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: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


You have posted in full John Lear's affidavit in support of Morgan Reynold's litigation in the US District Court, Southern District of New York but you didn't mention that the case was dismissed with prejudice.



By a Government appointed judge..
Now who'd of thought that would happen?




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



No PHD in physics but Civil Eng in college.

See if this one works.




Re your mass volume question WHY do you think its relevent.


I am off to catch a plane in an hour might be on later tonight from hotel.

edit on 7-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


You have posted in full John Lear's affidavit in support of Morgan Reynold's litigation in the US District Court, Southern District of New York but you didn't mention that the case was dismissed with prejudice.



By a Government appointed judge..
Now who'd of thought that would happen?


Well naturally the entire US judiciary are " in on it " but be careful because you seem to be fast running out of people who AREN'T " in on it ". Will be down to you and Jim soon.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack
 



No PHD in physics but Civil Eng in college.

See if this one works.




Re your mass volume question WHY do you think its relevent.


I am off to catch a plane in an hour might be on later tonight from hotel.

edit on 7-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


Yes that link worked..Though I don't see the relevance..
The pic shows limited internal damage only penetrating a few feet at best.
There is also clear evidence of very large parts of the plane on the facade of the building...

Neither happened on 9/11...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



Well naturally the entire US judiciary are " in on it " but be careful because you seem to be fast running out of people who AREN'T " in on it ". Will be down to you and Jim soon.


lol, ohh I doubt that mate...
Polls show more and more people questioning the OS every year..

You are in the minority..



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
By Newton's third law, the impact of a plane flying more than 500 mph hitting a stationary 500,000-ton building would have the same effects as a 500,000-ton building moving more than 500 mph hitting a stationary plane. One of us has not been giving this matter the thought that it deserves. The question is important to know how we know we are seeing a fantasy, which is clearly the case.

reply to post by wmd_2008
 



edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)


I am sorry but that has to be one of the silliest things I have seen posted on here. Newton must be spinning in his grave; I hope for his sake his internet connection is down.

Have you really no idea of the difference in kinetic energy between a building of 500,000 tons moving at 500 mph and a 130 ton aircraft moving at the same speed ?

Anyway, you are trying to twist Newton to support your idea that it was impossible for the planes to have entered the Towers because of their relatively small size in comparison with the large mass of the building. If that were so, it would also be true that a swinging wrecking ball weighing 1 or 2 tons could never penetrate a building weighing thousands of tons and the idea of a little 25 lb artillery shell doing so would be beyond a joke.

Fact is you are completely ignoring the kinetic energy at point of impact which would have been just the same if the Towers had been 5 stories high or 300.

Instead of theorising wrongly about Newtonian physics why can't you deal with the real life example that has been pointed out to you. In 1945 a B 25 bomber punched a 20 ft by 18 ft hole in the Empire State Building as you can see here :-

www.bartcop.com...

And in 2001 we have an aircraft, UA 175, weighing nearly 15 times that of the bomber and travelling at least 2.5 times faster. Work out the differences in kinetic energy of the impacts yourself. I am going to stick my neck out and say the kinetic energy of the UA 175 impact was approximately the equivalent of 100 B 25 bombers crashing into the same point. Do the calculations and prove me wrong.

And yet you still maintain that UA 175 shouldn't have entered the Tower as it did according to numerous videos and thousands of eyewitnesses.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 



Why is everyone so eager to use the word "lie" to describe the positions of those with whom they disagree?


Here you are at 02:36 practically frothing at the mouth in order to call out Lt Col Steve O'Brien. Would you call him a liar to his face?



TJ


edit on 7-2-2011 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


This is a total misstatement. It is becoming a continuing pattern in the "truther" movement:


Polls show more and more people questioning the OS every year..

You are in the minority.



YOU made this statement. YOU misinterpreted what the various "polls" actually asked....the types of questions.

So, it is totally disingenuous to make such a blanket, ignorant statement as that...unless you provide documentation and sources to verify?? In fact, I think you should....so everyone can see exactly what "more people are questioning" every year. (Hint: It is NOT the "OS"....and that, BTW, is yet another hackneyed phrase acronym. Vague, on purpose...and intellectually deceiving and lazy).

Repeating a rumour that has gone through the mill, and come out distorted, is NOT a valid "debate" tactic. It is a "lazy argument" at best....and intentionally deceptive, at its worst.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
You can call me a truther but one thing for sure is that threads like this and its content have been proven to be intentional misdirection of information. It was proven to be created to discredit research into 911.

All the people involved in the no planer movement have been linked to shady sources Pods, holograms, cgi, windowless tankers, lasers, space beams, super nukers, exotic weapons, anything but the truth and if so, distort the truth to the point of alienating the reader.

Here are some of the no planers. They are quite obvious in their attempts to smear the 911 truth movement posing as truthers. See the videos.

Mild Profanity, please use discretion.

The web fairy, "dr" Judy wood, Nico Haupt

No planers attacking 911 truth activists.
edit on 7-2-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


John Lear is wrong. He is heavily invested, and emotionally attached, to the "space beams from orbit" and "holograms" concepts...so, of course, he will alter and obfuscate, even in a "sworn" testimony, in order to walk that fine line. Recall....he cannot be charged with perjury, since everything he swears to, in those statements, are his stated beliefs, based on his interpretations. And based on his "expert" opinion.

There are many, many flaws in his "argument"....it is a long deposition, and he obviously spent a lot of time crafting it, prior to it going into the record. I won't touch on every wrong assertion (his diatribe about the engines, for instance. Trying to assert that they would impede acceleration is ludicrous. Eerily similar, though, to another terribly flawed assertion, floating on the InterWebz, by some so-called "aeronautical engineer"...claiming that the airplane would "shake itself apart" above 220 knots!!! LOL!).


But, THIS ONE is worth singling out:


...19. The alleged NIST speed of 443 mph (385 kts,) for American Airlines Flight 11 would be technically achievable. However the NIST speed of 542 mph (470 kts) for United Airlines Flight 175 which is 50 kts. above VD is not commensurate with and/or possible considering...



I'm sorry, but he cannot have it both ways.

He tacitly agrees that the estimated/calculated speed for AAL 11 is "technically achievable". Sure, it is only a bit over the Vmo...and, you can see in the video demonstration I posted, how relatively easy it is, with the assistance of gravity (in a descent) to achieve Vmo. Left unchecked, again referring to that video, and even with power remaining at flight idle, the speed would have continued to increase well above Vmo....assuming the pitch attitude remained constant. Now, when you factor in the increased thrust force, from pushing the power levers full forward......

.....then you see the United 175 scenario. Again, is argument of "...50 kts. above VD (sic)"... is moot, and not sustainable in logic and practical application. Consider that the airplane, in flight testing, HAD successfully demonstrated the speed of 420 knots. To suggest that, at acceleration rates of several knots per second, that an additional 50 knots added on is not achievable, is a gross misrepresentation of reality.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
The concrete was from 4-8" deep in the V-grooves, as one of the construction workers who actually pouted it has confirmed to Charles Boldwyn, who has been studying the structures. He also reported that it was strengthened by the addition of steel wire mesh, which can be seen here. But the important point is that the alleged plane would have intersected with eight (8) floors representing an acre of concrete apiece, which would have posed enormous horizontal resistance, which you would understand if you have viewed the first fifteen (15) of the slides from my Powerpoint presentation:



reply to post by wmd_2008
 



edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Another silly post from weedwhacker. We are talking about two different planes, where the plane in the Naudet footage does not appear to be traveling at an impossible speed. The importance of John's affidavit is that he explains why, at 700-1,000 feet altitude, the massive engines could not suck enough air through their turbines and would function as enormous breaks, slowing the plane, where the velocities attainable at the cruising altitude of 35,000 feet are aerodynamically impossible at this altitude, where the air is three times as dense. And have you noticed that Pilots for 9/11 Truth has independently confirmed that the speed of the plane in the video is not possible for a Boeing 767 at that altitude? You need to do a better job of considering all the evidence, weed, not just parts of it.

reply to post by weedwhacker
 



edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: Expanding the point



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


So? Please provide some calculations that would prove that what we all saw on 9/11 could not have happened. Lacking that all you have is your opinion that something else should have happend because the floors were constructed of concrete.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 




The question is what theory can explain the impossible speed....


>sigh<

Repeating the (false) mantra of "impossible" when referring to the speed isn't going to make it become a "truth"....merely repeating it is perpetuating ignorance. And, "theory" is not even an appropriate word to apply, here. UAL 175's speed is recorded by the TRACON radar, and as such is "estimated" of course....just as EVERY OTHER airplane groundspeed readout that ATC see on their radar screens is. Seems to be accurate enough, in their day-to-day operations, to work just fine.

Further, more determinations (estimates) of velocity can be made merely be observing the video evidence. Many people are quite skilled at such examinations.

So....the "approximate" velocity, even within a range of uncertainty, is not a "theory"....it is a calculated observation.


I don't have ANY idea about this bon mot:


...the impossible entry...


Huh?
Airplane hit a building. Fast airplane, with mass, contains a great deal of kinetic energy, and thusly, momentum. PHYSICS 101.

,

....the equal frames consideration...


Again, Huh?


Sorry, I assume you refer to the video frame rates? Of the entire impact sequence?? When (and I guess this has to be repeated) the airplane is moving at (let me change the approximate ~470 knots to feet/second --- rounding down, 790 fps).

SO, at 790 fps, and a fuselage length of only 155 feet....can we come with an approximate length of time, in REAL time, of the entire impact sequence, starting with first contact of the nose, until the tail disappears inside the building??

Yes, we can....divide 159 feet, by 790 feet. Equals 0.2 seconds. Two Tenths of a second! Does anyone truly think that a significant amount of deceleration will occur, in that short time span?? (I presume, again, that THAT was your "point"??).

See the answer, up above RE: kinetic energy, momentum, and PHYSICS 101.......



...the cookie-cutter cut outs and all of that.


You accused me of brushing off everything as "silly", but...really? Come on, but that one IS silly! The shapes of the entry holes weren't perfect "cut-outs". You can clearly see (when you look closely at design specs) how the holes' shapes were deterimined by the points where cnnections broke....where elements of the facade construction compoinents separated, at their weakest points...the bolts. In some cases, there were other deformations, pieces actually bent, twisted, stretched, etc. Some say that any welds could also be a "weak" point....others say "No, those are stronger than the surrounding areas." Well, both could be true....the point of welding could hold together, and the torsional forces acting on the surrounding proximity steel could then overcome its integrity, and allow it to bend, twist, fracture, etc. Too often, peole do not consider the vast possiblities, in the chaotic nature of such traumatic, high-impact-force events.




... If the hologram hypothesis can explain it when other hypotheses cannot....


Wow!! What a leap!! Sorry, but in NO CASE has any of the reality of United Airlines 175 been reduced to a "hypothesis"!!! And, substituting some "pie-in-the-sky" (literally) fantastic science fiction hypothesis is....well......a word that I can use to remain within the T&C's is, "silly"....


(I understand that, in describing such things, "crap" is also acceptable).....




And I was citing John as a source who is separate and apart from Pilots.


Well, I AM glad that you confirmed that, lest I be accused of "character assissination", or some such thing, regarding their deteriorated relationship.

Odd, though isn't it?? I just NOW went to check (I cringe, at giving that site any more "hits" than it eserves...which is ZERO) And, sure enough!!! JNohn Lear is STILL listed, in the "members" roster, right there underneath "Rotten" Ralph Kolstad!

Odd....very, very, very odd.....





edit on 7 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
What is astonishing is that anyone would take a computer animation seriously without making sure that the input was justified by the evidence. In this case, it is not. I have provided a diagram that shows the intersection of the alleged plane with eight (8) floors of the South Tower, each of which represents an acre of concrete, where the plane is ostensibly entering the building EVEN THOUGH IT IS IMPACTING WITH EIGHT FLOORS OF AN ACRE OF CONCRETE APIECE ON THE HORIZONTAL.


Mr. Fetzer,

Why do you say that the impact was to 8 floors of an acre a piece, when it only impacted the floors on one side of the tower? And certainly not the entire length of the floor either.

Nice way to poison the well.

Go back and try again.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
It is one thing to claim that a position with which you disagree is not right, but it is another matter altogether to prove that it is wrong. You want to beg the question by taking for granted what you need to prove on independent grounds. Dumping diverse issues and lumping different people together may be psychologically satisfying to you, bit it is no substitute for logic and evidence. I am here. I am offering good reasons supporting video fakery.

If you want to defeat my arguments, you need (1) to explain what they are, so we can se that you understand them, and then (2) explain where I--and the experts who agree with me--have gone wrong. But you also need to account for the impossible entry, that the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes though its own length in air, the missing strobe lights and the cartoonish cut-outs, which only appear after the plane has entered the building.

John Lear and Pilots for 9/11 Truth both support the impossible speed, where John has explained why it would have been impossible for the turbines to have sucked through the air at 700-1,000 feet, which is three times as dense as it is at the cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, where a Boeing has a cruising speed of around 530 mps. So those who faked this footage made the mistake of sing the cruising speed at 35,000 feet as a possible speed at 700-1,000 feet, which was one of several blunders we have uncovered in composing this footage.

reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I totally agree with your technical analysis, but would an amateur pilot have been able to control the aircraft at those speeds and hit the targets? The plane would be acting unusually, and even experienced pilots make a lot of mistakes under those flight conditions.

I don't doubt that planes hit the towers (I have doubts about Pentagon), but I do have major doubts about the ability of relative amateur pilots in unfamiliar aircraft flying at high speeds into such small targets. I think something is amiss when I look at the story in its entirety.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Just wondering...are you being intentionally obtuse, and disruptive? Or, is there a memory problem, on your end? Because, YOU participated in the thread where I answered these very questions....multiple times, in fact:


BTW, I don't recall you ever addressing the vg diagram..
Usually the posters were banned and you didn't answer other than to say it's rubish without offering a different vg diagram or evidence of his being wrong...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
By Newton's third law, the impact of a plane flying more than 500 mph hitting a stationary 500,000-ton building would have the same effects as a 500,000-ton building moving more than 500 mph hitting a stationary plane. One of us has not been giving this matter the thought that it deserves. The question is important to know how we know we are seeing a fantasy, which is clearly the case.


Problem again Jim. The airplane did not hit a 500,000 ton building. It hit a PORTION of the 500,000 ton building.

Why is it that you make such silly mistakes?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Even Pilots has confirmed that the plane was traveling at an impossible speed. Here is their article about it, which can be found at pilotsfor911truth.org... Again, because of its importance, I am repeating it. This study should settle the issue for those who are both sincere and rational.


9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed
For Immediate Release

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.

Full detailed analysis, including analysis of a recent simulator experiment performed, and interviews with United and American Airlines 757/767 Pilots can be viewed in the new presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" available only at pilotsfor911truth.org.... Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie. Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

pilotsfor911truth.org... for full member list.

pilotsfor911truth.org... to join.

Comments? Discuss here.

[1] www.luizmonteiro.com..., www.csgnetwork.com... (Equivalent Airspeed and Mach One Calculator to convert Mach into True Airspeed based on altitude/temp and then into Equivalent Airspeed)
[2] www.aerospaceweb.org...


reply to post by weedwhacker
 



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join