS

As far as those who allegedly saw planes crash, with basic research any seeker of truth will find that what you imply about these witnesses all seeing flight 11 or 175, real planes or any crash, is a lie.

And NO THERE IS NOT PLENTY OF EVIDENCE nor is it remotely conclusive that a plane crashed at the pentagon or shanksville.

Obviously you must be new to this forum or haven't done any real research, so i'll refrain from making any other assumptions and give you the benefit of the doubt you just haven't investigated far enough and don't know how to use the search feature yet.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by Proven to be
[


As far as those who allegedly saw planes crash, with basic research any seeker of truth will find that what you imply about these witnesses all seeing flight 11 or 175, real planes or any crash, is a lie.



Obviously because there were not WTC towers ever contructed to crash planes into! DUH!!



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by eightfold
Originally posted by warisover
I am 100% sure that the towers were NOT hit by a passenger airplane.


I've asked you repeatedly but you continue to ignore my question - how do you explain the planes that are clearly visible on the amateur videos?
What I can't figure out is how tptb got so many witnesses to say they saw a plane?



easy, the amateur videos are not all from "amateurs" and most have connections to the media and government which reasonably makes the videos suspect and potentially tainted aside from the evidence of tampering and editing that MOST of these videos contain. And thats not to mention the fact that many of the "amateurs" videos were given to the FBI before being released. For anyone to ignore these FACTS and act as if its not evidence in support of what you claim has no evidence, shows either a bias, denial or intentional dishonesty.


Originally posted by eightfold
Unless you can clearly and concisely explain how thousands of people saw planes on the day, all you're really doing is providing slightly depressing entertainment for people like me.


Unless YOU can clearly and concisely offer proof supporting your claim there were thousands of people who saw planes or that they hit the towers live, all you're really doing is providing even far more depressing entertainment for people like me because i've been waiting years for even ONE person that will take on this challenge and actually pass it.









[edit on 19-5-2010 by Orion7911]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Neformore, in his response on this form your post covered it quite well, I just add one thing (or two, maybe):


Neformore... perhaps the more pertinent question should be how any 150 ton airliner could even reach and/or maintain 590mph near speed of sound ASL well over 100+mph VNE at the hands of amateur pilots..


Firstly, the "near speed of sound" claim you made is a bit exaggerated.

For the record, simple excerpt from Wiki (and no doubt just about anywhere else):

In dry air at 20 °C (68 °F), the speed of sound is 343 meters per second (1,125 ft/s). This equates to 1,236 kilometers per hour (768 mph)


So, using the "590 MPH" (sorry, we use knots in aviation, but I'll stick with these units for now) that works out to, in Standard Atmosphere, SL, Mach 0.768...let's just round it to 0.77M.

AT ALTITUDE, in cruise, 0.77 to 0.8 Mach is a normal cruise speed target, depending on whether you are flying in 'ECON' mode, or 'LRC'...(depends on current Gross Weight, too) or complying with an ATC speed request. 0.82 is also doable, at the expense of higher fuel consumption rates, for the energy spent.

SO, that velocity, in terms of a percentage of Mach, is well thin the design limits of the airframe. There has been a lot of flapadoodle double-speak from a certain "pilots" forum that came up with some bogus "Equivalent Aispeed" (EAS) claptrap, trying to say that the dynamic pressures on the airframe were SO severe, at sea level...hogwash!

EAS is a mostly engineering term, used by the designers as they formulate the computer modeling for future performance predictions, of a new airframe design.

BUT, in typical tactics utilized by that other forum (the one that I, and many others, find so laughable) they wish to bamboozle and dazzle with batpoop, whenever possible, in order to "justify" their existance.

AS TO 'amateur' pilots??

Come on...the creeps had several hundred hours, at least! There are commuter airlines that hire pilots with that amount of time!! (Maybe not so much right now, as it varies by demand/supply...but for MANY, many years the published bare minimum hours needed to apply at United Airlines was 250!)

Anyway, in the case of large passenger jets, they handle very easily and very smoothly, even at high speeds. Biggest thing to know (and this isn't even hard, every pilot learns it) is to use the elevator trim. Of course, the trim is electric/hydraulic, not 'manual' like on a small airplane, but it is activiated via a thumb-toggle switch (called a 'pickle switch---from ages ago) mounted in the control wheel. Dead easy to figure out.....



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Not to "gang up" on you, Orion, but your post was granted a 'star', and it boggles the mind as to why...

First, this sentence fragment is such an incredibly outrageous assertion, I can only guess it is being parroted from some other source, and you've taken it to heart for some reason:


easy, the amateur videos are not all from "amateurs"...


Care to show your source on this claim?

And, on the following:


... and most have connections to the media and government which reasonably makes the videos suspect and potentially tainted aside from the evidence of tampering and editing that MOST of these videos contain.


Again...in the term "most" you are once more referring back to the 'amateur videos'. But then, with such a broad brush make the claim
that 'most' of those have "connections" to the media and the goverment?? Based on WHAT evidence, might we ask? I have a sense, again, that you are merely parroting what you've been spoon fed by various (and questionable) 'conspiracy' sites. Following on, as well, further unsubstantiated claims of "tampering and editing" are made...this is clearly an OPINION being spouted, not verifiable and backed up with facts and evidence.

And, with this statement, you sum it up nicely:


For anyone to ignore these FACTS and act as if its not evidence in support of what you claim has no evidence, shows either a bias, denial or intentional dishonesty.


...except, of course, when you used the bolded word "FACTS"...these are not 'facts', they are merely imaginations, suppositions and rampant speculations by those inclined to the 'conspiracy' side. In fact, some people seem to live for a 'conspiracy' -- they seem to be at a loss to function without one to grab with their teeth, and chew on for eternity.....


[edit on 19 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
How did the people who carried out the "attacks" ensure that they had every single amateur video that was taken in NYC that day? Why are there no videos with no planes on them?


uh maybe because the perps wanted it that way? or the number of those who had camcorders wasn't as many as you might think and those who did were controllable, and/or connected to the perps, media and/or their footage confiscated.

but then again, if there were so many with camcorders who were filming, WHERES ALL THESE PEOPLES FOOTAGE GENIUS?


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It isn't enough to say "they rounded up all the videos" because leaving aside the near impossibility of such a task, I'm asking something different. How would they have known for sure that they could get hold of every video taken that day by amateurs?

Do they have a database of camcorders sold to every New Yorker? Did they go round and make sure every camcorder owner didn't use it to record the attacks?


Its called HERF... i suggest you do some research... if the technology exists, your question is moot.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
To briefly summarize for brevity, We're telling you that the msm and alleged amateur footage of planes hitting the towers contain fakery and were tampered with and the msm footage showing planes that went out to the world likely originated from a central source or control room likely run by or connected to black op miitary that involved either near real time fakery, and/or pre-produced cgi. It was a hollywood production and magic show or more specifically, military PYSOPS

Except the "cgi fakery" couldn't have been inserted into private citizens' home videos. So, your "theory" fails on that fact alone.

How many videos have you had professionally analyzed for fakery? None? Oh, well then you have no proof of fakery either. I guess we're done here.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
plough into the side of a STEEL building with reinforced concrete

It doesn't matter what the buildings were made out of, bolts and welds were holding the steel together and the planes broke those bolts and welds. That's it.

And there was absolutely no reinforced concrete anywhere in those buildings. There was a light concrete aggregate used for the floors. That was it.



Originally posted by Orion7911
theres plenty of contradictory footage showing no such dive occurring

Looks like the plane is coming down from a higher altitude to me:





posted on May, 20 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

uh maybe because the perps wanted it that way?


Oh right. They wanted it that way.


or the number of those who had camcorders wasn't as many as you might think and those who did were controllable, and/or connected to the perps, media and/or their footage confiscated.

but then again, if there were so many with camcorders who were filming, WHERES ALL THESE PEOPLES FOOTAGE GENIUS?


You've completely misunderstood me.

How is it possible to know for sure that you can "control" everybody who has a camcorder? I repeat, is there a database of who has bought them?

And how could they possibly all be connected to the "perps"? That's just completely mad. Are you suggesting that if you tried to buy a camcorder before 2001 you automatically became inducted into the 911 inside job? Or were you only allowed to buy one if you were connected?



Its called HERF... i suggest you do some research... if the technology exists, your question is moot.


Where are all the people with camcorders that suddenly didn't work on 9/11? I'll tell you what, if you can find me an example of five people to whom this happened then I'll believe NPT for good. Just five.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Originally posted Orion7911
Neformore perhaps the more pertinent question should be how any 150 ton airliner could even reach and/or maintain 590mph near speed of sound ASL well over 100+mph VNE at the hands of amateur pilots

VNE? Thats for prop planes. You mean VMO. The VMO for a 767 is about 360 knots, which is 414mph. VMO is guidance for airlines that want to get mileage out of their engines and their airliners without unduly stressing them.


NO, i mean VNE or VELOCITY NEVER EXCEED.

so are you implying and what do you mean its only for "PROP PLANES" ?


Originally posted by neformore
Guess what. VMO means diddly squat to someone who doesn't give a damn about the condition of the engines or the plane because the damned thing isn't ever going to be used again. You think the hijackers thought "oh no, I best stick to the safety limits while I'm crashing this plane into a building" ??


No, what i still think you don't seem to understand is i'm saying the oct claims they reached a speed of approx 550+ which far exceeded the VNE for the plane.


Originally posted by neformore
Those engines were running full throttle in a shallow dive.
You only have to hear the audio to pick the howl of them out. The max cruising speed of a 767 is 568mph. In a shallow dive it could hit 590 easily.


which the evidence and facts contradict... so no i disagree.

experts and engineers refute what you're claiming that it could have "easily" reached close to 590 at 700 feet in ANY dive and not suffered structural failure.

That alone is powerful evidence that no real boeing airliner aka flight 175 was involved in whatever hit the towers.


Originally posted by neformore
As for the amateur pilots bit, who said the professional pilots were dead at any point up to the final run into the towers?
Makes sense to me that if you can't fly the plane you get the people who can to do it up until the point that you don't need them anymore, at which point you are lined up and hit the throttles full forward. You don't have to be einstein to do that. Did you ever consider that idea?


for one, there's evidence from alleged passenger phone calls to suggest they were dead.

and if they weren't, you're telling me the real pilots would have agreed without struggle to commit suicide and not attempt to thwart what the alleged muslims with box-cutters were telling them to do? And Even if they succeeded in having the pilots "line them up", by the time they got anywhere near lined up and killed them or whatever, the likely hood they'd be able to maintain control of the plane at 700 feet let alone not breaking up, to FOLLOW THROUGH and HIT the 200 wide target, is extremely remote and highly UNLIKELY.

since you want to get into hypotheticals and speculation, have you considered that idea?


Originally posted by neformore
Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that memo. You must be talking about a different building, because I'm sure you mean the towers, which were possibly designed to withstand the hit of a 707 lost in the fog at about 160knots? - because thats all the towers were theorized to have been able to withstand according to the man who designed them, a man who, incidentally, can't prove he actually even did that at all?


please post a link and source to back all that up


Originally posted by neformore
See... the burden of "no plane" proof lies on the people who claim there were no planes there, because those people are calling the eyewitnesses to the event, who saw planes hit the towers, liars.


I'll repeat what i've said since i still don't think you like most, understand my argument or what NRPT and the fakery issue are about and actually saying in context.

There is not one single original hi quality video from any source MSM or amateur that shows or conclusively shows any clear footage of any planes on 9/11 including flight 11 and 175.

That means those who claim planes are real and did hit are using unverified footage that contains unexplained anomalies, physical impossibilities, evidence of editing and being tainted either from FBI handling or alleged amateurs connections to government, media or video editing and professionals in the movie or special effects industry.

Furthermore, since there ARE in fact WITNESSES who contradict testimony from other witnesses who claimed to have seen planes ie flight 175 and 11 hit the towers, the BOP is changed or shifted since the official story is itself a conspiracy THEORY that has never to this day been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt not to mention contains more holes that swiss cheese.

And finally, nrpt INCLUDES the possibility that what people saw were really drones/missles that were disguised in some fashion, possibly holographic tech involved, and/or if not, only looked like planes from a distance.


Originally posted by neformore
Why are you calling the eyewitnesses to the events liars?


because there IS overwhelming evidence suggesting there were in fact alleged eye witnesses that were either LYING and possible shills and plants connected to the media or government, were suffering from a psyops and/or deduced what they reported, never actually saw it live and only SAW it LIVE on TV which isn't the same and doesn't count, and/or simply incorrectly identified the objects as planes.

So why are you ignoring the fact there were witnesses that saw NO PLANE or saw what appeared to look like MISSLES? Why are you calling those eyewitnesses to the events liars?


Originally posted by neformore
And, if you are so sure of your theory, why will no one actually come and talk about it live on air?

To his credit, Bonez discussed his theory, and had his say. How come you guys won't do it?


because AS I ALREADY EXPLAINED and never got any counter-argument showing where what i said was invalid, this particular argument/debate is tipped in the favor of those against and don't believe it, and its a debate that cannot fully be explained or properly conveyed via a radio show or any other medium without the capability to present VISUAL AIDS and ALL the VISUAL EVIDENCE which are essential for anyone to grasp the complexity of the subject matter.

The TV FAKERY was mostly a VISUAL PSYOPS and cannot be analyzed or discussed in any way without VISUAL ANALYSIS and full context



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Based on your reply to Neformore, and none to me, I assume I might be on your "ignore" list? Shame.

Let me try again...since it's obvious you're not an airline pilot, I will try once more to clarify things, as simply aspossible.


NO, i mean VNE or VELOCITY NEVER EXCEED.


'VNE' IS a term that is associated, generally, with small, general aviation type airplanes. For large Transport Category jets we use the term "VMO", so Neformore is correct, there. VMO is "Velocity Max Operating". It is defined as a 'limitation', and is developed for many reasons, having to do with engineering, engine design, windshield impact resistance*, airframe tolerances in turbulence, etc. (*Most laypeople may not know that airliner windshields are electrically heated, for all phases of flight operations. This makes them more resistant to impact damage, such as bird strikes. In fact, if 'Window Heat' is INOP, there is an airspeed restriction imposed, usually below 10,000 feet MSL. Windshields are multi-paned, too....electrical elements are sandwhiched in between. We had the #1 window heat fail on a DC-10 one night in cruise, middle of the Atlantic. As the panes cooled, the thermal shock from the exterior cold air caused the inner pane to shatter. Quite unnerving to be sitting directly behind it. But, the 'book' said it was not structurally compromised, it was a 'protective' layer of glass, on the inside. SO, we pressed on to destination. Had little choice, anyway....)

VMO is a compromise speed, in some instances...defined to be WELL below the margin of safety, to give a "cushion" between what is a stated 'Maximum", and what the airframe is actually capable of, when pushed. The speed also refelcts concerns over localized "mach buffet" airflow patterns that can occur on certain protions of the airframe, not just the wings, due to shape of the surfaces, and compressibility factors of the airflow.

The "550 MPH" figure is equivalent to 478 Knots. VMO on the B-767 is 360kt. VMO on the new Airbus A-380 is---380kt. SO, the published 'limitation' of the VMO varies by aircraft.

Here, everyone should read this exchange on the topic of speeds, especially asit cites the (late of ATS) Capt John Lear. I have disagreed with him on this topic (VMO) in the past, and I daresay he is in the minority belief of its "impossiblity" among airline pilots. Here is a discussion:

www.pprune.org...

Good forum to dip into, for you laypeople, as well. Keeps the 'truther' rubbish at bay....




No, what i still think you don't seem to understand is i'm saying the oct claims they reached a speed of approx 550+ which far exceeded the VNE for the plane.


Again, you'd have to ask Mr. Boeing and his engineers about that, just what they determined to be the absolute "never exceed" for the airframe....I will tell you this, though; it is related to a percentage of Mach. And as I've pointed out, even at the +550MPH/478kt, it is still not even close to Mach 1. AND, in a dive, with the thrust of the engines and gravity assisting, the airplane CAN push through the VMO, and get WAY, way up there. Do the research on TWA 841. A B-727 that briefly exceeded Mach 1 --- and the crew lived to tell about it. (Of course, I believe that they were ultimately responsible for the 'high dive', but no one fessed up).

en.wikipedia.org...(1979)



experts and engineers refute what you're claiming that it could have "easily" reached close to 590 at 700 feet in ANY dive and not suffered structural failure.


Wrong, only a mere handful make those claims. IF there had been turbulence, or the pilot had manipulated the controls roughly, damage would have ensued. IN FACT, there probably was damage trending, in the few seconds of time the airplane sustained those excessive speeds, but not instantly catastrophic --- more like stress-related type that would have grounded the airplane, or necessitated repairs, IF it had recovered, slowed, and then landed properly. An inspection would have been conducted, much in the same way an inspection is carried out after a "hard landing" event, or a severe turbulence encounter, in flight....many airplanes experience this in their lifetimes, and are checked, and returend to service.

Now, the next part? You just aim the shotgun, and scatter shot?



...you're telling me the real pilots would have agreed without struggle to commit suicide and not attempt to thwart what the alleged muslims with box-cutters were telling them to do?


"alleged muslims"??
Huh?

Oh, well...I think Neformore may have erred in implying that the REAL pilots assisted in any way. I suggest they were incapacitated and/or dead. Those "box-cutters" that you mock, when wielded by a murderous terrorist, on two defenseless men sitting, strapped in, with their backs to the assailant, would be defenseless, especially once their throats had been slashed. Ever hear of the carotid artery?



And Even if they succeeded in having the pilots "line them up", by the time they got anywhere near lined up and killed them or whatever, the likely hood they'd be able to maintain control of the plane at 700 feet let alone not breaking up, to FOLLOW THROUGH and HIT the 200 wide target, is extremely remote and highly UNLIKELY.


What a load of crapdoodle!

As I've mentioned, the REAL pilots were in no shape to "line them up". You make it seem as if it's hard? To steer a jet, and 'line up'? Well, it isn't difficult, not in the least. YOU could do it, with only a little bit of practice, even if you had NEVER flown before! Those terrorists were pilots, had hundreds of hours. HOW DO YOU THINK PILOTS LAND AIRPLANES! Yup, they 'line up' with a runway that's 150-200 feet wide!



[edit on 20 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


What the heck do you want? James Cameron-quality 3D???


There is not one single original hi quality video from any source MSM or amateur that shows or conclusively shows any clear footage of any planes on 9/11 including flight 11 and 175.


There are AMPLE images of UAL 175! They're all over the web!

Hint: WTC hit by airplane. Cameras tended to be focused there, AFTER AAL 11 hit (although undetermined, early on, as to exactly why or what hit, in the initial confusion).


BUT, because of the attention, cameras were in place to capture the event of UAL 175, numerous times!!! Numerous vantage points! Numerous angles!

Honestly, it is intellectually dishonest of the hard-core "conspiracy wannabes" to make the cliam, as you did, to the contrary. It boggles the limits of reason....

[edit on 20 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
How is it possible to know for sure that you can "control" everybody who has a camcorder? I repeat, is there a database of who has bought them?
And how could they possibly all be connected to the "perps"? That's just completely mad. Are you suggesting that if you tried to buy a camcorder before 2001 you automatically became inducted into the 911 inside job? Or were you only allowed to buy one if you were connected?
And Where are all the people with camcorders that suddenly didn't work on 9/11? I'll tell you what, if you can find me an example of five people to whom this happened then I'll believe NPT for good. Just five.


you're over estimating just how many people might have had video cameras able to capture such an event, a vantage point to capture such an event, or the obscene amount of luck needed to capture such an event.

but ask a loaded question, i'll give you a loaded answer.....

STILL, Unless or UNTIL you can show where ALL the alleged footage you're claiming there would, could or should be IS, your argument is irrelevant and moot.

However i've explained in the past that most don't fully understand what the real nrpt's are saying, believe and have fully argued... most ignore the fact that part of our position includes that we're not necessarily saying that there weren't planes, but there weren't REAL PLANES and what most saw were most likely missles/drones disguised in some fashion by military halo-tech or by the tv fakery. So my personal opinion and belief somewhat considers both aspects, which imo is far more open-minded than most have the ability to be due to the evidence most haven't bothered to investigate or consider. More and more people are looking at the videos more critically than 2 years ago and are finding out the videos are fake.

Once you realize how easily videos can be faked, you have an alternative explanation at your disposal for anomalies in the official story. Instead of watching the news footage and thinking, "That looked odd, but it must have happened because it was on TV", you might think, "That looked impossible. Maybe it was faked". If there are no anomalies in the video, there's no reason to suspect it's fake.

Second, before you can even argue about what you are, you have to PROVE there were real planes they had to worry about being captured.
But since no real plane could have even penetrated the towers as the video's depict which show physical impossibilities and the plane defying newtonian laws, you're putting the cart before the horse.

FACT: there is no genuine visual record of the WTC2 strike.

FACT: Few people reported hearing and seeing planes. Most testimonies of those who did are inconsistent with that of a wide-body commercial airliner hitting a building at 800 feet altitude, full throttle.

an excellent explanation from sc

"All the alleged “Amateur” stills and videos depicting crucial moments of the day (“planes”/“tower collapses”) are forgeries - and demonstrably so. The “9/11 plotters” manufactured a large image-pool to be attributed to private cameramen for three main purposes :

1: To imprint the notion that many bystanders captured the event on film
2: To supply more shocking and memorable close-up views of the event
3: To outweigh the poor LIVE TV show with a great number of shots

The skeptics argue that “too many videos of the airplane were captured, therefore all cannot be fake ...” Too many indeed: there are a simply ludicrous amount of “lucky” shots. In fact, the sheer amount of existing 'airplane' images is grossly absurd in itself: We now have more than 45 “amateur videos” (some of which were released - inexplicably - as late as June 2008!). We also have at least 10 still pictures depicting alleged “Flight 175” “in its very last second of flight”:

Here’s where any rational-minded person should stop and ponder: What are the odds that so many amateur cameramen would capture a clear shot of an unexpected 550mph airplane[1] in its very last second of flight - both 'plane' and towers nicely framed - with no apparent motion blur of either? There are, for instance, no such precedents in the history of motorsport photography: no speedway crash has ever been captured by 55+ cameramen, in crowded arenas where hundreds of lenses are aimed right at the action. On most occasions, only a handful of professionals will capture an image sharp enough for publication.

Other “amateur” shots depict the actual impact of the "airplane" on the tower façade: The aluminum airframe is seen integrally penetrating the steel tower with no deceleration – without as much as a rear aileron breaking off. This is, of course, utterly absurd and makes a joke of the laws of physics. This ‘shortcut compromise’ was chosen by the fakery crew for obvious reasons: More realistic forgeries (with many bits and pieces shredding at impact) would have required vastly superior computing power in order to simulate convincingly all the various viewing angles of the “planecrash”.

The rest of the alleged “amateur” shots disqualify each other by the way of irreconcilable discrepancies and aberrations. All kinds of parameters simply fail to add up as one compares the different shots (all of which – of course – are supposed to depict the same “airplane”) : trajectories, angles, pitch, yaw, speeds, lighting, hues - to name a few. Here's a trajectory comparison between two well-known videos - the last 7 seconds of "Flight175"...according to two different 'cameramen':

WHO ARE THE ALLEGED "AMATEUR" CAMERAMEN?

About 90% of the alleged authors of these “amateur videos” are people linked to the newsmedia and the film/video industry. A mere coincidence? Not likely. A more rational hypothesis is that they were chosen as credible scapegoats should any of those forgeries be publicly exposed - since all could be plausibly suspected of faking pictures for personal fame and gain. So why don’t we have a single authentic video of the crucial 9/11 events? Most likely, electromagnetic technology (commonly used in war zones to jam the enemy’s electronics) prevented any private footage being recorded at the time of the tower strikes. In fact, several electronic disruptions occured in NYC on the day."



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Your entire diatribe is worthless in the extreme, and full of addled references from fantasy, it seems. Also, has many factual errors.

To wit:


The aluminum airframe is seen integrally penetrating the steel tower with no deceleration – without as much as a rear aileron breaking off. This is, of course, utterly absurd and makes a joke of the laws of physics.


Totally, unabashed utter nonsense.

Someone should dust off the old physics books, it seems......with a particular focus on momentum, kinetic energy...and maybe even some ballistics for good measure. (Since that deals with the VERY fast, and the physics of).





[edit on 20 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
NO, i mean VNE or VELOCITY NEVER EXCEED.


Then you are using the wrong terminology. Simple. See Weedwhackers posts above.



so are you implying and what do you mean its only for "PROP PLANES" ?


See Weedwhackers post above. The guy was a commerical pilot. He knows the ropes.



No, what i still think you don't seem to understand is i'm saying the oct claims they reached a speed of approx 550+ which far exceeded the VNE for the plane.


No. You don't understand what I'm saying. You push a plane to full throttle and let it go two minutes before its going to fly into a building. Guess what - its not going to fail instantly. Its a commercial airliner. Its built to standards and then some. It doesn't just fall apart at a certain speed. Sustained flight, then maybe yes. But this flight ended abruptly in the side of a building.



which the evidence and facts contradict... so no i disagree.

experts and engineers refute what you're claiming that it could have "easily" reached close to 590 at 700 feet in ANY dive and not suffered structural failure.


See above. The logic behind your argument is bunk.



for one, there's evidence from alleged passenger phone calls to suggest they were dead.


Now ..we reach the point here where you tip your hand, and I know that you are not serious about this subject.

You are trying to cite evidence from planes that you say don't exist in order to support your theory.

Sorry, but thats outright rank hypocrisy and proves to me that you don't believe a word you are saying, and are saying it simply for the intention of getting a rise out of people.

Sorry, I can't take you seriously.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by Orion7911
the msm and alleged amateur footage of planes hitting the towers contain fakery and were tampered with and the msm footage showing planes that went out to the world likely originated from a central source or control room likely run by or connected to black op miitary that involved either near real time fakery, and/or pre-produced cgi. It was a hollywood production and magic show or more specifically, military PYSOPS

Except the "cgi fakery" couldn't have been inserted into private citizens' home videos. So, your "theory" fails on that fact alone.


Except since there's evidence of editing in nearly all these alleged "private citizens" videos and most if not all were visited by the FBI and received a DUB from the FBI, and most if not all have connections or links to either gov officials, news media or film industry who's stories about their videos are even more suspect, its more than reasonable to reject these videos as verifiable untainted evidence of real planes let alone flight 175 and 11 and consider the theory as valid.

so no, it doesn't.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
How many videos have you had professionally analyzed for fakery? None? Oh, well then you have no proof of fakery either. I guess we're done here.


the official conspiracy theory which you support, claims real planes aka flight 11 and 175 hit the towers, yet that conspiracy THEORY uses the footage you claim proves nothing because it hasn't been professionally analyzed.

So how can you SUPPORT and claim real planes hit the towers citing these videos which you're essentially claiming can't be used as valid evidence of anything?

There are PLENTY of indicators that they have been manipulated and hardly usable to support your RPT.

Now that evidence exists that puts into logical question that the visual footage/photos have been tampered with, edited, photo shopped, show evidence of cgi and FAKERY, you can no longer rely on this OCT footage as EVIDENCE for PLANES. Anyone who does, is not a reasonable logical or rational thinking person with critical thinking skills and thus validates NRP as a valid and logical alternate theory to consider far from disinfo or the nonsense most are trying to make it out to be.

But then, what the videos do show are unexplained anomalies, physical impossibilities, and violations of newtonian mechanics, which don't require any professional analysis to understand.

so you're right, i guess we're done here.... thanks for playing



[edit on 20-5-2010 by Orion7911]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

neformore
Original post by Orion7911. NO, i mean VNE

you are using the wrong terminology See Weedwhackers posts

I've seen and understood differently, but fine, i'll concede the issue and retract

neformore
what do you mean

See Weedwhackers post. The guy was a commerical pilot. He knows the ropes.

to be sure, i'll be addressing him shortly, you're first


neformore
"No, what i still think you don't seem to understand is i'm saying the oct claims they reached a speed of approx 550+ which far exceeded the (Vmo) for the plane on an approx 9min descent."

No. You don't understand what I'm saying. You push a plane to full throttle and let it go two minutes before its going to fly into a building. Guess what its not going to fail instantly. Its a commercial airliner. Its built to standards and then some. It doesn't just fall apart at a certain speed. Sustained flight, then maybe yes. But this flight ended abruptly in the side of a building.

So what experience, authority or evidence do you have to support what you're claiming?

Most of the videos show an almost horizontal approach. Therefore the power dive argument supports video fakery. You cannot have a power dive if the horizontal approach videos are accurate. But then if there is video fakery for the planes and the explosion is accurate, how can you argue that there was a real plane?

So the power dive argument is a catch 22.

Of course anyone will agree that a plane can reach speeds over 500 at sea level IF THE NOSE OF THE PLANE WAS POINTING STRAIGHT DOWN AT THE EARTH. There are many other experts that agreed that it could not go over 500 IN FLIGHT at sea level all included in the video. Most eyewitnesses agree it was in level flight and no such power dive; again supporting fakery.

Here's more than ample evidence to support my argument (if you claim any of this is wrong or not factual, please show a line by line counter-argument exactly how and where it is)

pilotsfor911truth.org...

..Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175. It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.


forum.prisonplanet.com...

"..The "plane" is presumed to have struck its target at a height under 1000 feet at 9:02am

This is incredible target acquisitioning, but just as incredible is the fact that according to the NTSB report, which was founded on three sets of radar data ( FAA, JFK Approach and USAF) the alleged plane covered the sixty mile distance in approximately 4 minutes and 40 seconds. That works out to an average of 700 mph; this is above Mach 1!, a totally impossible achievement, on multiple levels, for a mid-size wide-body twinjet airliner."


s1.zetaboards.com...

".it would have been impossible for an alleged hijacker with little or no time in the Boeing 767 to have taken over, then flown a Boeing 767 at high speed, descending to below 1000 feet above mean sea level and flown a course to impact the twin towers

..To propose that a Boeing 767 airliner exceeded its designed limit speed of 360 knots by 127 mph to fly through the air at 540 mph is simply not possible. It is not possible because of the thrust required and it's not possible because of the engine fan design which precludes accepting the amount of dense air being forced into it."


www.911research.dsl.pipex.com...

The fact that all the videos apparently show a structurally intact Boeing 767 in controlled flight prior to its collision with WTC2 travelling at such a ridiculously high airspeed is another indicator that whatever the UA175 aircraft was, it was not a production model Boeing 767-200. it was simply something that has been added to the video recording in post production either to conceal what the video recording originally showed, or to add something to the recording that should have been there







www.youtube.com...


neformore
experts and engineers refute what you're claiming it could have "easily" reached close to 590 at 700 feet in ANY dive and not suffered structural failure.

See above.The logic behind your argument is bunk


how so? what exactly is bunk?


neformore
"for one, there's evidence from alleged passenger phone calls to suggest they were dead."

Now we reach the point here where you tip your hand, and I know that you are not serious about this subject.You are trying to cite evidence from planes that you say don't exist in order to support your theory.Sorry, but thats outright rank hypocrisy and proves to me that you don't believe a word you are saying, and are saying it to get a rise out of people. Sorry, I can't take you seriously.

Uh, Mr moderator, If thats how you want to interpret what i'm explaining and believe i'm not serious even though i've been responding to everyones line of questions in-depth presenting a valid argument supporting what i'm claiming which so far imo hasn't been shown to be illogical or wrong, i guess you have a right to that opinion

but the fact is you're the one that brought up alleged evidence or are speculating and giving hypotheticals that i'm merely responding to in the same manner. If You wanna go down that road and use that "evidence" to support your speculative theory, then I should be able to correct you on what the official CT evidence cites, no? It doesn't by any means invalidate my position or nrpt or make me a hypocrite

[edit on 20-5-2010 by Orion7911]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
Here’s where any rational-minded person should stop and ponder: What are the odds that so many amateur cameramen would capture a clear shot of an unexpected 550mph airplane[1] in its very last second of flight - both 'plane' and towers nicely framed - with no apparent motion blur of either?


I can't take you seriously either. But this bit just takes the cake. What happened before the aeroplane hit the tower? There was a quite surprising event a bit earlier. Something that might have encouraged people to point their cameras at the WTC...

And of course you still haven't answered my point above. Put yourself in the shoes of the conspirators. How do you ensure that you have all the footage? Until you can answer that you're going to struggle to convince anybody. Here's a clue - just make up some sort of super-secret super-powered mind control machine. Something like that.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Sorry, but you're being horribly misled by a lot of amateurish "armchair noodling"....and I see it's mostly because you seem so incredibly focused on (and unfortunately, illogically convinced of) the "No Planes Theory".

Checking the "amateruish" comment, for just one moment..."YouTube" video #3, with Russ Wittenburg. YES, he is a valid, known former (retired) UAL pilot. He is also a bit of a loon, in the John Lear category...self-aggrandizing sort. (that means he's on an ego trip. Not uncommon, MOST airline pilots, like doctors, have enormous egos).

However, Wittenburg made quite a fuss and fool of himself, so much so that even though I didn't work for United, his name was tossed about within the industry, even before 9/11. He's a blowhard. Keep in mind, please, his provenance and how he came to be a "United Airlines" pilot. He was one of the lucky ones who survived the merger with PanAm, when that airline was failing and was acquired by UAL.

(The most senior pilots at PanAm played a clever game to manipulate their positions, and influence, in their favor, at the expense of other "fellow brother" pilots, the subsequent ALPA-mandated 'senirity merger' protocols. Basically, when UAL bought the PAA assets, they were interested ONLY in the overseas route authorities, both Pacific and Atlantic...and t he airplanes that flew those routes. SO, the senior-most manipulated themselves INTO that equipment --- the B-747 --- and UAL didn't take, nor want, the fleet of A-300s and B-727s that PanAm had. THOSE pilots hit the streets....)

Oh, Wittenburg is well known, alright....

Video #2, above? YT user "skyarcher". Guessing here, looks to be a bloke from the UK, likely a private pilot, with some experience in general aviation type airplanes, but NONE in real transport category (except, of course, his home computer and the simulator programs, which he shows near the end).

"skyarcher"s use of the A380 flight test segment is common, and a common misunderstanding shown by the "No Planers"...in fact, the flight test segment shows that it IS POSSIBLE to greatly exceed the VMO, especially in such short durations.

What is misunderstood, when mentioning the "fuselage failure" early in the +M.90 "flutter tests" is this: The fuselage did not fail! None of its structural components were damaged. IT WAS A FAIRING that came slightly unsecured, during the test! All a fairing does is 'smooth' the airflow, and attempt to reduce parasitic drag (just one component of the TOTAL drag "felt" by airplanes in flgiht). Drag increses thrust requirements, which increases fuel flows, which increases cost, and shortens range.

Of course, what amateurs miss in the video, because they love to 'pounce' (WHEN they are in this "No Planes" mindset) is that after a slight modification to the design of that particular fairing, it subsequently tested just fine, in the later "flutter tests".

BTW, that video was overly dramatic, for television and entertainment purposes. In this modern age, with CAD and very powerful computer modeling, the engineers were quite certain of the safety, in these high-speed tests. The helmets, parachutes, etc are a necessary requirement, for the just in case aspect....BUT, if it was THAT dangerous, as breathlessly indicated by the narration, then there would have only been the TWO PILOTS onboard, for that particular test! Hard enough for two to evacuate, in case of dire emergency, then four or five!

Video #4....again, was that Wittenburg? Forget, now...but anyway, the false comparison to flying a Cessna 172. Sure, it was Hani Hanjour, I think, who famously was so poor at landing technique that they wouldn't "sign him off" on the rental check out. So what??

ALL four of the prime terrorist "pilots" had training in 757 and 767 simulators, and they certainly didn't waste time practicing landings!

BTW...ask any airline pilot, once you're familiar with, and fly exclusively for months or years, ONLY one type of airplane, then decide to go rent a small general aviation airplane, it takes a little while to "unlearn" some hapbits and techniques that you utilize everyday on the big jets, and re-accustom yourself to how the smaller airplanes handle.

Many years ago I was lilving in Phoenix, and wished to rent a Cessna 210 for the weekend. A six-place, high perfomance retractable single. When I was a "newbie", it was a very complicated, intimidating machine! AND, compared to the little Cessna 150, VERY heavy on the controls (or so I thought).

Fast-forward to Phoenix, and I had to do the obligatory "check-out" with a CFI...same thing I used to do back when I was teaching, for renting customers. Anyway, we're flying, doing landings and he comments "Gee, I've never seen anyone fly this thing with only two fingers on the control wheel, before".

I laughed...I was on the DC-10 at the time, and I HAD to use the lightest touch possible, on the Cessna, because I was so accustomed to an entirely different "feel"....not that the DC-10 is hard to control it's just different, and in comparison, requires a bit more muscle than the Cessna. To me, the 210 felt light as a feather. It's just a matter of perspective.


OK. memory lane is behind us...video #5? Wing vortexes. Great, informative, but hardly applicable, to the events of 9/11.


What else, let me see....oh! "Pilots for Truth". Yeah...more gobble-dee-gook from Rob Balsamo, and company (actually, it's really just HIM, and a few boot-licking accolytes, in reality).

I attempted to set him straight on the Egypt Air 990 crash, but any time you dare to disagree with the "grand poohbah" on HIS turf, you don't last long. Spoiled brat, best way to describe him, and he should be judged accordingly, and treated as such.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join