Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by JimFetzer
 



All the worse for refueling versions of 767s. I guess you are one of those who believes everything he sees as well as everything he reads, even including animated simulations!


Still pushing the "it was a 767 tanker which hit the WTC" crap

One the 767 did not exist in 2001, except for paper design. first was not sold until 2002 (Italy) with delivery in
2005 , Japan bought some too

Boeing had no end of problems with design and was late delivering them

www.strategypage.com...

Wrong. You are referring only to the post-2001 KC-767 tanker. There were military variants of the 767 in operation by 2001 and it is perfectly possible that one version was modified to do the job.
en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by thedman
Two - in a tanker the fuel to be offloaded is stored in the interior cargo compartment. Wings hold fuel for the
aircraft own consumption in flight

Irrelevant. You ignore the possibility that the plane that hit the South Tower was a commercial or military 767 that had been modified to hold extra fuel in its cargo compartment so as to create an explosion large enough to fool people that the impact and subsequent fires had caused the tower to collapse.

Originally posted by thedman
But of course facts dont matter to conspiracy loon - it is all about your fantasy.....

The official 9/11 account is the true fantasy. You have cherry-picked your facts to suit your argument. This is not scientific.




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks


Here we have a truther with poor reading ability - where did I claim "all"? I actually said "some", as you would have seen if you bothered to read, instead of going off half cocked again.


Which ones are not silly?, no other conspiracy theory in history has as much supporting evidence as 9/11, be it from `Squibs would be present if it were a c/d` they are and have been debunked as air pressure due to a pancake collapse (even though it is now deemed there was no pancake collapse), intensive work undertaken in both towers prior to 9/11 - check, no forensic tests checking for explosives even though once again there is extensive eye witness testimonies pointing towards this, and even more damning the seismograph data depicting two huge earth tremors 14 and 17 seconds prior to impacts, irregular flight data regarding speeds at the WTC and altitude over at the pentagon, whistleblowers from all angles stepping forward, Bush`s blatant lies (twice) regarding his account of the 1st impact, the BBC and WTC7, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th plane crashes inland not to have had both black boxes returned, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd towers in history to have collapsed due to relative causes they were designed to withstand.

Now, just for once, instead of spouting your playground type crap, go forth and return with as much concrete evidence as there is against 9/11 in support of the genocidal murdering bastards you seem indebted to support.

Every single aspect of 9/11 that would have supporting evidence if it were an inside job, strangely enough has this evidence, right down to the murdering bastards making money out of it ie:- put options.

You guys sucking up to these callous murderers makes me sick, that`s why I really cba here anymore, not once do you get anywhere near debunking the issues, just the normal derailing and character assassinations, it really is time over that side of the water for someone with the power to grow some //snip// balls and go and arrest those responsible.
edit on 5-2-2011 by Seventh because: Typos
edit on Sun Feb 6 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
and even more damning the seismograph data depicting two huge earth tremors 14 and 17 seconds prior to impacts,


Just more lies from a "truther"
www.popularmechanics.com...

snip even more lies, from someone with a agenda to just attack the USA and Bush.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Here's another in the apparently endless stream of mindless drivel coming from members of a group that has NOT EVEN BOTHERED TO READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN. Do I have to explain that I am not one of those whom you may think you and your chums have debunked before? I am the new guy on the block. You have to actually READ MY STUFF and then, if you can, explain my arguments (so we know you actually understand them) and then, if you can, explain what I have wrong. You can't do any of that if you don't even read what I've written. OK?



So, as opposed to answering a simple question, you attack me? Awesome.

Mr. Fetzer,

I've read your garbage. I've seen most of it. The OP here is nothing new. Heck, you even posted (as someone else pointed out also) that the outer columns were made of concrete and steel. This is ABSOLUTELY wrong. How can you make such a SIMPLE mistake, and expect people to take you seriously?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper

There was no concrete in the fascia of the towers.

He's referring to the concrete in the floors.



As you said: Fail. If you can't get the basics just give it up.


Here is Mr. Fetzer's exact words.


. It is passing into the steel and concrete structure without displaying any signs of impact, where the wings, the engines, the fuselage and other component parts all remain intact.


Now, this implies that it is passing through steel a concrete to get to something else. I absolutely agree with Hooper. Not to mention that the concrete in the floor pans were 4" thick, and were horizontal. To expect 3-5 of them to slow an airplane traveling at ~733 fps is assinine.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


I do wish people who don't understand aviation would be a bit more careful. Because, regarding the allegation (made by OP, and on a site that is allegedly run by OP) of the "KC-767TT" specifically....(it is ON THEIR SITE!).

thedman is absolutely correct (and I thought I had pointed this out too, earlier??). There were no KC-767s built yet, as of September 2001. Recall, THAT was the assertion. Specifically.

So, this is a distraction and deflection:


Wrong. You are referring only to the post-2001 KC-767 tanker. There were military variants of the 767 in operation by 2001 and it is perfectly possible that one version was modified to do the job.


But, hold on a second! You wish to assert that it is "perfectly possible" that one of the...what, one of the AWACS?....was "modified to do the job"??


On what factual, and evidential basis is that claim made? DO you realize that inventories of assets such as large jetliners are very meticulously kept? They are well-monitored....by large numbers of civilians and aviation enthusiasts, who make their hobby and past time. Not to mention, the military has its own strict rules and bureaucracy. Oh, and you should read your own source (Wiki) more carefully. There, to the place you linked, you will note that ONE variant was built as the "AOA" (later called the "AST") testbed, but that was parked and scrapped, and certainly not used on 9/11!!:


After test flights the aircraft was stored at the Victorville Airport in California in 2003, and ultimately deregistered in 2007 before scrapping.


The AWACS ("E-767") version?? A total of FOUR were built, and all bought by Japan. Check to see if they report two of them missing, about ten years ago?? I think they would have noticed......
en.wikipedia.org...


Sorry, but this is "armchair theorizing", and nothing more. Absent any kind of logical or rational facts and evidence, either.


Furthermore, it gets worse....the "armchair theorizing":


You ignore the possibility that the plane that hit the South Tower was a commercial or military 767 that had been modified to hold extra fuel in its cargo compartment so as to create an explosion large enough to fool people that the impact and subsequent fires had caused the tower to collapse.



You truly seem to not realize what you propose there.....seems you think this would have been an "easy" modification?? To "hold extra fuel" in the cargo areas?? Setting aside, for the moment, that the little bit extra that would fit (after EXTENSIVE and very involved 'modifications') would only be a slight increase in overall "explosive" energy....it would really just be more "fuel for the fire" (no pun intended).

Setting all of that aside.....it is a simple FACT that United 175 was tracked on radar continuously, from takeoff at Boston, through the hijacking and takeover, and then all the way to impact.

Because, the transponder was NEVER set to "standby" (same as "off", for all intents and purposes). That particular hijacker opted to just change the squawk....thinking (rightly) that it would drop out of the system, that held the flight plan information that was tied to that discrete original code.

However, ATC were easily able to follow the target, see the transponder code that was displayed even as it was changed (this is all on record.....link at the bottom) and the transponder continued to transmit in Mode C...so the computers could determine, predict and project its ground track, and display its altitude, as they do with all transponder-equipped targets.

The photos and videos clearly show it was a United jet, in United colors. I hope you don't want me to pull out the videos (I've posted them before) showing how complicated and time-consuming and massive effort required to PAINT a large jetliner?? You don't just pop into an Earl Schieb auto-body store!!



Flight Path Study - United Airlines Flight 175.

(Page #4 on the PDF).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, almost missed this bit of irony, at the end:


Originally posted by micpsi
You have cherry-picked your facts to suit your argument. This is not scientific.




edit on 5 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer How many here are aware that these are the first airplane crashes in American history that have not been investigated by the NTSB!


Can you cite a source for this claim? Thanks.

PS. Here is the NTSB rules on aircraft investigation.


The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity; in the past, once it has been established that a transportation tragedy is, in fact, a criminal act, the FBI becomes the lead federal investigative body, with the NTSB providing any requested support.


From here.
www.ntsb.gov...

So, the people you will want to contact is the FBI. Thanks for playing.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


So rather than taking an existing non-military airframe, they take a military one loaded with special gear?

But lets go and do some research into the matter:

Have you ever seen the E-767? Its got an airborne dish as an AWAC. Didnt see any large rotating dishes on the ones used on 9/11. Also, Japan is the ONLY user of this type of aircraft.

The KC-767s all didnt come into being until AFTER 2001 with the first frame actually built in 2005 for Japan.

The 767 AST (Airborne Surveillance Testbed) was built in 1986, and guess what? It was stored in 2003. It was scrapped in 2007. It had a pronounced hump running down the top of the fuselage. Nope, no humps on either planes that crashed.

The EC-10 MC2A was a prototype for a new AWAC replacement for the E-3 Sentry, E-8 JSTARS, and the RC-135 Rivet Joint. The E-10 wasnt designed until 2003, and built later. It (the airframe) now resides in Bahrain as a VIP transport.

So of all the military 767s out there, NONE of them could have been used on 9/11. So no, it wasnt a military 767.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
No one can know if a plane crash was an accident or a criminal act without determining the cause of the crash. Is that too much for you to grasp, GenRadek? You come on here making pronouncements with great authority when you haven't even begun to think things through. One of the oddities of the Wellstone plane crash is that the FBI spokesman, one Paul McCabe, announced already the evening of the crash that there were "no signs of terrorist involvement", when the plane had been burning intensely all day, they had been unable to extinguish the fire, and no determination of the cause of the crash had been made. In fact, the investigation had barely begun--and it would eventually turn out that the co-pilot, Michael Guess, actually had had interaction of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was alleged to have been "the 20th hijacker", which means not only could the FBI not have know at that early stage that there were no indications of terrorist involvement but the co-pilot actually had connections to someone the FBI regarded as a terrorist!


Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by JimFetzer
I think you have no idea how embarrassing your posts are for those who expect intelligent, evidence and science-based discussions here at ATS. This is rather sad.

reply to post by weedwhacker
 






This coming from someone how doesnt know the difference between an accident and a criminal act.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
You really had better read Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an Inside Job", and stop depending on the child's version of 9/11 published by POPULAR MECHANICS after a hostile takeover, which led to the replacement of the quality editorial staff that had built the magazine's reputation and their replacement by hacks, one of whom, I understand, turns out to be a cousin of Michael Chertoff, who was deeply involved in 9/11. You do know that David Ray Griffin took POPULAR MECHANICS apart in his book, DEBUNKING 9/11 DEBUNKING, do you not? If you don't, I think that book ought to be at the top of your reading list, assuming, of course, that you are interested in the truth about 9/11 and not the myth our government has given us.

After the arrest of the "dancing Israelis", for example, who were incarcerated for 71 days before they were released on the direction of Michael Chertoff, then an assistant to Attorney General John Ashcroft. Then went back to Israel and three of them appeared on Israeli television and explained that they were there to document the destruction of the Twin Towers. But of course they could not have been there to document to destruction of the Twin Towers unless they knew the Twin Towers were going to be destroyed. Here's an article about them: whatreallyhappened.com... So the neo-cons who were behind 9/11 were assisted by the Mossad, which I have discussed in "Is 9/11 research 'anti-Semitic'?"


Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Seventh
and even more damning the seismograph data depicting two huge earth tremors 14 and 17 seconds prior to impacts,


Just more lies from a "truther"
www.popularmechanics.com...

snip even more lies, from someone with a agenda to just attack the USA and Bush.
edit on 5-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: Fixing a typo



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
CEASE AND DESIST!!

Attacking each other rather than debating the topic ends now!

Further personal attacks, name-calling and derailing of the topic will be removed, edited and/or warned.

Please read the following before further posting:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

MOD NOTE: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Come on! Do a little research. Neither the FBI nor the NTSB conducted investigations of these crashes for the first time in American history. This is not obscure information but a part of the public record. Here is a discussion of "A Little Known Fact about the 9/11 Planes", www.rense.com... , which is t that no investigation has been conducted by the NTSB or the FBI to confirm the identity of the planes or the crashes in which they were allegedly involved.


Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by JimFetzer How many here are aware that these are the first airplane crashes in American history that have not been investigated by the NTSB!


Can you cite a source for this claim? Thanks.

PS. Here is the NTSB rules on aircraft investigation.


The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity; in the past, once it has been established that a transportation tragedy is, in fact, a criminal act, the FBI becomes the lead federal investigative body, with the NTSB providing any requested support.


From here.
www.ntsb.gov...

So, the people you will want to contact is the FBI. Thanks for playing.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Here are some resources for serious students of 9/11:

ON CONSPIRACIES AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES:

"Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK"
www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

"Conspiracies and Conspiracism"
onlinejournal.com...

"7/7 Ripple Effect" (a "false flag" attack from beginning to end)
video.google.com...#

ON WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11:

"Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?"
twilightpines.com...

"Unanswered Questions: Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?"
jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

"Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?"
noliesradio.org...

ON WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TWIN TOWERS:

"9/11 Truth is No 'Parlor Game'"
jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

"An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11"
911scholars.ning.com...

"Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories"
jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

ON WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PENTAGON:

"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon"
jjamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

"Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2"
video.google.com...#

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American77
pilotsfor911truth.org...

ON PLANES OR NO PLANES:

Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11"
www.opednews.com...

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
www.globalresearch.ca...

Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
www.serendipity.li...

"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
www.opednews.com...

"9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Killtown on Shanksville,
killtown.blogspot.com...
edit on 5-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: Replacing a duplicate posts with fresh content . . .



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Oh so no one knew why THREE planes just happened to crash into THREE buildings, after it was discovered that they were HIJACKED moments before?
How can it be an accident???????


Jim, The four plane crashes were NOT accidents. They did NOT acidentally fly into buildings (or ground). Is that so much for you to grasp, Jim? The NTSB gave its expertese to the FBI's criminal investigation. However, the FBI and the NTSB both already understood that these were NOT accidents, but criminal acts. Therefore the investigation was turned over to the FBI, with the NTSB offering support. The NTSB does NOT investigate criminal activity involving aircraft. It investigates ACCIDENTS. Do you know what the difference is between an accident and a criminal act?

The Wellstone plane crash was investigated as an ACCIDENT when it was not understood what caused the crash. No witnesses, or anything. It wasnt until something fishy was about the crash, when the FBI was asked to come in. The FBI was aware of the many death threats on Wellstone. However, the NTSB said possible pilot error and a bad VOR to blaim.
edit on 2/5/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Good thread and information..
I hope some actually debate the facts you present..
i haven't seen much of that happening yet..



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Video fakery?! That's a new theory here on ATS.




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Well, you must like to delude yourself. You have no knowledge of what happened or who was involved apart from what you have been told. Investigations of air crashes are routine. You have to determine what happened and the cause of the crash in order to pursue those who may have been involved. Are you reading what I have been posting? Are you aware that Elias Davidsson has established that the government has never proven that any of the alleged hijacrkers were abroad any of the planes? that David Ray Griffin has found that all of the calls alleged to have been made from all of the planes were faked? and that Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed that, of the millions of uniquely identifiable component parts from those planes, the government has yet to produce even one? Go back and read my opening statement and you should understand all of this better.

Here's something you may not know. According to the FAA's own Aircraft Registration records, a copy of which I have in hand, the plane that was allegedly AA #11 (which is supposed to have hit the North Tower) had the serial number 22332, was a Boeing 767-223, but was not de-registered until 01/14/2002, allegedly because it was destroyed. The plane that was allegedly AA #77 (which is supposed to have hit the Pentagon), had serial number 24602, was a Boeing 757-223, and was also not de-registered until 01/14/2002, allegedly for the same reason. Those two are not nearly as strange as the data for United #175 (which is supposed to have hit the South Tower), which had serial number 21873, was a Boeing 767-222 and was not de-registered until 09/28/2005 with the reason for cancellation "Cancelled". And for United #93, which allegedly crashed in Shanksville, its serial number was 28142, it was a Boeing 757-222, and was de-registered on the same date for the same non-reason. Doesn't all of this raise the least questions in your mind about what has been going on?


Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Oh so no one knew why THREE planes just happened to crash into THREE buildings, after it was discovered that they were HIJACKED moments before?
How can it be an accident???????


Jim, The four plane crashes were NOT accidents. They did NOT acidentally fly into buildings (or ground). Is that so much for you to grasp, Jim? The NTSB gave its expertese to the FBI's criminal investigation. However, the FBI and the NTSB both already understood that these were NOT accidents, but criminal acts. Therefore the investigation was turned over to the FBI, with the NTSB offering support. The NTSB does NOT investigate criminal activity involving aircraft. It investigates ACCIDENTS. Do you know what the difference is between an accident and a criminal act?

The Wellstone plane crash was investigated as an ACCIDENT when it was not understood what caused the crash. No witnesses, or anything. It wasnt until something fishy was about the crash, when the FBI was asked to come in. The FBI was aware of the many death threats on Wellstone. However, the NTSB said possible pilot error and a bad VOR to blaim.
edit on 2/5/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Can you direct me to any witnesses please to support your assertion that the Israelis were in place before the first tower was struck ? Thanks.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
GenRadek,

You are not responding to the evidence of video fakery that I am citing, which includes the impossible speed, the impossible entry, the absence of strobe lights, and all of that, especially that the plane passes through its length as it enters the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its length in air, which implies that this massive, 500,000-ton building posed no more resistance to the plane's trajectory than air! We have no reason to think it was a special plane, but that could not have happened EVEN WITH A SPECIAL PLANE. So i hope you will give this more thought. You seem to me to be both intelligent and sincere. Keep pursuing this.

Jim


Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by micpsi
 


So rather than taking an existing non-military airframe, they take a military one loaded with special gear?

But lets go and do some research into the matter:

Have you ever seen the E-767? Its got an airborne dish as an AWAC. Didnt see any large rotating dishes on the ones used on 9/11. Also, Japan is the ONLY user of this type of aircraft.

The KC-767s all didnt come into being until AFTER 2001 with the first frame actually built in 2005 for Japan.

The 767 AST (Airborne Surveillance Testbed) was built in 1986, and guess what? It was stored in 2003. It was scrapped in 2007. It had a pronounced hump running down the top of the fuselage. Nope, no humps on either planes that crashed.

The EC-10 MC2A was a prototype for a new AWAC replacement for the E-3 Sentry, E-8 JSTARS, and the RC-135 Rivet Joint. The E-10 wasnt designed until 2003, and built later. It (the airframe) now resides in Bahrain as a VIP transport.

So of all the military 767s out there, NONE of them could have been used on 9/11. So no, it wasnt a military 767.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Others as well as I have already corrected your blunder about the external support columns being filled with concrete. I was talking about the eight (8) floors of steel trusses filled with concrete, which means that, in order to penetrate the South Tower, the plane would have had to overcome enormous horizontal resistance. I have also recommended studying the first fifteen (15) slides of my Buenos Aires Powerpoint, "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?", where I illustrate the key issues involved here: twilightpines.com... If you aren't going to study the evidence, then why are you here?

reply to post by FDNY343
 






top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join