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.

 

Retired USAF pilot Col. Guy S. Razer says 9/11 was 'inside job' perpetrated by US government

page: 25
154
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Sorry, Detective, but this is not "new" information spewing from the pie-hole of this guy....look at the original date!! 2007!!



This guy, "Razer", is NO DIFFERENT than the other (handful) of miscreants and self-deluded sad sacks,
The same cast of silly characters, same silly, toothless and also deluded 'organizations'.


We accept your little rant as hard evidence. Do you think you can tone down your trolling flaming and baiting somewhat now?




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by kip27
 


You are (either knowingly, or innocently, perhaps) repeating lies. Falsehoods. You have accepted (or chose to repeat them) without any verification, and fact-checking:


In the case of 911, evidence was being removed even during the rescue operation.


Wherever you read that, it is a lie. Check the history and facts.


Debris was being removed by a carting company that is co owned by known mafia members and that debris was immediately being recycled or sold for scrap within the first 15 days of the attack.


LOL!!! That's a new one!! Ditto, above....



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Inexperienced pilots fly 757's at 500 mph within a few feet of the ground all the time.......oh wait..........
In simulators...........




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
But, you aren't a pilot, you've never flown?? You base this entire opinion from being a mechanic??


I have flown in many simulators, just like the terrorists.


Don't have to. Not relevant. ("ground level" is an inaccurate, and doesn't describe the actual flight path of American 77, anyhow). The airplane spent a mere second, or about two at most, at just a few feet above the ground.....impact occurred milliseconds later. The approach was a descent all the way in, using the help of gravity (and full thrust) combined to accelerate above the airspeed that would normally be achievable in just level flight.


What about witnesses who saw the plane ascend and descend to miss obstacles on the ground? There are lots of reports of the plane turning and maneuvering feet off the ground, and a report of the plane accelerating.


And, there is no problem controlling the airplane, at that airspeed. Obviously, since it happened.
Since you aren't a pilot, you will probably never understand.


Oh the old 'since it happened argument', typical, you DON'T KNOW IT CAN HAPPEN, you assume because you are convinced it did because you appeal to authority. 'Since it happened' is such a weak argument, especially when the 'since it happened' is what is in question. I thought you were an expert who new it could happen, not someone who believes it happened because you were told it was? If you think it happened because you think it happened, then you are acting on nothing but faith.

You don't have to be a pilot to understand that Weedy.


The NTSB video (which data-set stopped a second or two before impact, because of corruption of that last bit of data) the trend was obvious.....the aim was obvious....the impact was inevitable, from that position and direction of motion. Physics. The last speed shown, from NTSB re-creation video, was 483 KCAS. Every single aspect of that NTSB video is completely understandable to REAL pilots...and especially to those of us who have actually flown the damn airplane! The Boeing 767 FAA certification data has been posted, showing a demonstrated speed of AT L:EAST 420 KCAS in flight testing. The 757 is type-certificated separately, but since (to pilots) they are similar enough in design, layout, and handling behavior to share a "common" type rating, then it is reasonable to presume that the 757 flight testing ALSO exhibited the same results. The airplane was controllable at 420 knots...there is no reason to infer it wouldn't be at 483 knots. The actual "problems" with controllability begin to show up when you are approaching the critical MACH number. The airspeed versus percentage of Mach is temperature-related. At near sea level, normal temperatures.....even at 483 knots, the Mach number is well within normal limits for the airplane. (Calculating it, based on a "Standard Day", works to about 0.73 - 0.74M. The Mmo --- Mach Max Operating --- is 0.86).


Again I NEVER said it was impossible in theory, just not so in reality with inexperienced pilots, and no a simulator can not prepare you that well for real world flying in that kind of situation.



Obviously, you can see it in the NTSB video, from the Flight Recorder data. But, they just aimed, and steered on a suicide mission. THAT takes a lot less skill than what most professional flying consists of.


Oh so flying a plane at 500 mph just off the ground is really that easy huh? Just because it can be done in theory it doesn't mean it's possible for a novice pilot to pull it off.


I use this analogy: YOU can drive a car, yes? Do you intuitively know that when you are on the freeway at 70 MPH, it is a bad idea to turn the steering wheel violently and a great amount to either side? Compared to, say, slow speeds, and when parallel parking?? HOW do you know this? Did you learn it VERY early, in your driving lessons? Is it something that is hard to understand? Do you find it "harder" in a car of another make and model, to understand? Or, isn't it about the same, with just minor different "feels" to how the various cars handle and behave?


Dude a plane at speed does not react like a car at speed. If you tried to use car driving experience to fly a plane you would get into trouble extremely quickly. Surely you realise that a plane at speed does the opposite of a car at speed? It is a normal reaction, you see it all the time in sims, for a novice pilot to overcompensate for the slow reactions of the plane when faced with a very stressful situation requiring quick input.

Why did they fly through the light poles? Would you take that chance? Don't you think they would have known they were there and tried to avoid them? Or was the flight path completely random, and they just hoped and prayed they didn't hit something before the pentagon? They were some lucky guys huh?


Flying airplanes is a lot like that, in terms of controls and the responses and reactions......


No it's not.


Well...it would have taken a determined effort, to attempt a "lawn dart" into the ground. You can see, with United 93, he didn't just push it forward....he did what's basically a "wing over"....a lot of bank, which allows the nose to drop without many negative G-forces on the airplane....AND, then once the nose is down, and you are going towards inverted, you use UP elevator to further change the attitude, to aim the nose more towards the ground. The American 77 hijacker needed to only aim, as he did.....worst case (for him, and his intended mission) would have been to drag an engine nacelle on the ground, for a bit....STILL would have impacted the Pentagon, since momentum would have carried the airplane forward anyway. As it is, there was the diesel generator that was hit, by the (right engine, IIRC). This, just milliseconds before impacting the building.


Hmmm a wing over? Really lol? In a Boeing 757? Elevators at 500MPH?

I seem to remember in the sim, at least elevators, would be damaged if deployed at that speed. If I remember right 250 is about the max.

Also couldn't that cause a stall at that speed, especially if the pilot was inexperienced?


The Wing-Over is a competition maneuver in glider aerobatics. You pull up and at the same time bank the plane. When the bank increases past 45°, the nose will start to drop while the bank keeps increasing and the plane keeps turning. Halfway through the maneuver, the plane has turned 90°, the fuselage is level with the horizon and the bank is 90°. The plane is above the original flight path. The nose then keeps dropping below the horizon and the plane keeps turning, while the bank is shallowed. When the bank drops below 45°, the nose is pulled up towards the horizon and the plane reaches horizontal flight with wings level after 180° of turn. At the completion of the maneuver, the plane is at the same altitude as on entry and flying in the opposite direction.

www.iac.org...


Where DO you make this crap up?? :shk:


So there was jet fuel all over the lawn?


Oh, brother!!! Not that baloney again!!! You are continuing with that nonsense? (Getting it from the "conspiracy" websites, I'll bet?).


Again? This has never gone away mate. The lack of debris had not been addressed, sorry.



Here you go again, with this silliness. It is obvious you don't know what you're talking about....not from any practical, real-world experience. (Hint: Do you know what the Stabilizer Trim is? On small Cessnas and such, it is referred to as "Elevator Trim", but serves same basic function).


Oh yes, they had time to trim the plane out during all that.
I'm sure an inexperienced pilot fighting to control a 757 is going to remember to trim the plane for level flight.


Oh? earlier, you used the incorrect "ground level"...to imply, what? "Inches" off the ground? Now, it's 50 feet. Funny, though...50 feet is WAY EASY!! And, yes....even for an "experienced" (he had several hundred hours!!) pilot. AND, it was, as I keep pointing out, very brief anyways. The die was cast.....back at about 200 feet.


LOL did you see where the plane impacted, that was not inches off the ground but on the ground. The plane had to have been less than inches to have hit there. No 50ft would not be easy at 500mph.

He didn't have several hundred hours in a Boeing 757, and if you think flying a Cessna, or a simulator is the same then you are the one who is delusional.



Doesn't work like that....it isn't on a "knife's edge" of control.....it is a rock-solid, easy to handle jet.


No not a knife edge. What if they flew a little too much to one side and were heading straight for the bridge instead of the light poles, could they make a tight enough turn @ 500mph 50ft off the ground to avoid it, no the plane would take too long to react. Their approach would have to have been perfect from the start, because once they committed it would be hard to maneuver.

I agree the Boeing is, relatively, easy to handle for an experienced pilot, but not for an inexperienced pilot flying at it's max speed feet off the ground.


Well, the airline I retired from, after almost 24 years, THEY did. So did my colleagues. And the commuter airlines I worked for, previously. So do all of my former students, from when I was flight instructing.....and, so do several ATS members, here on this board, who have no doubts regarding my history.

What do YOU bring to the table? Oh, a former Navy engine mechanic (not that there's anything wrong with that...my good friend, ALSO not a pilot, was an avionics tech, for the A-6. Served in Desert Storm, on the Kennedy. He has never flown an airplane in his life, but is able to understand the events of 9/11 quite well. Of course, he is pretty logical and rational, too....).


I was also in Desert Storm, Desert Shield, on the Saratoga, an EA6-B mech, and I along with many other people have realized the OS is a complete lie.

Again you seem to be going from theory, not the real world.


edit on 3/5/2011 by ANOK because: no Boeing hit the pentacon



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by ANOK
 


Again I apologize. I stand corrected on the lift post above. You were obviously talking about to much lift. I got lost in all of the reading I was doing..lol


No prob mate that happens to all of us, it's hard to keep track with whom you're debating with and all the different points and their context sometimes.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I had to take a break from this topic. I thought my head was going to explode trying to understand all of the technical data. I will take another crack at it sometime...lol



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   


You are (either knowingly, or innocently, perhaps) repeating lies. Falsehoods. You have accepted (or chose to repeat them) without any verification, and fact-checking:
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I think you might want to heed your own advice and do some fact-checking yourself. Actually, after your statements I don't believe you will so I'll do it for you...


Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.


That is from the daily news printed on 4/16/02. That salvation yard is 4 miles from my house. I saw it first hand. The company that owns the yard is the same as the company that carted the debris away. The name of the company has changed 2 or 3 times since this article was printed. I can't remember the originaI name of the company but I do remember the allegations against the company. I think you should look into the names of the company since your challenging me and assuming that I didn't do fact-checking. Like I said before, I don't think you will, but I'm willing to give you a chance.

If you were glued to 24 hr news channels after the event like I was, you would've seen this happening live on TV.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ANOK
 

There is so much BS out there, on the Internet, it has thoroughly poisoned the well, in the minds of those who have no idea about flying airplanes in the first place, and just spew the same recycled nonsense......

Weed, I definitely agree with you that there's too much BS and recycled nonsense on the internet. Some people make a career of it.

Did you happen to catch the REAL airline captain and crash investigator about 10 pages back who stopped by to offer his expert analysis on Flight 77 and the Pentagon?


Originally posted by Utah62
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 

I am a retired Navy Commander, Fighter Pilot with similar credentials to the Colonel aforementioned. I have also worked professionally as an expert witness and aircraft crash investigator. The most well known case I worked on was the Payne Stewart Lear 35 crash in Aberdeen, South Dakota.

Several years ago someone came up to me at work (I now fly for a major airline) and asked if I had looked at the Pentagon attack on 9/11. I replied that I just saw what everyone else saw on television. He recommended to me that I go to all the available sites and look at it. On many hotel layovers I combed over numerous sites, watched many videos and looked at hundreds of pictures...

There is something that is undeniable in aircraft crash investigation....Physics Never Lies

-There is no way a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon that day...there should be 3 holes in the building. One big one for the fuselage and two smaller holes for the engines

-The tail section is the weakest part of the aircraft and almost always snaps off at impact...where is the tail?

-100 plus tons of metal does not disintegrate on impact...There should be seat frames, luggage and contents, 60 human bodies with some bones/tissue left even after the impact...And most of all (Most of 100 plus tons of aircraft in that hole)...

-From a flying standpoint when you are piloting a transport category aircraft at almost redline or max speed at low altitude the pitch axis is very and I mean very sensitive. To fly that sized airplane into the building on the profile described would be a miracle that would even top Capt. Sully's amazing story.

I don't have all the answers and I can't answer where the real Flight 77 went or what exactly flew into the building that fateful day.

To put this to rest the Federal Government should release verifiable DNA evidence of the victim's on the aircraft and release all the known other videos that would have given a better view of the aircraft and impact into the Pentagon. Plus show the public all the aircraft wreckage.

By the way, the NTSB was not allowed to inspect the 911 crashes right after it happened. There are so many reasonable "red flags" no wonder there are many legitimate people who believe 9/11 did not happen as advertised...


edit on 3/15/2011 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


How do you know he's real?

Because he subscribes to the same views as you?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



We believe (Utah62) him for we all have something in common in believing in the truth of a proven science which explains everything in our world which is called Newton's First,Second and Third laws of Motion or aka/ Newtonian Physics.

And that IS why !





posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

How do you know he's real?

Uhhh, because he doesn't spend his life as an internet pseudoskeptic?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Only the right wing, I had it handy to post. Others can be found, I forget where I found that one....YOU can search on your own, of course. Oh, and you DID realize that the vertical stabilizer is made of composites, right?? Look at this website (FAA Repair Station) and on the right, the listing of all the composite components:


I don't know if this is re hashing old stuff for you weedwhacker but I noticed something with the pictures you were using to show where the engines supposedly hit the Pentagon. Given the angle that you are displaying here, wouldn't the other wing be hitting the ground? I believe it is sixty two feet from the center of the aircraft to the end of either of the wings.



The below photo is from the Purdue simulation site. From that I can see how low that plane had to be flying. I don't see any angle being offered here. This particular photo makes me wonder how those cable reels were left where they were and still standing on end.



The photo below is a pre roof collapse photo. Aren't those engines made of titanium by the way? What kind of kinetic energy does it take to pulverize titanium? Or steel for that matter.



The photo below is another pre collapse photo. We can count two floors above the supposed impact site that remained intact. Given that point of origin can you make sixt two and a half feet at an angle toward the ground without actually hitting the ground? Or at least the cable spools.




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by ANOK
 


I had to take a break from this topic. I thought my head was going to explode trying to understand all of the technical data. I will take another crack at it sometime...lol


It gets overwhelming, I come and go because I can only take so much at a time myself. It's usually from the frustration of having the same arguments over and over. Stuff that was debunked years ago will reaper with a new bunch of posters and the circus starts all over again.

Don't give up though mate, that is the worst thing we can do. It's what THEY want.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

How do you know he's real?

Uhhh, because he doesn't spend his life as an internet pseudoskeptic?


So you don't.

Great way to assess your sources. If they're nameless internet posters who agree with you, then they must be what they claim.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonTattooz
Wow, that's pretty strong stuff. Talk about a credible opinion!

For me, I tend to try to boil things down to their basics, or to try to look for an anomaly that discredits the "official story". In this case the "anomaly" is the fact that the Patriot Act was written so quickly and had so many specifics that were targeted at giving the gov't more power. I've always wondered how they got that thing written so quickly. It had to have been written beforehand and was just waiting for the right moment to be sprung on us. What better way than to create a bogeyman?

I believe 9/11 was just another scam perpetrated by gov't/corporate interests to give themselves more power and money. I believe the Saudi's (and other Arab nations) were complicit along with our own government. Just follow the money trail. Who has made billions and billions and billions off of 9/11? That tells the story right there; look no further. Create even more instability in the ME so that oil prices are volatile.


You're keen to question the Patriot Act, it's first debut was in 1995 by Clinton, called the Ombnibus Act after the 1993 WTC bombing. It failed.

roughstock.blogspot.com...




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DABIGRAGU
You're keen to question the Patriot Act, it's first debut was in 1995 by Clinton, called the Ombnibus Act after the 1993 WTC bombing. It failed.

roughstock.blogspot.com...



...And so they had to do it again didn't they, the second time it didn't fail.

Clinton, Bush et al, they're all working toward the same agenda. Two sides of the same coin, giving us the illusion of choice and control. It's all set up, we the people have no control over government.

The 1993 bombing was also an inside job.



Also did you know that bomb blast went up seven stories, and made a hole through 4 floors of concrete, and yet the tower managed to not globally collapse.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 





Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, USAF (Ret)
“After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back.”
Where is his evidence? He offers zero evidence. Not one piece of evidence, not any proof of research. Words and he sounds a lot like Tim McVeigh, but in this case his only action is trash talk against his country.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



So you don't.

Great way to assess your sources. If they're nameless internet posters who agree with you, then they must be what they claim.


But you only question the ones that disagree with you..

Why haven't you questioned Weedwhacker's credentials or any of the other "so called" pilots on here that agree with your stance ??
Pot calling kettle black me thinks..

edit on 18-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



So you don't.

Great way to assess your sources. If they're nameless internet posters who agree with you, then they must be what they claim.


But you only question the ones that disagree with you..

Why haven't you questioned Weedwhacker's credentials or any of the other "so called" pilots on here that agree with your stance ??
Pot calling kettle black me thinks..

edit on 18-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


Because I don't use weedwhacker's posts as evidence for what I believe?

Quite simple really.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Clip of the second explosion of the WTC and you can clearly see that there is an avent happening from under the plane just before the plane hits the tower.





edit on 24-3-2011 by stavis because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
154
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join