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: 91
141
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TopsecCin616
 
Also the planes had to load passengers at a airport somewhere ,right? And also they were on radar werent they . its when they went off flight path that someone realized somethings wrong . think about it. Why in the world is somebody saying missiles shot into world trade centers. wouldnt they be seen somewhere too.there were helicopters flying all around the wtc that day they would have seen something also.




posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TopsecCin616
 
Back in the early seventies I was on the crew of a Navy ship that happened to be the one they used to test and develop the Phalanx system which was the predecessor to what they use now to shoot down incoming missiles. I used to watch them do it on the missile range and you would not know there was a missile without following the stream of bullets aiming to shot it up.
These things are just too fast and small and the video cameras back then would not have picked them up. What you have to do is look for the trails of them as they punch through the smoke, and you can find a bunch of them. Such as one example which is the famous "devil face" photo by Carmen Taylor that was on a news magazine cover. The facial features were made by missiles punching through the falling sheet of aluminum dust which was what was left of the plane when it hit.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by TopsecCin616
 
Back in the early seventies I was on the crew of a Navy ship that happened to be the one they used to test and develop the Phalanx system which was the predecessor to what they use now to shoot down incoming missiles. I used to watch them do it on the missile range and you would not know there was a missile without following the stream of bullets aiming to shot it up.
These things are just too fast and small and the video cameras back then would not have picked them up. What you have to do is look for the trails of them as they punch through the smoke, and you can find a bunch of them. Such as one example which is the famous "devil face" photo by Carmen Taylor that was on a news magazine cover. The facial features were made by missiles punching through the falling sheet of aluminum dust which was what was left of the plane when it hit.



IN BOLD ABOVE no lack of imagination thats for sure what TOTAL and utter BS do you just sit about all day thinking up weird comments to post!



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 
No, I spent a thousand hours studying all the videos of the second hit, frame by frame.
Don't take my word for it, study them yourself.
And there are some good quality versions just coming out in the last month from the videos released by NIST, which are worth a look see.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by wmd_2008
 
No, I spent a thousand hours studying all the videos of the second hit, frame by frame.
Don't take my word for it, study them yourself.
And there are some good quality versions just coming out in the last month from the videos released by NIST, which are worth a look see.




LINK ME TO ONE GOOD QUALITY VIDEO AND SHOW ME A MISSILE!!!! bet YOU CANT!!!



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by wmd_2008
 
No, I spent a thousand hours studying all the videos of the second hit, frame by frame.
Don't take my word for it, study them yourself.
And there are some good quality versions just coming out in the last month from the videos released by NIST, which are worth a look see.




LINK ME TO ONE GOOD QUALITY VIDEO AND SHOW ME A MISSILE!!!! bet YOU CANT!!!


LINK US TO ONE GOOD QUALITY VIDEO SHOWING A REAL PLANE AND REAL IMPACT!!! bet YOU CAN'T!



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
You should have noticed where I said the cameras would not have picked it up and you have to look for what a missile would do to the smoke and flames and dust as they went through them. I gave one good example. Another that is really easy to spot is on the north tower where a giant white cloud shows up on the wall the plane hit, then a big donut shows up on the surface of that smoke cloud, for no apparent reason.

edit on 1-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by elnine
 


you horrible little troll, there are thousands of people that seen this live, there are thousands of videos showing the impact, there are video from all different angles, so if you want to prove a point you have to back this up with proof of your own, please remember this has happened, and remember the memory of the thousands that died that day.

and a simple search on youtube will provide all the videos you need

Wee Mad

edit on 2/12/2010 by weemadmental because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   


No, I spent a thousand hours studying all the videos of the second hit, frame by frame.


It sounds like someone is obsessed beyond normal. In most cases this kind of obsession diverges from reality.

Consider this. Sometimes a rose is just a rose.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent


No, I spent a thousand hours studying all the videos of the second hit, frame by frame.

It sounds like someone is obsessed beyond normal. In most cases this kind of obsession diverges from reality.
Consider this. Sometimes a rose is just a rose.
I will repeat myself because my last post apparently had no affect:
Read the thread before making snide comments about me please.
If you had actually read the thread, your question would be answered.
The reason I spent so much time on it is because I came to the realization that no one was saying anything that related to my experience, and I wanted to find out why that was the case.
My suggestion to you or anyone else with a similar attitude to yours, to understand that this event is the turning point of history and the excuse for total world war, in case you have not been paying attention to things like the news. Personally, I would like to know if this terrorist act was done by someone other than the so-called nineteen hijackers.
I watched the second airplane hit on the south WTC tower live on TV from a camera at the south end of Battery Park which if you were to look at a map, is south of the towers about where the south tip of Manhattan Island starts to curve off to the east and towards the Brooklyn Bridge. This was a great vantage point to record the second hit if someone knew in advance that there would in fact be a hit on the south face of the south tower, after an earlier hit on the north face of north tower. What I saw was someone panning the camera back and forth towards the south while in the opposite direction all hell was breaking loose from the first hit. Then the camera found what it was looking for, a plane coming up from the direction of the Narrows, low to the water and then fly almost directly over the camera to where it filled the entire screen and I could look right up and into the windshield of the plane. Then it hit the tower.
I stopped watching tv after the collapse of the towers and felt I had seen everything I need to and did not want to listen to all the following propaganda. A few years later I decided to check out this new thing that had become so popular, YouTube and while searching around, ran into videos of 911. I thought I would look and find the video I saw. That's when the thousand hours started and I have yet to find that video.
My only way to explain it is that I live very close to where President Bush was reading a children's book at a local elementary school. They could have sent the feed from the Battery Park camera through the underground TV cable system that had been recently installed for the purpose of facilitating live remote broadcasts, then up-linked to a satellite, then down-linked at the local Sarasota Florida station where it was broadcast with enough power to be picked up locally at the school so that Bush and company could watch it as it happened. Meanwhile the general population of the US were watching selective sources that were all looking from the north and would never pick up the plane coming up from the south, behind the towers from that vantage point.
edit on 3-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Nice delusion. Facts say otherwise:


They could have sent the feed from the Battery Park camera through the underground TV cable system that had been recently installed for the purpose of facilitating live remote broadcasts, then up-linked to a satellite, then down-linked at the local Sarasota Florida station where it was broadcast with enough power to be picked up locally at the school so that Bush and company could watch it as it happened...


It is recorded, on multiple cameras, and from multiple witnesses in the classroom....President Bush was SITTING THERE as the attacks were happening, in NYC. He was NOT watching TV, closed circuit, or otherwise.

(Later, he misspoke about "watching" the airplane hit the South Tower, when he said he "saw it on TV". He saw a TAPED re-play!!!!)


WHY do you insist on altering historical (and verifiable) facts, to support a delusion?

Andy Card (Chief of Staff) entered, and whispered in his ear, AFTER United 175 hit. It is ON FILM!!! Bush. Sitting. With. A. Book. In. Hand. IN the classroom, NOT watching any TV...the children are, as a group, reading aloud from the book that Bush is holding......

Here....watch some reality TV:




posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

WHY do you insist on altering historical (and verifiable) facts, to support a delusion?
I'm not and I'm sorry for you that that is all you can get from that post.
I am relating my experience and giving an explanation for why I would have the motivation to spend time studying the topic of 911.
Not sure what motivates you. Maybe to seek blood vengeance? I would suggest your desire is misdirected.
Who is it you want to inflict vengeance on? Muslims? Terrorists?
My understanding of the school room, as you call it, is not from me ever going there and looking at it but from reports I have read and that was a few years back now. My understanding is that it was in a library and not a normal classroom. There was a few people, I guess, from the presidential entourage in the room while the remainder were outside the doors in the adjoining hallways. In the hall outside one of the room doors is glass to where a person standing there can look into an office that is right there. There was a tv in the office and they had it pushed up against the glass so they could watch. (remember there was another plane crash earlier, before the one I watched) and someone who was watching the same thing I was, could have propped the door open for a few seconds as Bush seemed to be staring off into space in your video, to something off camera. Another thing we have to realize, what we call the media is compromised and complicit, so don't expect them to show everything going on.

edit on 3-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   


A few years later I decided to check out this new thing that had become so popular, YouTube and while searching around, ran into videos of 911. I thought I would look and find the video I saw.


Since when is Youtube the world’s repository for every video shot? And what is with this obsession for that one video? Do you realize you spent 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, for a year searching? That’s an obsession far beyond the norm.

Who cares where Bush was? Whether he was talking to children or sitting on a toilet. What does any of this have to do with the original post?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I will repeat myself again seeing as you have a reading comprehension deficit.
This apparently not accessible hypothetical "video" does not exist anywhere on the internet, thus part of the explanation of the thousand hours. By the way, this is a conservative estimate and that was after I stopped counting a year ago.
OK here's a little more theorising: you should talk to Carmen Taylor and Michael Hezarkhani about how the Feds were so anxious to get ahold of the photos and video they took while sitting on a Liberty Island Tour ferry boat. They would have been less than 300 yards from the camera position that I was watching the feed from. One of these Feds was just about shouting, "This is the money shot!" They couldn't just air the footage some secret agents were making and they then had conveniently this captive audience nearby with lots of cameras.
The interesting thing about this particular "video", as you call it, is that it was not a recorded video but what was happening right as I watched it which was the flight pat from the far horizon, to the tower.
You seem to fail to see the significance of what I just said, and I have to admit it took me a couple years to fully grasp it myself. A lot of the time I spent out of those thousand hours was to assure to my personal satisfaction that what I watched was not some sort of plant that was recorded earlier and then manipulated to fit the circumstances of that day. That was one possibility that came to mind initially, when I came to the realization of the lack of a recording of this on Youtube. I thought, "Just in case the news people missed the opportunity to get a good shot of the crash, they would make a fake one to present to get the proper psychological trauma to start the brainwashing. Then once it was discovered that the news picked up a second object going towards the tower in a threatening manner, they chose to not ever run this video again."
Here's the truth of it all, go around and everyone you talk to ask them what they saw live on tv concerning a crashing plane on 911. I would bet that you would not find a single person who saw a plane fly into the south tower before it was replayed. So why not just tell the people anything they want because who is there to dispute it? I'm disputing it. By some quirk of fate, I saw the real thing just like the Washington big boys saw, mainly by chance of my geography that day, and having my TV tuned into the right channel at just the right moment. Plus I am able to remember it clearly and have the ability to articulate it and a lack of fear of death from whoever was responsible for this. I know come judgement, I will be in the seat of Judge and whoever kills me for my testimony, I will witness God throwing into the lake of fire to burn forever and ever.
edit on 3-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
A couple of thoughts....


Proof is not picking out the very few videos that with some imagination are explained off with thoughts like missiles, alien technology, det cord etc. Proof is to show why the 100s (1000s?) of other videos clearly show otherwise, or in simple terms, show reality.


Would not an aircraft hitting a building look and act much like a missile would? Kinetic energy is kinetic energy anyway you package it.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by TopsecCin616
 
Back in the early seventies I was on the crew of a Navy ship that happened to be the one they used to test and develop the Phalanx system which was the predecessor to what they use now to shoot down incoming missiles. I used to watch them do it on the missile range and you would not know there was a missile without following the stream of bullets aiming to shot it up.
These things are just too fast and small and the video cameras back then would not have picked them up. What you have to do is look for the trails of them as they punch through the smoke, and you can find a bunch of them. Such as one example which is the famous "devil face" photo by Carmen Taylor that was on a news magazine cover. The facial features were made by missiles punching through the falling sheet of aluminum dust which was what was left of the plane when it hit.



Well for starters, there WAS no missile that the Phalanx was shooting at . It was a towed target, called a TDU, towed by a TA-4 Skyhawk utility aircraft. These TDUs are small, but they are fitted with radar augmentation so they appear larger on the Phalanx radar system. The TDUs are towed about 1.5 to 2 miles behind the towing aircraft and at an altitude so that they won't hit any part of the ship.

We won't get into "missiles punching through the falling sheet of aluminum", which is one of the single most absurd things I have ever heard in this whole 9/11 brouhaha - certainly a claim worthy of Pilots for 9/11 Truth or CIT use.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 
We called then LOWFATs. Back when I was 19, I could watch the jet a few miles away as it would turn around for a run. The missiles, or as you point out the simulated missiles, were not something you could sit there and track by eyesight.


edit on 3-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
After 2 hours and 90 + pages, I'm exhausted.

Somewhere around page 15, TiffanyInLA raised the issue of precedent.

It's a simple question. Can someone cite another example where the same aircraft type was able to achieve the same speeds under the same conditions?

Or is UAL 175 another case where IMPOSSIBLE things are POSSIBLE because they happened on 9/11, so we don't need to investigate whether it COULD have happened, because on 9/11 it DID happen, so shut up? Circular argument, anyone? They're going cheap.

I'm tired of people challenging TILA to demonstrate that a standard 767 CANNOT exceed Vmo by 150 knots, after she has rightly and repeatedly raised the objection that this would be quite difficult to prove, as most negatives are.

On the other hand, if 510 knots at 700 feet IS achievable, in a dive, in a straight trajectory, or in an Immelman turn, please cite your source so we can all move on with our lives.

I'm no aviation expert, but my dad was an air traffic controller for 30 years, and sometimes he talks about 'terminal velocity'. I have no idea what that means, but I think it must be pretty bad.

So please, would somebody just answer the question, without referring to Bursill's unsubstantiated claim that he could pull it off in a simulator at 2,000 feet, without waking any of the sleeping babies in economy class?

Even better, get Boeing to explain why it's holding its wind tunnel data so close to its chest. Don't they have confidence in their own research? Don't they value transparency? Does the wind tunnel data support Boeing's theoretical safety requirements or what's safe in the real world? It seems to me that it can only be one or the other.

As for the G-diagram, I'm pretty sure TILA didn't fabricate it herself. But even if she did, would someone care to point out exactly what is wrong with it, rather than focussing on who produced it?

From what I can tell, the diagram is an accurate reflection of speed limitations plotted against G-loading for a standard 767. The Vmo value is 360 knots at sea level, with a safety cushion up to a design limit of 420-425 knots, as stipulated by the corresponding Type Certificate Data Sheet.

But if the above statement is false, I'm genuinely interested to learn how and why.

Don't just state that it's fake and wrong. Explain why it is wrong, specify how it should be corrected and then re-draw the diagram so we can see what its meant to look like.

Otherwise, I'm satisfied to ignore the visual representation and stick with the raw numbers. Are standard issue 767s capable of exceeding Vmo by a margin of 40%, or not? If, so, why is Boeing so chicken s*** with its design limits? Why do millions of passengers waste so much time everyday on board 767s when they could potentially be arriving safely at their destinations hours sooner? Does my Grandma dictate safety policy at Boeing?
edit on 3-12-2010 by lachstockn2 because: Adjustment made to profanity.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by lachstockn2
 


Not contributing to the thread at all, but terminal velocity is the fastest that an object can free-fall, if I remember physics class correctly. Nothing sinister related to it.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by lachstockn2
 


??????????


Are standard issue 767s capable of exceeding Vmo by a margin of 40%, or not? If, so, why is the FAA so chicken # with its design limits? Why do millions of passengers waste so much time everyday on board 767s when they could potentially be arriving safely at their destinations hours sooner...


Standard-issue 767s can exceed Vmo by significant margins, obviously. It has been shown to occur.

Certainly not conducive to a long-term airframe lifespan, though.

As to the "waste time" comment....guessing you don't know much about aviation? Not an insult or jab, just an observation.

Today's modern airliners are all sub-sonic. They don't cruise near Mach1 because of the steeply-rising diminishing return on fuel efficiency....and, in level flight, there IS a limit to what airspeeds can be achieved, merely from engine thrust.

The tables and graphs and charts that define and calculate these facts have been well known for decades.
There are various cruise profiles that are selected, depending on various desired outcomes.

Most economic for a given length of flight, and time at altitude....compared to "long range" cruise scenarios, where maximum range is the goal. Constant-speed cruise profiles are compromises....in LRC profiles the Mach # constantly changes, as fuel is burned off, and total gross weight goes down, in cruise. Winds aloft are considered as well, in flight planning....routes will vary, sometimes to actually have a slightly longer distance, in mileage over the ground, if the winds are more favorable. Same with altitude selection....higher, up to the limits for any given weight, usually means lower fuel consumption rates....but, again....winds can mitigate the slight increase in burn rates, if they are stronger (if tailwind) at lower altitudes. Opposite, if headwinds are ht factor, then staying lower and OUT of those winds, also helps.

It's all about compromise.


I've been trying to find examples, online, to link to. They are the ones that are the real bear to work on the ATP written tests....but, I took that test MANY years ago, and things may have changed. Of course, modern era....the same data is put into tables, so at a glance you can select an optimum combination....no more squinting at those pesky graphs. At least, in normal ops. Tests, however....they make you work!!

Ah...finally found one....obviously not for a B-767, since the maximum gross weight listed is only 18,000 pounds. Might be a bizjet of some sort...:

www.tc.gc.ca...

It came from this handy reference....the Canadian version of THEIR ATP test, providing samples for those studying prior to taking the exam, to get practice:

www.tc.gc.ca...

After reviewing all of that, I found the airplane type from the "flight plan" info. A Cessna Citation (C550 is the abbreviated designation). They typically leave OFF the identifying airplane type, from those sample charts, so they won't be used accidentally in real life.

So, except for the weights and such, fuel burn rates etc.....those are the examples of the types of graphed data that is compiled by airplane manufacturers. As I said, actually USING them is is difficult, so a user-friendly version is the table format.

THIS I found searching online, is apparently from some desktop flight simulator program:

img42.imageshack.us...=1

It's similar to what many airlines publish in the Airplane Flight Manuals...or, in some cases, also separately on plasticized sheets, 8 1/2 by 11 size, and located in each cockpit, specific to the airplane model. Varies by company. Next time you fly, you can pop your head in (at the gate, on the ground) and chat with the guys/gals, and see what all they have...usually happy to share their knowledge. We are a very cocky bunch, and like to show off, after all....











edit on 3 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
141
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join