It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


VIDEO: Large Airliners Did NOT Hit the Twin Towers on 9/11!

page: 18
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by slugger9787

Ok. We should also remember to think about the varying elevation of the planes in these situations. The second plane descended from quite a height just before hitting the second tower, as seen from a very high news skyline camera. That means that during its descent, it may have been more difficult for people to recognize that it was coming.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 12:00 AM
reply to post by Varemia

That the second plane came from a high elevation or came in level and flat trajectory depends on which video you think is the real one.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 12:10 AM
reply to post by slugger9787

I haven't noticed any discrepancies in the videos, so how can I possibly say which is real or fake? Or do you have personal knowledge that some of the videos are faked?

I will not accept a claim that "it was made up because I say so." I want proof here

*sigh* this is why I don't like dealing with some people. You deal with observational fact, and then they turn around and say that your observations were based on a lie that they can't prove is a lie.

Now, I know you didn't say that outright, but you implied that the video that showed the plane descending could be faked, which I would have to say "why fake it?" If it doesn't fit what really happened, then a fake would just perpetuate conspiracy theories. But wait, conspiracy theorists don't need to find fakery to prove that their theories are right. They just make claims and support them by making more claims.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 02:33 AM
reply to post by PookztA

hey I'm all for the 9/11 truth, although im not american(south african), but i find your claims a tad far fetched, but i would love to see the evedience you lay claim to could you prehaps e-mail me some links to some of these video or photos?( thanks.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 02:58 AM
Sorry to say that aircraft were used. No question media manipulation occured, but there were certainly airliners
involved. Media video editing possibly used to cover the identity of a military aircraft.

Firefighter Airplane Witness

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 07:17 AM
reply to post by slugger9787

The sound will travel faster than the plane in perfect conditions. The sound could be slower than the plane for a lot of reasons.

The Plane travels a certain speed, which in a forward direction, the wind travels at that speed in the exact opposite reaction. So the plane will move forward while the sound stays back as if it's trailing the plane for what we SEE is light and what we hear is sound.

A plane will travel a mile in 4 seconds at 550mph, and people hearing it from a mile away would also be a stretch to thought while sound would travel a mile in 2 seconds, also consider that the sound would be twice as slow atleast due to wind friction and the plane is traveling at then also the planes hit the WTC about a quarter of a mile up which ads another 0.5 second to the time of the sound coming from the jets when you're directly under the plane. and that's only if there was no wind a quarter of a mile up in the sky! now consider wind a quarter of a mile up in the sky blowing any direction you would like, that would ad at least 1 second to the time of hearing the plane.

To recap, if you heard the plane at all while standing near the WTC your superhuman. as even if u saw it half a mile away, it would take 2 seconds to reach the building and sound would take at least 3.5 seconds
edit on 6-10-2010 by kykweer because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 08:21 AM
reply to post by turbofan


Media video editing possibly used to cover the identity of a military aircraft.

That is yet another lie, and you are well aware of it (or should be, by now).

THAT particular gem started out as an "idea" by some nobody, somewhere....and once it dug into the "truth movement's" hide, it hasn't left.

AND, it is dead easy to show how ridiculous a "claim" it is!! There are dozens and dozens of corroboration of American 11 and United 175, from a variety of sources. NOT ONE EXAMPLE of so-called "media video editing", ever! None. Zero. Zilch.

Besides the fact that not ALL the video footages come from "media" sources.

But, in order to perpetuate, and grasp at any straw, the "TM" must continue to lie, and obfuscate...because (on this topic) they have nothing else. NO proof, at all.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:54 AM
reply to post by slugger9787

Flat trajectory?

NTSB said decended from 28,000 ft in about 6 minutes

Note graph showing steepness of descent.....

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by thedman

that is not possible to dive a 767 at that speed of decent, that is 5500 feet per minute
1000 feet every fifteen seconds.

lets get ahold of the girl who is writing on this thread.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 04:58 PM
reply to post by slugger9787

Who says? You?

...that is not possible to dive a 767 at that speed of decent, that is 5500 feet per minute ...

Huh? Wonder, then, WHY the IVSI (that's the instrument that measures "vertical velocity", also sometimes, opld days, called "vertical speed" --- terms are somewhat interchangable, to us oldtimers)....why does the instrument's range go ALL the way to 6,000 fpm?? (fpm = feet per minute).

Hang on, brb after I grab a photo for you.....

....ahh, here's on. Sorry, bit small:

And, here's a link (bit technical, it's for airline piltos, who've already been trained on the a refresher reference. The 757/767 are virtually identical. Note the TCAS version of hte IVSI, will vary according to airline, as customer choice):

(May have to scroll down three quarters or so...)

edit on 6 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Photo, link....

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

As I mentioned earlier, our objective was to bring a line pilot’s perspective to the evaluation. So our first maneuver east of the mountains was a rapid descent, simulating loss of cabin pressure. To make this more interesting, and because it is standard procedure at some airlines, I flew the maneuver completely on the autopilot. I dialed the altitude from FL290 down to 11,000 feet, disconnected autothrust and brought the throttles to idle, dialed the speed up to 350 knots, and deployed the speedbrakes
edit on 6-10-2010 by slugger9787 because:
edit on 6-10-2010 by slugger9787 because:
extra DIV

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 06:54 PM

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by smurfy

sound tavels at 1100 fps.
an airplane travelling 500 mph is going @750 fps.

you would hear the plane before you see it.
the sound wave is travelling faster than the plane.

Hi Slugger,
That is nothing to do with my post, I was addressing Weed's assertion on echo effects only. It is quite clear on the Naudet brothers video that the aircraft was in a area of substantial hard standing, even if there was no picture. As for hearing the 'plane before you see it, that is true, (because you are not looking for one) conversely if you are looking for a 'plane [you will see it long before you hear it], as Weed says. The fireman in the Naudet brothers video may not even have seen the 'plane and likely was not looking for one until he heard the noise, but the filmer's reactions were different, he was able to point ahead in the direction of which he must have thought the 'plane was travelling at so near ground level, as there is no indication that he could visually see the 'plane outside of his filming, a fantastic shot really on the face of it, reaction time around a couple of seconds just to be ahead. However at that height, sound and 'plane are not too far apart, still good filming nonetheless.
edit on 6-10-2010 by smurfy because: Text.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 07:35 PM
reply to post by turbofan

Sorry to say that aircraft were used.

So many reports of airliner sightings in the area that it seems possible they might have done a close flyby maybe even dropping to a few feet above the river. Don't have any declassified links, but the radio control plane theories floating around were discussed back in the 60's. Terror threats to high rise buildings from drones were considered even back then.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 08:27 PM
reply to post by slugger9787

that is not possible to dive a 767 at that speed of decent, that is 5500 feet per minute

So the NTSB who investigates aircraft accidents is not right....?

Why would a gang bent on slamming aircraft into buildings care how fast there are going?

Reference to WEEDWHACKER who is an airline pilot rated to flight these planes

Sooooo he does not know the performance of a 767?

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by smurfy

phenonmenal filming, almost miraculous. he hears the plane and pans exactly where the plane is going to hit and holds the camera very solidly. Feet planted right, camera moves from the feet street to exactly the point of impact, and even stays there till plane hits. ROCK SOLID STABILITY, especially with not having to reposition self, or catch someone's head in the movement.
Very excellent coreography in fact, unbelievable and astounding the feat he pulled off.
I deer hunt, and even expecting a deer it takes a couple of seconds to get it in the scope when he is running through the woods, and I am expecting one.

But back to the film. It looked like a planned accident to me.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 10:09 PM
reply to post by slugger9787

It looked like a planned accident to me.

Explain this .......

Are you one of the paranoid loons who believe the Naudet brotherm were "in on it"?

They were filming a documentary on FDNY rookie Firefighters

What about the "gas leak" call? Was that planned?

Or was it a routine call for the FDNY ?

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 10:38 AM
reply to post by slugger9787

I see you found the very article that I had read, and was searching online for last night, but had Internet connection problems. Yes, that Air Line Pilot article form February, 2001 about the evaluation of the B-767-400 came to my mind, since it proves precisely my point.

Glad you linked it. Was that an admission that you now understand that it IS possible to descend at 5,500 fpm?? (In decades of flying, in many different large jets, I routinely saw the VSI 'pegged' full down, at its max range of 6,000 fpm. That would be only for a few minutes, however...obviously, because of the altitude changing...and also that, without drag ---- like the speed brakes ---- the airspeed increases rapidly. Oh, wait...that's EXACTLY what the guy flying UAL 175 wanted!!!)

I see you truncated the discussion, so here is the rest:

To make this more interesting, and because it is standard procedure at some airlines, I flew the maneuver completely on the autopilot. I dialed the altitude from FL290 down to 11,000 feet, disconnected autothrust and brought the throttles to idle, dialed the speed up to 350 knots, and deployed the speedbrakes.

On the initial pitchover, the rate of descent increased to 9,600 feet per minute at 7½ degrees nose down, then slowed to 5,300 feet per minute as the airspeed stabilized at 353 knots. The time from start of the descent to level-off at 11,000 feet was just 3 minutes. Very impressive, particularly since we flew the maneuver by interfacing with automation, rather than manually.

He is correct --- some airlines train to use the A/P. MY airline, we did it both ways, to accommodate different scenarios that would be possibly encountered. Our training syllabus said that EITHER the manual, or the automated method was acceptable. Automation (if available...that is, IF you also didn't have a total electrical failure at the same time, when conducting the Rapid Descent) was recommended because it would, when properly programmed, level you off where desired (target was 10,000 feet...except when in mountainous terrain areas, where the MEA - Minimum Enroute Altitude - at our location and route were higher).

Further, our checklist required to ascertain, prior to descent, whether we suspected any structural damage. IF damage was suspected, then we were told to maintain the same airspeed, and not accelerate in the descent, as a precaution. Otherwise, it was "throw out the boards" (speedbrakes), engines to idle, and pitch down to Vmo, either on A/P or manually.

Important to note, isn't it, that when WE do it, engines are at flight idle. NOT shoved up to full thrust.

BTW, note also the nose down 'deck angle' (pitch attitude) they saw at first....7 1/2 degrees. That's about right, especially since they had speedbrakes deployed. Anyway, if you had been a passenger in the back, ~7 degrees nose down isn't substantial, you'd hardly notice.

Oh, and gee! (This belongs in another thread...where there are "claims" of "excessive" G-loads on United 175...)...obviously, leveling from such a descent rate is a piece of cake, and DOES NOT exert excessive loads on the airframe....those guys in the Air Line Pilot magazine article didn't break the airplane, after all.....

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 04:12 PM
reply to post by yigsstarhouse

longer footage of second plane:
It is, but the one posted earlier covers the same distance, though the time is somehow compressed in that other one, making it seem shorter.
The simple fact is that there are no videos of the hit where you see the plane further than 10 seconds out. Only someone who knew ahead of time that there was a second plane, would have had a camera pointed in that direction. Now there is such a video but you are never going to see it. How do I know that? Because I saw it. The only way I can explain it is that the people around the president, and whoever else would have been concerned about the outcome that morning, would have made provision for it and to have it live as it happened.
Let's say W and associates were at a school in Sarasota, Florida, how would they watch it? One of the security team guys would be at whatever happens to be the closest local TV station. He would direct whoever is in charge of what goes onto the air, at a specific time, to run the feed from a particular satellite channel. The ultimate source for that feed would be a person with a TV camera that is plugged into the underground cable network that had been recently put in place just for such a thing. That is, the ability to have remote broadcasts inside the city of New York, without having to drag around a satellite up-link truck.
Me living nearby, in Sarasota County, Florida, and having the serendipity to be tuned into the same station that W and crew were watching, saw the whole thing, up close and personal thanks to telephoto lenses. So when I claim to be a witness, well sort of, meaning I witnessed it as it happened and had to live through the experience, second by second wondering, what is that plane doing there, where is it headed, is it going to hit the other tower?
What do I have to say about the plane? If you were to look closely at a map, and how the towers were situated, draw a line perpendicular to the south facing wall of Tower 2, and stretch it out to the ocean, then you would have something close to the correct path, with minor variations to avoid obvious navigational hazards like buildings and bridges and radio antennas.
edit on 10-10-2010 by jmdewey60 because: spelling

new topics

top topics

<< 15  16  17   >>

log in