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.

 

Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11? [HOAX]

page: 18
11
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Several of the hijackers took hundred of hours of lessons in 737 simulator in Mesa Azizonia - 737 very much like
its larger cousins the 757/767 (as Weedwhacker can tell you)

Check out THE SHADOW FACTORY by James Bamford - goes into detail of hijackers travels (and training)
prior to 9/11

Its a novel idea - actaully doing research rather than parroting idiotic crap from "truther sites"....




posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 


I guess I have to be MORE exact, at each turn? Didn't I refer, in the question (and video you presented) to the FINAL part of the descent AS SEEN in the videos???:


The descent was "very minimal?" ATC doesn't seem to share your opinion.


First, THIS video: www.youtube.com...

...is the one you posted. It is taken from an actual TLC documentary...but, was sent through a "Wash and Spin" cycle by the person who edited it, added comments, and posted it.

First...the descent part....sorry, but that controller they interviewed seems to be prone to some hyperbolic exaggerating. The "10,000 feet per minute" claim being my point, there. The Mode C is isn't accurate enough (and HE should know this!!) to be able to determine rate, under those circumstances, just by watching the target on his 'scope, and each "hit" of the radar antenna sweeps. I link the NTSB Flight Path Study below....in a nutshell, time of descent from about 28,000 feet was 08:56, approximately. Impact, 09:03 (plus a few seconds, correct?).

MY calculator puts that as an average rate of about 3,900 fpm. It is VERY EASY to get the airplane to 6,000 fpm (the max the VVI can indicate). I've personally seen that, many times, when trying to "hurry down" to comply with altitude restrictions imposed...after ATC has held us up for too long, in very busy situations. You fly often enough, it is a common occurrence, even in normal operations.

Earlier, same guy said it climbed "3,000 feet in one minute". Actually, it was 2,500 feet, and was about two minutes. As light as the airplane was, with a low passenger count, and from its cruise altitude (FL310) that is very doable. The sort of normal cruise speed can be "traded" for short bursts of fairly fast rates of climb...it's a matter of energy transfer. We don't have the FDR for UAL 175, but similar altitude excursions were seen on the other two that we do have....as the hijackers were ham-fisted with the actual operation of the auto-flight controls, and/or hand-flew occasionally, with the autopilots on, then off, then on again.

Speaking again for that controller and his silly exaggerations....@ 2:10, he says that they could not "withstand that type of force." (??) What nonsense!!! That's what makes me
sometimes, with those sorts of documentaries. They needed John Nance (featured earlier, a former airline pilot-turned-consultant) to come back and clear that up!!!

BTW...the person up uploaded that YT video is a crank, apparently....trying to claim it was a "missile"?


:shk: Lots of loons like that, on YouTube I'm afraid....


NTSB: www.ntsb.gov...



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks for the feedback. I agree that "appears" is the key word regarding angle judging from the Hezarkhani clip only. The image resolution is not suffice to judge conclusively.

Also--re: the first achimspok vid--the straight red lines are not meant to show the path of the plane. If you watch it again, he is showing a perpendicular Euclidean vector and comparing it to the angles (roll axes) of the theoretical NIST and "real" planes at the point of impact.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by backinblack
 


Several of the hijackers took hundred of hours of lessons in 737 simulator in Mesa Azizonia - 737 very much like
its larger cousins the 757/767 (as Weedwhacker can tell you)


Have you another source, mine seems to conflict even though it has links to the FBI files..

Hani Hanjour practices on a Boeing 737-200 simulator for a total of 21 hours at the JetTech International flight school in Phoenix, Arizona. Hanjour also attends ground school and pays just under $7,500 for the training. Despite only completing 21 of his originally scheduled 34 hours of simulator training, according to the FBI this is the best-trained of the four hijacker pilots (see Spring-Summer 2001). However, an instructor comments: “Student made numerous errors during performance… including a lack of understanding of some basic concepts… Some of the concepts involved in large jet systems cannot be fully comprehended by someone with only small prop plane experience.” [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006 ] The school contacts the FAA to warn it of Hanjour’s poor English and flying skills (see January-February 2001).

www.historycommons.org...

And I don't think that even weed would argue that it would be difficult to train in a 737 sim and then jump in a 757 and fly like he did..
Especially for someone that had NEVER flown a multi engined plane, let alone a large passenger jet..



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Hanjour took lessons at Jet Tech in Arizonia, including ground school, and simulator training in a 737
simulator. Instructor checked off box marked "steep turns", but nothing in "taxi"

Reason used simulator was gain experience in handling large multi engine jets - Weedwhacker will tell you
many commerical pilots gain their rating by training in simulators. Lot cheaper than flying the real thing
and if crash simply restart and try again until get it right....



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by backinblack
 


Hanjour took lessons at Jet Tech in Arizonia, including ground school, and simulator training in a 737
simulator. Instructor checked off box marked "steep turns", but nothing in "taxi"

Reason used simulator was gain experience in handling large multi engine jets - Weedwhacker will tell you
many commerical pilots gain their rating by training in simulators. Lot cheaper than flying the real thing
and if crash simply restart and try again until get it right....


I'm not sure 21 hours would be enough time to learn..
Especially in a different plane, 737 V's 757



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 



THE F4 PHANTOM CRASH cannot be compared to the WTC for a few reasons!!!!!

RE the crashes people need to compare apples with apples the Phantom jet crash was into a block of concrete used in the construction of NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS.

Concrete is made by using water,cement,sand and an aggregate, the aggregate can be anything from
POLYSTYRENE BEADS to BALL BEARINGS or CUT UP ENGINE BLOCKS depending what you want your concrete to do.

In certain areas of NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS lead shot or iron ball bearings are used to help slow down the progress of radiation through walls even the sand can be replaced with iron filings .

The WTC did not repeat did NOT have concrete on the facade it was steel,aluminium cladding and glasss.

The Pentagon had had major work down to reduce the effects of bomb attacks the walls were not the same as WTC they were reinfoced concrete and masonry and blast proof windows.

Thats why the effects or not the same for the aircraft impacts!!!!

Normal concrete used on site in the UK is usually rated around 25/30N mm crushing strength but higher strengths can be achieved up to 60N typical density 2400kg/m3.

Really high density concrete can nearly 9000kg/m3 and crushing strength over 90-100N


theconstructor.org...
edit on 12-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



I'm not sure 21 hours would be enough time to learn..
Especially in a different plane, 737 V's 757


Twenty-one hours is a LOT of time....Let me have you for that much, in a decent Level D simulator, and I'll have you flying almost as well as the hijackers could. (You would have to also put some effort into it, as well....). Didn't you watch the videos, showing amateurs in the sims?? They were avid and eager.....

There is a great deal of commonality between all Current production Boeings, in terms of navigation and instrument controls, in the cockpit. AND, flying is flying...THAT is basic.

The 737 EFIS controls, displays and operation are virtually IDENTICAL to the 757/767!!! Starting with more recent versions, the EFIS concept has morphed into a more "glass cockpit" design...as seen in that version of the 737-800 simulator, above. Six MFD screens (Multi-Function Displays) take the place of the electro-mechanical instruments you see in the earlier versions, like the 757/767-200, and the 737-300, -400, -500 and -600. The six-screen MFD concept began with the B-777, and is included in the B767-400s...and the B-787. The transition is easy, from airplane to airplane, because the electronic display is virtually the same as the mechanical instruments. ONE added feature, in the electronic displays, are the vertical side "tape" displays, for airspeed and altitude...but, they are in addition to the more conventional "round dial" depictions, too.

(This is a theme that Boeing embarked upon, over two decades ago....beginning with the EFIS concept in the redesigned B737-300 series and ITS variations....to make ALL of their commercial airplane products more "user friendly" in terms of accommodating pilots who transition from one type of equipment to another.
edit on 12 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

If you had actually read the article, you would have found no need to state the obvious.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

If you had actually read the article, you would have found no need to state the obvious.


I had read it thats why I did the post, the writer stated that he thought the planes would have suffered the same fate as the Phantom but the debris passed through becasuse the towers were an open structure.

I dont agree they would have crumpled but they would not have been the tiny fragments the Phantom ended up as.

Thats why I gave details about concrete,the Phantom test was done to show how a Nuclear Plant would fare in such a situation.

I would not have compared the two.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   


Did you flunk geography....? Several of the hijackers took hundred of hours of lessons in 737 simulator in Mesa Azizonia Hanjour took lessons at Jet Tech in Arizonia


Dear Mr. Geography teacher, thank you for the lesson. Just one more thing: can you please tell me exactly where Azizonia and Arizonia are located? I am trying to look them up on my maps and can't seem to find them. As always, thank you in advance for your infallible knowledge.

So you're saying that at an elevation of 28,000 feet, our Top Gun Turban was easily able to locate the Hudson River, follow it southward, come in on a perfect decent, control the plane while exceeding the manufacturerer's specs at low altitude/high speed and hit the Tower square on at 550 MPH. Quite impressive stuff for a barefoot cave dweller guy who couldn't even keep a Cessna in the air.

Oh, and another thing: it took the hijackers a lightning quick 15 minutes to take control of the airplane from the time it took off. That is some lightning fast work for four guys with boxcutters aginst two pilots, several airline crew and 81 passengers. These guys were outnumbered 22-1 and all it took was four boxcutters to do the trick? Sure.

Wait a second, it gets better. The plane wasn't taken over until it had reached a cruising altitude of 28,000 feet. How long is this after takeoff? Therefore, they did all this in much less than 15 minutes.


Hey, on the other hand, this is television, where anything is possible.

Weed, you can explain to me how this ridiculously unrealistic occurrence happened one million times; it does not mean that I will be buying your explanation (or anyone else's) anytime soon. Sorry, but the small time frame, the lack of in air flying experience by the cavemen, the inability for the aircraft to be properly flown at those high speeds/low altitude and the outnumbered hijackers just does not add up.

Here is an Egyptian General who I think would know a thing about this issue and would investigate it without being biased. What would be his motivation to believe that the OS is a crock?



edit on 12-2-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 



Here is an Egyptian General who I think would know a thing about this issue and would investigate it without being biased. What would be his motivation to believe that the OS is a crock?


I'm no fan of the OS as you know but this guy???

He lost me, especially when he says Chenney called Bush when he was in Air Force One...
Bush WASN'T in Air Force one that morning!!



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Oh, and another thing: it took the hijackers a lightning quick 15 minutes to take control of the airplane from the time it took off. That is some lightning fast work for four guys with boxcutters aginst two pilots, several airline crew and 81 passengers. These guys were outnumbered 22-1 and all it took was four boxcutters to do the trick? Sure.

Here is an Egyptian General who I think would know a thing about this issue and would investigate it without being biased. What would be his motivation to believe that the OS is a crock?



Hmm just watched the Egyptian General video, and it seems clear he is having an anti American, anti Israeli rant.

He makes a lot of reference to things he has seen on the internet including the 911 truth.org website and is using that in his argument so brings nothing new to the table but just is recycling what he has seen on "truther" websites!
He also doesn't appear to have too much clue about building 7, which was filmed taking a massive hit by a steel girder from the falling debris off the collapsing towers.

As for the question of how the hijackers over came the plane so fast, well just speculating here obviously, but I would imagine the element of surprise would have played a huge part, and also the passengers and indeed crew, would not have known that the terrorist only had box cutters for weapons, and probably were not in a position to know that there were only 4 terrorist on board.
edit on 12-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Despite all of your racist, irrelevant rants about "turbans" and "bare" feet.....

....care to CITE this exactly?? Or, is it just another "truther" exaggeration? (because it only applied to one flight, right??):


Oh, and another thing: it took the hijackers a lightning quick 15 minutes to take control of the airplane from the time it took off.


Oh, that was for American 11. Care to look at the OTHER flights, and see the differences in times??

BTW.....from takeoff, to top of climb....for a lightly-loaded jet, not unusual for it to be only about 15....20 minutes, at most. Sometimes, due to traffic conflicts above, may be held at intermediate altitudes, and such. Anyway, the most likely way the hijackers gained entry was by STORMING in through the door, as it was opened from outside....by the flight attendants!

Absolutely normal, back then....and very commonplace for the F/As to do their PA as you pass through 10,000 feet (that electronics can be used) and that's only a few minutes after takeoff. About then, they (up in First Class) start to do some setting up in the galley, maybe a round of drinks for the passengers....and by the time the flight levels off, they also know that the pilots have become less busy...so that is a good time to "feed and water" them, to get it out of the way, so they can spend the next hour or so on the cabin breakfast service.

This is very, very routine....anyone who flies will see these patterns, time and again....

edit on 12 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Twenty-one hours is a LOT of time....Let me have you for that much, in a decent Level D simulator, and I'll have you flying almost as well as the hijackers could. (You would have to also put some effort into it, as well....).


Well certainly not me..
I'd bet I can already fly a plane better than him...
Ohh, and I can speak English and have an IQ in triple digits...

Is it true no one can figure how he got or kept his CPL.???

PS: I was also replying to the other poster who was saying they had "hundreds of hours" of simulator training..
Amazing what "those damn fool truster sites" try to pass off as truth..



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 



Oh, and another thing: it took the hijackers a lightning quick 15 minutes to take control of the airplane from the time it took off. That is some lightning fast work for four guys with boxcutters aginst two pilots, several airline crew and 81 passengers. These guys were outnumbered 22-1 and all it took was four boxcutters to do the trick? Sure.


22 to 1 ? See employing "truther math" .....

All the hijackers were in First/Business class cabin, which was partitoned off from rest of plane by curtains. People in back of plane would not be able to see what was going on.

Lets see who was in First class/Business class



I count 28 people in this section, 5 of them hijackers, so have 23 passengers. Of the 23, count 8 women (based
on names), so now down to 15 men.

Hijackers had element of surprise working for them. You board a long flight to west coast, shortly after takeoff
start leveling off - do you expect group of fanatics with knives to start stabbing the flight attendents and rushing
the cockpit? are you physically or mentally prepared to engage in hand to hand combat with somebody with
a knife?

Of the passengers only Daniel Lewin an Israeli-American and former officer in Israel special forces would qualify
on that part. Based on reports from Amy Sweeny and Betty Ong he was one of first to die - stabbed by hijacker
sitting behind him (look at seating chart)

Also from the flight attendents report that hijackers sprayed irritant chemical (Mace/pepper spray) in cabin
to drive passengers/crew to rear of plane creating "sterile zone" between them and cockpit

As usual your post is illogical.....



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Odd though..Your link to Amy Sweeny and Betty Ong phone calls blows one of the debunking theories..

According to weedwhacker and others, the plane was NOT in a steep decent just prior to impact..
But read this..

Without Sweeney's calm reporting, the plane might have crashed with no one certain the man in charge was tied to al Qaeda. 'Rapid Descent' About 15 minutes after the women first called, the plane suddenly lurched, tilting all the way to one side, then becoming horizontal again. Ong said the plane was flying erratically, and Sweeney said it had begun a rapid descent. "For a flight attendant to say rapid descent, it's rapid and it's quick. We don't use those terms very loosely," said Woodward. They were now nearing New York and the World Trade Center, but on board the plane it was quiet. "You didn't hear hysteria in the background. You didn't hear people screaming," said Minter. Woodward asked Sweeney to look out of the window and see if she could tell what was going on. "I see the water. I see the buildings. I see buildings," she told him. On the line to Raleigh, Ong said over and over again, "Pray for us. Pray for us." Gonzales and Minter assured her they were praying. Sweeney told Woodward the plane was flying very low. Then, he said, "She took a very slow, deep breath and then just said, 'Oh, my God!' Very slowly, very calmly, very quietly. It wasn't in panic." Those were the last words Woodward heard. "Seconds later," he said, "there was a very, very loud static on the other end." While Woodward was still holding the telephone, hoping Sweeney would come through, his operational manager came into the room and said that a plane had just crashed into the World Trade Center.

www.airliners.net...

Sounds like they were in very rapid decent just before impact!!
edit on 12-2-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Listen. If this is too difficult for you, then explain how a real Boeing 767 can pass through its own length into a massive steel-and-concrete building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air? Do you also believe that steel-and-concrete provides no more resistance to a plane's trajectory than air?


Jim,

Do you understand how a cheese grater works? Same basic process at play between the WTCs, AA11 and UA175. By your apparent understanding of physics, a bullet shouldn't work. Arrows shouldn't pierce. B-25s shouldn't be able to puncture the Empire State Building.

So something is either wrong with reality or something is wrong with your understanding of physics. I know which outcome I'm betting on.

Fitz



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
Reminds me of those Warner Bros cartoons.....BEEP BEEP!!


And we have another one that believes that the planes should've bounced off.


A lack of understanding of basic physics on your part does not equal video fakery.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Based on that narrative you read from airliners.net, who did you reckon this?:


Sounds like they were in very rapid decent just before impact!!


Look at the timelines for the phone call from Betty Ong, and any comments about the descent (you will find this is earlier, from the cruise altitude of 29,000). Looks like reading into it too much.

Here...actual altitudes were not precisely measured (when compared to UAL 175) because they only had primary radar returns. NORAD's radar information were used to augment what ATC radar could not measure:

Flight Path Study - American Airlines 11

Page #2. Average rate of descent 3,200 fpm. (This is not very excessive, really. Just in normal descents, it's around 2,200 to 2,500, depends on the speed you select, and a bit on your weight too).

Looks like both AAL 11 and UAL 175 employed about the same tactic...staying high and steep, with nearly level just for the last portion. Kamikaze style......




edit on 13 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join