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: 94
141
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Ah, so nothing substantial to make me believe you more than the guy across the block. It all boils down to belief with this stuff.




posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Yet there are how many videos clearly showing planes flying into the buildings?

They must be fake too, right?

I don't see how anyone with a sane mind can possibly attempt to argue this FACT =/



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 
At least you have the guts to put your location on your mini profile.
OK, you are in Indiana, and I am in Florida, I'm not across the street from you but was in an important spot on 911 and I am telling you what my experience was, and one that you could not have had. If you want to disregard my anecdotal evidence then that's your decision but don't expect any hard evidence ever coming out because the people involved have a huge investment in keeping their involvement secret.
My first hand experience was watching a plane flying along from a distance of at least five miles away that someone in New York knew to look for and had a link to a satellite to send it to a Sarasota TV station. That in itself is important and to me is evidence enough to indict the power structure of the US, in my own mind. This may not be admissible in a court of law but I still feel it should be admitted into a publicly accessible forum such as what I am posting on now.
As far as this thread goes, to be on topic, there was a plane but it flew in something rather close to a straight line if you were to draw a line perpendicular to the south facing wall of the south tower of the WTC which ends up about a half mile over onto the Staten Island side from the Verrazano bridge. The problem comes from reconciling the "official" flight path that ignores all eye witness reports (which agree with what I saw) in favor of one that explains this other object that got picked up by a couple TV news cameras. This is why the flight path is impossible, as the thread title indicates. A plane could take that path and hit the west wall quite easily, and a plane could take the path of an actual airliner type plane similar to a Boeing 767 and hit the south wall quite easily. But those are two separate paths and the attempt at blending the two together results in an impossible path. Well, maybe not actually impossible but it just didn't happen. No one would ever take that huge of a chance at failure to try to pull off a stunt like that.


edit on 9-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Gakus
 

Yet there are how many videos clearly showing planes flying into the buildings?
They must be fake too, right?
I don't see how anyone with a sane mind can possibly attempt to argue this FACT =/
Here's a nice photo of one of the landing gear struts from the plane that hit WTC Tower II, after it was removed from the building it had lodged itself into, for anyone wondering if there were real planes.


A part of the plane's landing gear and fuselage came out the north side of the tower, crashed through the roof of the building at 45–47 Park Place and down through two floors before becoming embedded in the ceiling of the third floor of what was a five-story building.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by wmd_2008



These two frames from different videos, to me, are showing the same anomaly, which I interpret as the trail of something flying past the tower at high speed and leaving a trail behind it that is there for a fraction of a second.

edit on 9-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



There is your answer in BOLD above NO EVIDENCE its what YOU think so I was right then !!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


So your reply is, "Let's just ignore that because we don't want to think about what it might mean."
What I was originally looking for is what is called a persistent wing vortex. My theory was that if in fact there was a real plane instead of a hologram or fake videos, then even though the plane stopped abruptly, there should have still been that vortex and we should be able to see it clearly in the video, sucking smoke up into it and leaving a marker to the fact that just a second ago there was a plane zooming right along. I believe I did find such a thing, but it is not this (as pictured directly above). This, as I mentioned earlier, is not persistent and only appears very briefly, which is what a missile trail would be expected to do, seeing how they do not have wings creating lift but just a suction from the displacement of its body, and does not created that fast moving swirl that would make a trail persistent.
edit on 11-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I don't think you fully understand wingtip vortices. Especially when there are other factors, like the prevailing winds that morning, in particular.

Besides, wingtip vortices are FAR more pronounced at low speed, high lift and high Angle of Attack situations. Such as with flaps fully extended to maximum landing position. Also, behind very heavy jets, even in the take-off configuration (partial flap settings...but, the high gross weights contribute to the intensity of the vortex).

I have seen this idea before, touted as a "clue" and an "anomaly", but it is not a valid "argument", sorry. Every experienced pilot will agree...it is only the layperson who gets these notions, and then doesn't fully comprehend the details.


This Wikipedia article may be partly to blame, as it covers the topic rather broadly, with images that can be misused. Because of certain photos, showing intentional flight paths through dense smoke, in order to visualize them.

An aviation-related, and pilot-oriented site is more useful: www.faatest.com...

Snippet from link above:

The intensity or strength of the wingtip vortices is directly proportional to the weight of the airplane and inversely proportional to the wingspan and speed of the airplane. The heavier and slower the airplane, the greater the angle of attack and the stronger the wingtip vortices. Thus, an airplane will create wingtip vortices with maximum strength occurring during the takeoff, climb, and landing phases of flight.


One more to read.

Now, another point: ANY wingtip vortex, produced off the tip of each wing (we will discuss United 175, here) that formed, and "lingered", would only be intact, and stable, for a few minutes. As I said, there was a steady wind aloft (at about 700 feet AGL) of about 10 knots or so. (Maybe more...I am going from the airport METAR reports, from La Guardia and Newark). The fact of a relative brisk breeze is obvious, and indisputable, based on the images of the smoke patterns.

You should also be aware (in case it was missed in the linked info) that vortices tend to descend, after formation, at about 300-400 fpm (feet per minute), AND simultaneous spread laterally. Depending on the angle to the direction of flight, and the wind direction, this will have a different effect on the resulting patterns.

Finally, the heat, blast forces, and such from the exploding fireball, coming from the direction of the building, after impact? Would have another influence on the remaining vortices, and that would tend to be disruptive.

There is a great deal of science, in the study of this (you will find more under the key words "wake turbulence" too).






edit on 11 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Oh, boy, here it comes...I just saw a commercial for next week's episode of, "Conspiracy Theory" with Jesse Ventura, and it's clear he's officially signed onto this "no planes" lunacy. From the few seconds I can see he's intending to tell people that no wreckage was found at the Pentagon, no passenger remains were recovered, and other lies that have been debunked time and time again. He showed footage of the impact hole left by the fuselage but he didn't show any of the photos of debris lying on the front lawn.

Who here thinks that next week, one or another of these conspiracy people here won't post VENTURA SAYS NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON threads here, raise your hands.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Finally, the heat, blast forces, and such from the exploding fireball, coming from the direction of the building, after impact?
I researched the subject quite a bit and as far as I knew was the only person who was looking for this "anomaly". So, I am familiar with all those points you brought up. I was kind of hoping you might make a comment because there is only so much you can learn from videos and internet articles.
What you brought up towards the end is what is impossible for me to figure out without being in some sort of sophisticated lab, or something. There was a huge amount of heat generated very quickly that made an updraft that just about overrode everything else nearby. But after the main fireball was gone, there was still a streak that you can see, which I attribute to that vortex from the right wing.
I was bringing this up for a couple reasons which is to make some sort of comment on those frames and to explain how I got into all that time consuming studying of videos and photos and maps. I am convinced that there is no piece of evidence of a real plane missing, but I don't think this is something I could necessarily use to convince someone else.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
UNITED 175. A Boeing 767-200. Hijacked, 11 September, 2001. Flown by terrorists.

Clear air, flew through no smoke, prior to impact. Fireball too chaotic, disruptive, for any vortices present to have revealed themselves. Would be overwhelmed by the turbulent dynamics. Any that may seen, briefly? Anomalous, but would indicate nothing other than the United Boeing 767-200 having been there......



/THREAD


edit on 11 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


gee dave we don't have to watch it now you have invented the whole thing
boy howdy baby!



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I mainly wanted to post that picture of the strut which I thought was amazing.
It is something I have read about but this is the first time I actually have seen it.
I did not give an attribution for it and for the little blurb below it.
It may be a little out of place to be linking to another forum. It's probably OK
and I know other people do it, but I will leave it by saying that if you google the
info you may find a very interesting story and a nice little gem for the technically
inclined, such as a possible serial number but I imagine it is more likely just
a part number. Anyway nothing like seeing it. And for Alex Jones and Jessy
Ventura: REALLY?! It is just a diversion, to me, to not blame it on who
really did it, which they will never do.
edit on 11-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I find it funny that so many people are trying to prove the actual events were something other than what everyone saw. In any case it doesn't prove who the puppet masters were even if it was alien technology that created holographs for a det cord demolition.....or the 100s of other theories.


The bottom line is not really the what or how... its the who that matters...



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

I have seen this idea before, touted as a "clue" and an "anomaly", but it is not a valid "argument", sorry. Every experienced pilot will agree...it is only the layperson who gets these notions, and then doesn't fully comprehend the details.


but since your credibility has once again been put into serious question in this thread , I'm sure most will take your opinion on everything, with a grain of salt. The real question is why and how did this thread get so far off topic...??
Ooo Ooo I know,, because you and other inexperienced/fallible pilots and skeptics couldn't refute the evidence and argument TILA presented?

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



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by HassleHoff2010
 


Hi Tiffany, you back under another name?, if you believe that Tiff has commanded the topic, fair play to you but you are wrong, what she had done was spam the board with incoherent ramblings throughout, if you look at the posts by Weed and all you will see where she went wrong and was too stubborn, or stuck in her beliefs not to admit where she was wrong,

Even when she was shown to be wrong in her arguments by qualified pilots who have flown this type of aircraft and have experience in these matters.

Wee Mad


Actually when one read the entire thread and examines ALL the posts and evidence TILA presented, an objective person will agree no one has yet shown exactly how and where she was wrong. In fact, contrary to your CLAIM and baseless opinions, qualified experienced pilots and ones that HAVE flown this type of aircraft, have validated her arguments.

So now that you claim she's been wrong, please show everyone the evidence to back that claim up.

But of course since you know you nor anyone other than TILA has been able to support their claims, I'm sure we can look forward to yet another page of character assassinations, ad homs, off-topic derailment and obfuscation to hide your inability to do so.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by elnine
 


I notice an extreme lack of specifics every time one of you says that Tiff was right about everything. Please say something constructive that isn't just a "I'm right and you're wrong." Oh, and posting a wall of links is a no no.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by elnine
 


you horrible little troll,


Usually mods give one warning to those name calling here... but I'm sure you'll get off easy since there appears to be an odd bias in this thread against those posting facts and evidence for their arguments.


Originally posted by weemadmental
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)


and there are thousands of posts and pages of evidence contradicting your claims and assertions. And a simple search on youtube will provide videos with overwhelming evidence supporting NRPT and Tv Fakery that duped thousands like you who have either done little or no real research, or are in denial.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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:



Seems you're a bit more out of touch with reality and want to alter historical facts to support a delusion since it was impossible for Bush to have seen the 1st plane crash on TV which he CLEARLY explained was something he watched BEFORE he went into the classroom.

You CLAIM his freudian slip was based on a simple mistake yet the facts, evidence and analysis of his "mistake", show how unlikely it was to have been an error if not an impossibility... but i guess defenders of the OS and disinfo agents always like to dismiss impossibilities over and over on 9/11.

Bush was quite clear as the video and record show about WHAT and WHEN he saw/watched it.

The assertion it was a "mis-speak", is nothing more than your OPINION which ignores the adamant clarity of his statement that anyone with a brain using common sense, can understand.



whatreallyhappened.com...

whatreallyhappened.com... video.html



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by elnine
 

. . .qualified experienced pilots and ones that HAVE flown this type of aircraft. . .
I wonder if one of these pilots could identify this wreckage in the photo I posted. I think it is customary for pilots to do a visual inspection of the plane before flying it. I'm sure they could look at that and realize it looks like one found on one of their planes. No sweat, take your time, no pressure, right?



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join