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.

 

9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

page: 84
141
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


As for planes being heavy, let me suggest anyone thinking that to watch a video or two of how old planes are scrapped. This gives you a good idea of what happens in a steel vs. aluminum situation.

The serious weigh of a plane is in the engines, and the fuel. The engines would break loose from the wings and probably make some penetration. The fuel would break free and go through and probably take out Windows and wall parts between the main structural parts. To take down a building such as the WTC towers, the center columns would have to be taken out and there is nothing about a plane crash that can do that.
edit on 13-11-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
And that is all you have, your opinion!


Click and read.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Wrong, you avoid the evidence as it destroys your silly conspiracy theory!


Click and read.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let us know when you get some evidence for your theory as all the real evidence provided destroys your theory. If this were a court of law, by definition of "rebuttable presumption", you lost long ago. (click the link).





Wrong again, that is just your opinion.


You can plug your ears and close your eyes, but it will not make this list of evidence disappear.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument as you and the others who blindly support the OS have been failing for 84 pages.
edit on 13-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: new page



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Oh I see. I guess. So you are saying that the planes were not flown into the buildings ...


I stopped reading there -

Read this again -

"If you read the thread, you will note that no one is disputing whether aircraft hit the WTC. "
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you don't bother to read my posts, why should I bother to read yours?



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


That's all you have? After 84 pages? Regurgitation???

84 pages (and counting) and STILL no proof of "P4T" claims. Just repeats, to infinity (and beyond...)

Indicates the weakness of the "P4T", and their "position" (still not even defined, BTW), when they offer nothing but the same recycled junk.

Sorry, at the risk of being repetitive myself ( oops, too late!
) guess I will have to repeat...


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Repeating it over and over and over again does not magically make any of the "P4T" claims true.







posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
That's all you have? After 84 pages?


Actually, after EIGHTY-FOUR pages, this is what I have -

Evidence for my argument (Reported speeds/control "impossible", "improbable", "The Elephant In The Room") -

Data -
NTSB
Boeing
Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics
NASA Research


Precedent -
EA990
China Air 747SP
TWA 727
737
Modified DC-8

All suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, well below Vmo+150.... or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits in the case of the DC-8.

Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...), more listed here.



Evidence for the argument of those who blindly support the OS ("It is easy to control an aircraft at Vmo+150") -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = N/A
Precedent = N/A
Verified Experts = N/A


Again - To those who blindly support whatever their govt tells them -


Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so...". You have been failing for more than NINE years and 84 pages.
edit on 13-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
While I agree that to guarantee success and maybe due to the lack of Highjackers some kind of guidance system has likely been used I find it doubtfull a trained pilot would have trouble hitting the WTC. If anything it tells how much modern pilots rely on automatisation. But then again I am no expert. I guess may answer is buired in one of the 84 pages of thread.
edit on 13-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
But then again I am no expert. I guess may answer is buired in one of the 84 pages of thread.


Allow me to bring it forward for you.

Capt Dan Govatos


Capt Russ Wittenberg


Capt Ralph Kolstad Interview (mp3)

Capt Rusty Aimer and Capt Ralph Kolstad Interviewed (vimeo video)


NASA Flight Director Confirms Aircraft Speed As" Elephant In The Room"


Credentials of the above -

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
www.AviationExperts.com

Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
- N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
- N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)


Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Oh I see. I guess. So you are saying that the planes were not flown into the buildings ...


I stopped reading there -

Read this again -

"If you read the thread, you will note that no one is disputing whether aircraft hit the WTC. "
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you don't bother to read my posts, why should I bother to read yours?


Ok I see I made a mistake and accidently added an "not" when it i didn't intend to. It would have been nice if you might have pointed that out politely instead, not everyone is here to jump down your throat. I apologize, I obviously made a huge mistake which in turn caused you to quit reading, however if you would have continued you would have figured out what my question was anyway. So I will rephrase it for you. I trust we can be mature about this since I apologized and we can continue with the discussion.

What I meant to say was:
So you are saying that the planes were flown into the buildings but you don't offer any explanation of how they were flown? I am seriously confused now. So you don't have any clue how they were flown you are just certain that they weren't flown by the hijackers? Please clarify because I don't want to put words in your mouth.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
While I agree that to guarantee success and maybe due to the lack of Highjackers some kind of guidance system has likely been used I find it doubtfull a trained pilot would have trouble hitting the WTC. If anything it tells how much modern pilots rely on automatisation. But then again I am no expert. I guess may answer is buired in one of the 84 pages of thread.
To figure out the difficulty, check my video at the top of page 53, then compare that to the video above the middle of page 83. The problem is how the plane gets from that one angle, way off towards New Jersey, to coming into the tower with a terminal alignment a little off to the Long Island side. That's more than just a little bit tricky, even as I have mentioned a few times, on what could be considered a video game, in my case, the flight simulation program, X-Plane.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 

So you don't have any clue how they were flown you are just certain that they weren't flown by the hijackers?
Really, that's the only thing that is important, don't you think? It's a little academic, the rest. The horror of it all is that we were lied to and accepted it, like fools. And for what, to legitimise mass murder which is what an illegal aggressive war is. There is no such thing as a "preemptive" war, it is aggressive war and illegal by all rules, laws, and standards of anyone but the most brutish of barbarians.


edit on 13-11-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Ok I see I made a mistake and accidently added an "not" when it i didn't intend to. It would have been nice if you might have pointed that out politely instead,


Sorry, I'm not a mind reader.



not everyone is here to jump down your throat.


Agreed.


I apologize, I obviously made a huge mistake which in turn caused you to quit reading,


Apology accepted.



however if you would have continued you would have figured out what my question was anyway. So I will rephrase it for you. I trust we can be mature about this since I apologized and we can continue with the discussion.


We can.



What I meant to say was:
So you are saying that the planes were flown into the buildings...


I'm not "saying" anything. I am following the evidence.

The evidence is overwhelming that aircraft "were flown" into the WTC. But there is a growing mountain of conflicting evidence that the aircraft were standard 767's as dictated by the OS. Do you understand the difference in the argument?


but you don't offer any explanation of how they were flown?


How can I when all the evidence provided thus far conflicts with the OS of how they were flown?

Again, if this were a court of law, those who blindly support the OS would have lost long ago based on "rebuttable presumption" alone, as they have not been able to provide a shred of evidence to rebut mine.


I am seriously confused now. So you don't have any clue how they were flown you are just certain that they weren't flown by the hijackers? Please clarify because I don't want to put words in your mouth.


I think I just did.

Steve, we need a new independent investigation to truly examine how the aircraft were flown at such excessive speeds by "pilots" with zero time in type. All evidence provided in this thread alone conflicts with the OS. There is much more backed by highly respected and verifiable individuals in the Aviation Community. Read the thread, click the links.

Those who support the OS have not been able to provide a shred of evidence for "how the aircraft were flown" aside from "Because the govt told me so...", character assassination of experts who question the OS, and obfuscation to bury the evidence provided.

They been doing it for 84 pages. It was predicted many pages ago.

Click - www.abovetopsecret.com...

I highly recommend you spend some time just reading through the thread. Not only will it be entertaining, but it will be enlightening. I promise.


edit on 13-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: fixed tags



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Ok thanks Tiffany, I didn't actually get an answer but I didn't really expect one. When you can answer my question I will take you seriously. Until then, I wouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously. Don't even reply it isn't needed you have said more then you could have with words or text already. Take care guys, keep your heart rates down its not worth it =)

**edit** Tiffany, here is where your reading comprehension must be lacking. I don't have any theories. I am not arguing for or against ANYTHING. How do you know I am not one of those pilots? I asked you a simple question and you can't answer it and that is all I wanted to know. I have absolutely nothing to prove or disprove. I only asked a question.
edit on 11/13/2010 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Ok thanks Tiffany, I didn't actually get an answer but I didn't really expect one. When you can answer my question I will take you seriously. Until then, I wouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously. Don't even reply it isn't needed you have said more then you could have with words or text already. Take care guys, keep your heart rates down its not worth it =)


you don't have to take me seriously. But I do take these people seriously.

patriotsquestion911.com...

And they have the evidence to back their claims. Much of it I have provided here on this thread.

Let me know when you get some evidence for your argument as those who blindly support the OS have been failing for more than 84 pages.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
You really need to stop editing your posts after people have replied.


Originally posted by sputniksteve
I am not arguing for or against ANYTHING.


So then you are here because? Filling your idle time with hostile banter?


Clearly you have a bias.

You require me to tell you how the aircraft were flown. I tell you that it is impossible to theorize without a new investigation, yet there is a growing mountain of evidence conflicting the OS.

You dismiss the evidence and again ask me to offer theory and speculation.

I again tell you I cannot offer you a theory except for the fact that there is a growing mountain of evidence which conflicts with the OS Theory.

You get upset and say you don't want to play anymore.




How do you know I am not one of those pilots?


You're not a pilot. That much is clear.

If you were, you would understand V-G diagrams, limits set by the manufacturer and the evidence listed.

If you were a professional pilot, you certainly would not offer your 2 cents without becoming familiar with the situation at hand, in full.

You jumped into this conversation not only admitting to not being familiar with the argument, but admitting you have made mistakes in which others should have read your mind.

Again - if you are not arguing for or against anything, please tell us why you are here?
edit on 13-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I am here because I want to be, and you are going to tell me I shouldn't be? I am not hostile, I simply came and asked a question. You couldn't answer the question because I phrased it wrong, so I very politely rephrased and asked you again. You still couldn't answer the question and then I told you that is what I thought and said good bye. Now instead of answering the question you look to make it seem like I shouldn't even be here and I am stupid or something? I didn't give you any information what so ever about myself, my knowledge, or my suppositions in regards to this topic. You are so used to getting defensive and argumentative with the people here that you automatically assumed I was against you because I am not with you. I fail to see how my actions are anything but appropriate. I think you have a lot to learn still.

**edit** I never said you needed to be a mind reader, I told you already if you would have continued reading instead of insulting me you would have figured out my question anyway.
edit on 11/13/2010 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
Where did the planes, crew and passengers go etc.?


Especially as their belongings, DNA etc were found at all the crash sites - but it is a question the silly conspiracy theorists refuse to answer. The same as if the planes were remote controlled - much harder to fly than real planes, so how was it done?



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


That is funny. I actually made that exact same point on Page 1 no less yet now I am being told to read the thread and listen to the info and oh yeah, why am I even here?



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
Where did the planes, crew and passengers go etc.?





Where did the plane and pax go? Thats a GREAT Question...!


I say we all gather together and march up the steps of the Capitol and ask.. because according to their own information they provided via the NTSB... American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the pentagon (or the 5 light poles on Washington Blvd).

Who wants to join in asking the above question to people who should be asking the same themselves (ie. Congress, MSM.. et al).....?


(if painter did cover this in his post above, my reply is your summary)

Cheers!
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org


Source - Click - Dated Jul 2, 2007.
edit on 13-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


That's all you have? After 84 pages? Regurgitation???
84 pages (and counting) and STILL no proof of "P4T" claims. Just repeats, to infinity (and beyond...)


this evidence:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
is in fact, MORE than you've had in 84 pages and all thats needed to prove the OS you defend, is a LIE.

and i'm more than happy to assist tiff in pointing it out


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Indicates the weakness of the "P4T", and their "position" (still not even defined, BTW), when they offer nothing but the same recycled junk.


the only ones recycling junk and the same old cookie cutter disinfo tactic responses straight from the perp handbook, are you and your obfuscation brigade as tiff coins it.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Repeating it over and over and over again does not magically make any of the "P4T" claims true.


it does when you can't refute any of the evidence tiff presented or offer any evidence to support your argument.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Some cruise faster than others. But none of them cruise at 1,000 feet above sea level. You know why that is Xtrozero? Clearly not.
Yes we all understand this


no you really don't... thats why in 84 pages you've failed to refute the evidence presented by tiff or present any evidence to support your claims other than opinions.


Originally posted by Xtrozero
but you fail to see the point that if you firewall the engines in a good descent with the purpose to hit an extremely large building then the norm doesn't play much into it either.


no actually its you that fails to see the point why that WASN'T POSSIBLE based on the facts and evidence you continue failing to refute.


Originally posted by Xtrozero
Your Google expertise just doesn't allow you to understand this very simple point, and as much as you want it to it doesn’t change reality.


that it wasn't possible.


Originally posted by Xtrozero
Attacking posters here doesn’t change reality or prove you are right,


the only ones doing the attacking are you and your group from what i see... and its a typical tactic of those who spread disinfo and inability to refute the actual evidence.

show me exactly where you've addressed this evidence and presented any line by line counter-argument against it: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Xtrozero
it just shows what kind of person you are, and that you have long ago ran out of “proof” towards anything and your only course now is to attack those who disagree with you. We know that your ridicule is just a defensive shield due to reaching a dead end long ago, but come on…..

the only defensive shield i see being used is by you to avoid addressing and refuting the evidence presented here: www.abovetopsecret.com... Its pretty clear to me as well as to many others here including a well sourced list of experts and aviation professionals who also support it.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson Leslie Hazzard - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."

It wasn't "blindsided", it was a straight forward question within a conversation while Leslie was looking up data in a manual. Really, go listen.
------
That's your smoking gun?
Cold calling some ignorant PR person with an off the wall question that she had no clue to what it was about as they fumbled to find anything on aircraft speed is Boeing official answer and not blind sided?
There are 110,000 employees there, so what does anyone with the capability to understand the question and is in the management position to actually give an official answer say...
I think you are better off siding with Lear's alien intervention theory...
edit on 13-11-2010 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


the rep laughed just as hard as the southwest pilots i asked. and the EVID"ENCE you keep failing to refute because you can't, only further proves the "PR person's" response was hardly one based on ignorance.

and funny i see no name on the comment you've quoted let alone any context or evidence refuting the actual evidence and argument tiffs put forth.

so once again we're approaching what.. 85 pages? and you STILL have nothing other than empty claims, opinions and zero evidence to refute tiffany.

edit on 14-11-2010 by Orion7911 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join