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: 20
19
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally by weedwhacker

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


Idk, perhaps because my handle refers to a star constellation?


posted by weedwhacker
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?


see my response to the moderator


posted by weedwhacker
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.


i'm truly baffled why you'd find something wrong with paraphrasing or even taking publicly available content in order to convey evidence or help explain a position.

that its questionable is nothing more than your speculative opinion… and since you give no specifics, examples or supporting evidence of what you're talking about and claiming, whats your point?

So Why is is that you and so many others don't seem to have a problem parroting and being spoon-fed conspiracy theories by questionable conspiracy sites and government sources that have many times been exposed to have been peddling disinfo, half truths, lies, faulty science, math and less than empirical evidence.


posted by weedwhacker
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.


WRONG…. claims of tampering and editing HAVE BEEN verified, and backed up with facts and evidence.


posted by weedwhacker
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.....


and that sir , is nothing more than YOUR OPINION based on Speculation.

why do you always play these rhetorical mind games?


posted by weedwhacker
AS TO 'amateur' pilots??

Come on...the creeps had several hundred hours, at least!


So Prove it… source please. I'm not saying you're wrong, but i need to know what you're specifically talking about before i can respond appropriately.


posted by weedwhacker
There are commuter airlines that hire pilots with that amount of time!!
Anyway, in the case of large passenger jets, they handle very easily and very smoothly, even at high speeds.


prove it.


posted by weedwhacker
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.....


and your point is…….?


posted by weedwhacker
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!


If that were true, it should be very easy to prove and present an argument with facts and evidence to back up what you're claiming.… show some examples and stop hand-waiving. What images are you talking about?


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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!


please see my post to the MOD… i've already answered, addressed and debunked that issue.


posted by weedwhacker
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....


actually it boggles the mind and limits of reason that you keep making general claims without any
facts, details/examples/specifics or supporting evidence.

I'm really getting tired of playing your rhetorical guessing games.
You go right ahead and show me one or whatever example you want, and i'll show you exactly why how, where or what the problem is.


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


If that were true, you'd be able to PROVE and show exactly how and where line by line its diatribe, worthless, full of addled references from fanstasy and all the alleged factual errors.

just ONE? pretty please?


posted by weedwhacker
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.


NO, you mean its your OPINION its unabashed utter nonsense… or in otherwords, you have no real evidence to support your claims




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


if you haven't piloted a boeing 767 or you're not addressing the actual event evidence, your opinion is pretty much meaningless on this particular issue and theres no reason for me to entertain your rhetoric.


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

'VNE' IS a term that is associated, generally, with

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. 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

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....


can you please please explain what does this have to do with any of the actual evidence and issue pertaining to the event itself?

all that info and data for what? proves what? looks more like a huge waste of bandwidth.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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


and again, what does all that have to do with the direct evidence of the issue we're talking about regarding 175?


Originally posted by weedwhacker
"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.


HUH???? whats a handfull? and if there are in fact, experts and engineers who refute what i'm asserting, whats WRONG about it? Your logic, syntax and sentence structure is absolutely bizarre which is why i rarely if ever bother responding to you, read your posts or engage you in any debate… you're caught in this weird circular reasoning pattern that doesn't make any logical sense. Its like a dog chasing his tail.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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,


everything you've just said is nothing more than speculation.

this issue/debate isn't really about what COULD HAVE HAPPENED, its about what COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED and what the evidence and facts based on experts and engineers say was not possible for the known variables and factors occurring during this alleged flight and plane.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now, the next part? You just aim the shotgun, and scatter shot?


here you go again.. what are you talking about willis? how is a response addressing
what he specifically said, scattering aimlessly? I don't understand what the problem is or why you want to debate petty irrelevant portions of a response.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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?


yeah, alleged muslims with box-cutters.

what exactly is your point?


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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

matrix posted:
"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".


i never said they were or weren't in shape to line them up… notice the key were "IF". So what are you on about? it wasn't me who brought up anything about lining up to begin with


Originally posted by weedwhacker
You make it seem as if it's hard? To steer a jet, and 'line up'?


that was addressed in my response to the MOD and contrary evidence by experts say otherwise.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well, it isn't difficult, not in the least.


at 550 + 1000ft or SL it would be! Thats not MY opinion either.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
YOU could do it, with only a little bit of practice, even if you had NEVER flown before!


So why does RUSS WITTENBERG and other experts disagree?


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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!


Not going 590 mph ASL !

but thanks for stoppin by... its been a little slice of heaven 2 b sure



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
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.


Nice try at obfuscating the argument. Power dive is your term, not mine. I said shallow dive.

Now kudos to you for trying to insert a term there that wasn't used in order to make your argument seem more convincing, but sadly its not going to wash. Similarly with this...



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.


Which again is a nice way of trying to deflect the term shallow dive to try and support your argument - hell you even got the assertive caps in there as well, but - sorry sunshine - this ain't my first rodeo. You coined the term "power dive" and have tried to associate your own spin on it. It was never used, and you attempt at obfuscation here is not going to work.

Now then,



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)


I beleive Weedwhacker has done that already, but some comments from my part



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.



Heres the NTSB report on EA 990

Note the Probable cause


he National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the EgyptAir flight 990 accident is the airplane's departure from normal cruise flight and subsequent impact with the Atlantic Ocean as a result of the relief first officer's flight control inputs. The reason for the relief first officer's actions was not determined.


Read the report. The plane was recoverable according to the simulations.



As previously discussed, simulations showed that even if a failure condition had affected the elevator system, it would have been possible to regain control of the airplane at any time during the recorded portion of the accident sequence and to have restarted the engines and recovered the airplane during the climb after the recorders stopped. However, those simulations assumed that there were no opposing pilot inputs. The captain's failure to recover the airplane can be explained, in part, by the relief first officer's opposing flight control inputs. It is possible that efforts to recover the airplane after the airplane lost electrical power were also complicated by the loss of electronic cockpit displays.


The simple fact was that the copilot and pilot were vying for control of the plane when it hit the ocean.

The NTSB's official report into the incident therefore renders this...




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.



As complete gibberish , because the airplane broke up when it hit the sea - unless that is you want to argue with the NTSB about that as well?



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."



I'd love to check the maths on this from the source. Sadly, I can't find the information it was gained from, particularly the 60 miles figure. My understanding of the data is that the aircraft began its decsent at point G. From what I can gather that was about 42 miles out, which, given the 4 minutes 40 figure (which, oddly is the same from the no planer arguing on pilots for 9/11 truth...) gives an airspeed of 540mph. Not 700. Given that the 767-200ER has a typical cruising speed at altitude of 530mph, coming down, in descent with the throttles wide open suddenly puts everything in the realms of complete possibility.

By the way, Rob Balsamo of pilots for 9/11 truth disagrees with your idea that the plane would fail exceeding VMO. Maybe you should argue that out with him eh?



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



Weewhacker disagrees, so do I. See his response as to why.




..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."



Boeing 767 200ER Specs. Note the cruise speed




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



Pseudo babble and junk science I'm afraid.



how so? what exactly is bunk?


Well...your claim that the plane could not make the manoevuer for one. Ask Rob Balsamo about that.

And

Your claim that the plane was added to the video after the event, which implies that everyone who saw it hit as an eyewitness is lying. Thats bunk, not only that but it insults the intelligence of the people who saw it happen with their own eyes.



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


I sure do. I stand by it as well. Your arguments are not factual and are misinformed, as show above, and misguided. They are based on opinions, not evidence, and they are junk science.

You can bounce words all you like. You can try and play with obfuscations all you like, but - frankly- this no plane theory is, planely (pun intended), junk.


[edit on 21/5/10 by neformore]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by warisover
 


I am shocked that anyone is still making these silly claims.


Quite frankly I am shocked that grown adults with at least two brain cells in their head can't see that the "plane" videos were faked.



This is absolutely one of the worse ideas related to the 9/11 conspiracies and when associated with the other conspiracies, makes all people interested in 9/11 conspiracies look like tinfoil hat wearing lunatics.


I am not interested in 9/11 conspiracies, I am interested in 9/11 truth and if that makes me a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic I'm ok with that.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
~Arthur Schopenhauer~



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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




Interesting set of "videos" you chose to post. What are you trying to say here? In the first video it does look like the plane is coming down from a higher altitude but in the second one, the plane (or whatever that thing is) is coming straight across.??



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by warisover
 


Sigh...

In _BoneZ_ video examples, the upper (first) one is a shot from a different angle, obviously, and includes a capture of UAL 175 from farther out, SHOWING that it started from a ahigher altitude, and began the final descent in just the last seconds, to accelerate for its final impact velocity.

The terrorist pilot did this to MAXIMIZE his effect.

In the second video, from the 'side' angle, you only see the very final, last moments...hardly a second...and it appears to be level, becuase he DID shallow out his dive slightly, as he aimed to hit the building.

IF YOU HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY FLOWN an airplane, then I doubt very much you will ever understand what I'm trying to describe.

What a shame......



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Within 4 minutes of the first air strike on tower 1 all 5 TV networks had firsthand eyewitnesses handy on the phone, virtually all whom were news media professionals. This is how they sold the "plane" theory to the public.

One good thing is , we have all there names so if the truth ever does finally come out they can be held accountable for their treasonous actions.



You know, what really makes me mad, or should I say sad, is that human beings can be so evil and conniving. I think that's why so many people just cannot fathom this idea (of no planes), because to pull this hoax off, all the people involved have got to be soulless psychopaths. And most people just cannot believe that others can be so mean...maybe that's a good thing, good people usually see the good in others and to think that others could be so evil is something that they cannot or will not even think about.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
Within 4 minutes of the first air strike on tower 1 all 5 TV networks had firsthand eyewitnesses handy on the phone, virtually all whom were news media professionals.

So there were no planes because the networks readily had eyewitnesses available? What, do you think that reporters sit at the news stations all day to get their stories? They get out and about throughout the city to get their news stories. It takes less than 5 seconds to call in to their studios to report what they saw or heard from wherever they were in the city. So, 4 minutes is an eternity to wait to call in.

What's really sad is that you no-planers can't see the ridiculousness of the claims you're peddling. And you keep peddling it over and over and still nobody is falling for it.

What I suggest is that you stop making yourself look foolish. You've been challenged by myself and Nefermore to come on the radio show or debate me in the debate forum.

Because you've declined, the only conclusion that one can come to is that you don't really have any evidence of "no planes" and that you're not confident enough in your theories to defend them in a debate either on the radio or in the debate forum.

Furthermore, since you're not confident enough in your theories and don't have any real evidence to win any kind of debate, then the final conclusion that one can only come to is that you're purposely spreading disinformation regardless of the factual evidence or your confidence in your theories.

Everyone that you link to this thread will see that you and Orion keep chickening out of a debate. Therefore, nobody that you link to this thread will take either of you seriously.

So, I would suggest either debate us on the radio show and debate forum, or stop peddling disinformation. It's just as simple as that.

Anything else you type will look like "blah blah blah" to everyone else.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
Within 4 minutes of the first air strike on tower 1 all 5 TV networks had firsthand eyewitnesses handy on the phone, virtually all whom were news media professionals.


You honestly find this remarkable? It's the World Trade Center, in NYC. You can see it for miles. And there's hardly a shortage of media people in lower Manhattan at any given time.

Do you have any idea of how TV works, of how rolling news programs are constructed? You really ought to if you're going to make sweeping conjectures of this kind.


You know, what really makes me mad, or should I say sad, is that human beings can be so evil and conniving. I think that's why so many people just cannot fathom this idea (of no planes), because to pull this hoax off, all the people involved have got to be soulless psychopaths.


Never mind the yawning logical gaps in the practical side of your proposition, what in your experience leads you to believe that there are so many "soulless psychopaths" available and willing to pull something like this off? If I was as willing to play fast and loose with cod-psychoanalysis as you are with elementary common sense then I might suggest that it's a psychological fantasy designed to make you feel virtuous.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
Within 4 minutes of the first air strike on tower 1 all 5 TV networks had firsthand eyewitnesses handy on the phone, virtually all whom were news media professionals. This is how they sold the "plane" theory to the public.


I'll let you into a little secret about proffesional broadcasting, , especially TV News broadcasting - its this -

News reporters and camera crews are situated in every major city in the world, and most TV news stations have local reporters situated in major towns and other strategic places. They don't just sit in an office and wait for something to happen, they actively go out looking for it.

Now bear in mind that NYC is one of the most heavily populated cities in the world, and - for all intents and purposes - acts as one of the main focal points of American culture.

If, for one minute, you think its unusual that media crews were available virtually instantly in NYC, and able to talk to people quickly, then you are sadly misinformed.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


There is actually an excellent example of this here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

See how in the video the news crew are fiddling about with something else in Manhattan, about half a mile from the WTC. The reporter starts shouting to the director - "Come to us! Come to us, Beth!" - meaning that he wants to start broadcasting about what's happened. He does this within seconds of the plane hitting.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
If you subscribe to the no planer theory this is what you believe:

1. That either the broadcast was pre-recorded (which would mean everyone who saw it would have to keep it a secret, including the news crews who filmed it all happening), or the "fakery" was done on the spot.
2. That all videos of this were faked, and if there were any videos of "what really happened" they were either confiscated/destroyed.
3. That all of the witnesses were paid off/threatened.
4. That all of the plane parts were planted, among other things.
5. That speculation is more reliable than facts and evidence.

You guys aren't looking for truth, you're looking for fiction and passing it off as truth. Now don't get me wrong, the CD'rs are guilty of this too, but at least they try to back up their claims with evidence.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
There is a point to no plane theory nobody has mentioned:
During the life transmisson on cnn you couldn't see a plane aproaching just an explosion when nobody was expecting it. This was supposedly the second plane hit. The commentary even said that and stated that they would "rewind the tape". Then you saw the plane passing the screen, a short blackout and then the as before explosion.

I don't have a particular opinion whatever there were planes or not, but I find the argument that there were no live shots valid. This however proves or disproves nothing you just don't have enough evidence either way.

Here is a video where a supposed witness says there were no second plane but a bomb.



And:
There also were other explosions barely visible on the edge off the screen at some points while you saw the fire spreading to an other floor.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by kybertech]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech

There is a point to no plane theory nobody has mentioned:
During the life transmisson on cnn you couldn't see a plane aproaching just an explosion when nobody was expecting it. This was supposedly the second plane hit. The commentary even said that and stated that they would "rewind the tape". Then you saw the plane passing the screen, a short blackout and then the as before explosion.

I don't have a particular opinion whatever there were planes or not, but I find the argument that there were no live shots valid. This however proves or disproves nothing you just don't have enough evidence either way.

Here is a video where a supposed witness says there were no second plane but a bomb.


Good observation kybertech, I like people that can use their own brain and think for themselves. I see you just joined ATS today, Welcome.


Notice in that video that the eyewitness told the news guy that there was NO PLANE, and the news guy says, "I'm told we saw it on television (tell-a-vision)." So it seems that "the plane" was only visible on t.v.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Oh wow BIG WHOOPDEE DOOO , find one person who says there was no plane and all you truthers believe it as if its the gospel. You know, ignore the thousands of other New Yorkers who SAW AIRPLANES FLY INTO THE BUILDINGS.

Stop feeding these trolls, just delete this entire post, seriously.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Jbalon]

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Jbalon]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jbalon
Stop feeding these trolls, just delete this entire post, seriously.
*plonk*

done!



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jbalon
Oh wow BIG WHOOPDEE DOOO , find one person who says there was no plane and all you truthers believe it as if its the gospel. You know, ignore the thousands of other New Yorkers who SAW AIRPLANES FLY INTO THE BUILDINGS.

Stop feeding these trolls, just delete this entire post, seriously.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Jbalon]

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Jbalon]


they are lying. They were:

1. Paid by the government to lie
2. Brainwashed to lie
3. Force to lie or have their families murdered by the government
4. Are part of the coverup and working for the government



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
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.


Funny how you ignore and fail to respond or refute the evidence, facts and arguments
i've presented... you snip my post, and respond to less than 10% of what i presented that supports my position and all you can do is give your OPINION addressing the issue totally OUT OF CONTEXT.

typical of those in denial who avoid, divert and obfuscate to cover up their inability to refute the actual evidence. It the only way you can make it look like you've debunked anything.


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
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...


which was already addressed.


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
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]


anyone that reads what i wrote in detail and full context, can see i've already addressed and debunked your argument.



[edit on 25-5-2010 by Orion7911]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

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.

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).


but since you're just GUESSING, i think its safe to say your OPINION doesn't prove or disprove anything.

so how can your opinion be used to measure or determine TRUTH or anything for that matter? It doesn't.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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!


once again, nothing more than your OPINION... which carries little if any weight.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


all those points were addressed, answered and debunked as anyone can see who reviews the links and docs in full which you nor anyone has offered any specific line by line counter-argument to.

your OPINION is the last one i'd ever believe or take seriously especially considering your posting history, tactics and failed logic time and time again.

and we see once again in your next paragraph how you go off on a tangent with another irrelevant short story addressing everything but the evidence and specific issues.


Originally posted by weedwhackerMany 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.


so should you.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Sigh...

In _BoneZ_ video examples, the upper (first) one is a shot from a different angle, obviously, and includes a capture of UAL 175 from farther out, SHOWING that it started from a ahigher altitude, and began the final descent in just the last seconds, to accelerate for its final impact velocity.


except there's no real conclusive or visual evidence of any "power-dive" ...in fact, many witnesses corroborate that... but then thats all been explained and addressed and debunked in my 3 posts which you've ignored at least 90% of.


Originally posted by weedwhacker

The terrorist pilot did this to MAXIMIZE his effect.

In the second video, from the 'side' angle, you only see the very final, last moments...hardly a second...and it appears to be level, becuase he DID shallow out his dive slightly, as he aimed to hit the building.

IF YOU HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY FLOWN an airplane, then I doubt very much you will ever understand what I'm trying to describe.

What a shame......


whats a shame is that you can't understand the implications and significance of contradictory footage.

Either they all show the SAME THING and are consistent, or they don't... the FACTS and EVIDENCE prove contradictory footage over and over and physical impossibilities; and thats just for starters.

SIGH... yawn




[edit on 25-5-2010 by Orion7911]




top topics



 
19
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join