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.

 

The Undebunkable Video: Eliminate The Impossible

page: 29
172
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




So if you can't accept other credible witnesses, then we should throw out all witnesses, and simply focus on the physical evidence of which there is plenty.


Sounds good. I am happy to see that you finally accept that 19 Muslim extremists hijacked four airliners, flew them into three buildings and caused total/partial collapses of those three buildings and caused a couple other buildings to either fall or have to be torn down because of the damage done to them........as the PHYSICAL evidence shows.




posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596

Originally posted by bing0

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by bing0
 




you are not the only one who can question everything!! For someone who believes in foreign hijackers who can barely fly a big airplane, but does not believe the official story, you are doing much efforts to put us down, or distract us?!

i also want proof, not just 'some' witnesses. There are at least 3 cameras on the same side at the Pentagon that probably have filmed the impact, or the airplane. From locations nearby, several camera's have been removed, and FBI has still several tapes of that moment in their hands. And this is all normal to you? Only some frames are shown, officially, after all those years, and a part cut out......doesn't that make you wonder at all?

you dare to question us......you should question them!



You should do a little bit more research into their piloting skills. Hani Hanjour's last instructor says that in his professional opinion, Hani's skills were MORE than adequate for him to have piloted Flight 77 into the Pentagon.


and you should stop with your dis-info, cause you keep on failing, man


The official story unfolds something like this. The rather diminutive Hanjour, sometime after take-off, fought his way into the cockpit, and wrestled control of Flight 77 from a 6'4" former Marine combat fighter pilot named Charles Burlingame, a man family members and colleagues say would never have given up his aircraft or the safety of his passengers. After dispatching with the co-pilot as well, Hanjour settled in and turned his attention to the bewildering array of gadgets and devices of a Boeing 757 instrument panel - a panel he was wholly unfamiliar with - in an airplane traveling 500 mph, 7 miles in the air, under the stress of a recently executed hijacking plot. Then, without the help of any ground control or air-traffic controllers providing him information and/or settings, this pilot who could not control a tiny Cessna 3 weeks earlier "would have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position."


According to the official account, an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was 'Flight 77' (remember, the transponder needed to identify the aircraft had been turned off) then suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, 'The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.'"


"I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)


(full article): www.911hardfacts.com...



When Hani Hanjour attended flight schools between 1996 and 1998 he was found to be a “weak student” who “was wasting our resources” (see October 1996-December 1997), and when he tried using a flight simulator, “He had only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do.” (see 1998) Yet, on April 15, 1999, he is certified as a multi-engine commercial pilot by Daryl Strong in Tempe, Arizona. Strong is one of many private examiners independently contracted with the FAA. A spokesperson for the FAA’s workers union will later complain that contractors like Strong “receive between $200 and $300 for each flight check. If they get a reputation for being tough, they won’t get any business.” Hanjour’s new license allows him to begin passenger jet training at other flight schools, despite having limited flying skills and an extremely poor grasp of English. [Government Executive, 6/13/2002; Associated Press, 6/13/2002] At the next flight school Hanjour will attend in early 2001, the staff there will be so appalled at his lack of skills that they will repeatedly contact the FAA and ask them to investigate how he got a pilot’s license (see January-February 2001). After 9/11, the FBI will appear to investigate how Hanjour got his license and questions and polygraphs the instructor who signed off on his flying skills. The Washington Post will note that since Hanjour’s pilot skills were so bad, how he was ever able to get a license “remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss.” [Washington Post, 10/15/2001; CBS News, 5/10/2002]


taken from visibility911.com...
edit on 1/8/11 by bing0 because: more info



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ANOK
 




So if you can't accept other credible witnesses, then we should throw out all witnesses, and simply focus on the physical evidence of which there is plenty.


Sounds good. I am happy to see that you finally accept that 19 Muslim extremists hijacked four airliners, flew them into three buildings and caused total/partial collapses of those three buildings and caused a couple other buildings to either fall or have to be torn down because of the damage done to them........as the PHYSICAL evidence shows.


since you are an admirer of 9/11 threads you do know, that:

* 2 airplanes did crash, whatever type it was
* the available kerosine could never have been enough to bring the towers down, and both felt in a simular way, not sideways
* WTC7 also came down in the same controlled way, without kerosine involved or an airplane
* x weeks later, in all 3 WTC basements, molten steel was found, alive, hot and burning in a poor oxygen environment
* loads of witnesses mentioning explosions, also in the basements, at the WTCs, on 9/11
* seismographic proof , around 2 on the scale of Richter, always before a WTC collapse
* no videoproof for the flight 77 impact into Pentagon
* no bodies, nor blood found on flight 93 crash site (not much of a airplane wreckage either, as far as i know)
* FBI confiscated tapes from security cameras at locations at Pentagon area, most still not given back
* the other Pentagon security cameras didn't record anything?
* false witnesses for Pentagon attack
* etc
* no real fysical evidence of an airplane impact at Pentagon



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 



Sounds good. I am happy to see that you finally accept that 19 Muslim extremists hijacked four airliners, flew them into three buildings and caused total/partial collapses of those three buildings and caused a couple other buildings to either fall or have to be torn down because of the damage done to them........as the PHYSICAL evidence shows.
Tell me, what is this evidence?

Here is the evidence that shows it was a controlled demolition:
--WTC 7 collapsed symmetrically, meaning that the core column failures had to be symmetrical and occured within milliseconds of each other. The damage to the columns (diagram provided by FEMA and NIST) is inconsistent with a symmetrical collapse.

--WTC 7 had a fault during collapse, indicating that the core failed first. This is done during implosions so the material will fall inwards:

--No previous skyscrapers have ever collapsed because of fire, and there have been dozens of fires that were much worse than those inside of WTC 7.

--WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds ( +/- 0.2 seconds). A ball dropped from the top of the tower would take 6.0 seconds to hit the ground. The Law of Conservation of Momentum, a fundamental law of physics, would slow down the falling section as it collides with and destroys the bottom section, but this doesn't happen. The fall must be slowed down when it impacts the mass below, but it doesn't and the upper section conserves energy and momentum.

--The antenna of the North Tower dropped before the rest of the tower, which backs up an implosion. Tom Sullivan explains why the destruction of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers must have been controlled demolitions in this interview:

--These jets of ejected material that are seen in front of the dust and debris match up with those seen in controlled demolitions:

--NISTs own experiment proved that fire could not have caused the twin towers to collapse:

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing......Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.


Here is the evidence that shows it was a fire-caused collapse:
--Two planes hit the Twin Towers and there were fires inside.
--WTC 7 had some fires randomly scattered inside.

Yeah, tons of "physical evidence" backing up the official story, huh?



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bing0

and you should stop with your dis-info, cause you keep on failing, man




"I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)



Wow you talk about dis-info and then you post a paragraph like that.

Tell me did it sucker you in ?

My favourite part.

(Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


i m still waiting on proofs from your side
if you want to play the fool around, and just keep derailing everything without proofs, go ahead

you, viper, hooper, trickoftheshade.....you don't question the government at all, no, you question us



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by bing0

and you should stop with your dis-info, cause you keep on failing, man




"I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)



Wow you talk about dis-info and then you post a paragraph like that.

Tell me did it sucker you in ?

My favourite part.

(Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)


please, explain what are you trying to tell me? My English skill doesn't match yours, that i know



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ANOK
 




So if you can't accept other credible witnesses, then we should throw out all witnesses, and simply focus on the physical evidence of which there is plenty.


Sounds good. I am happy to see that you finally accept that 19 Muslim extremists hijacked four airliners, flew them into three buildings and caused total/partial collapses of those three buildings and caused a couple other buildings to either fall or have to be torn down because of the damage done to them........as the PHYSICAL evidence shows.


remember, that famous list by the FBI.....those 19 names? Weeks later it was proven 7 were still alive, but as far as i know it has never been corrected, nor replaced, those 7 names? If you got a link with an updated report, please, post it
edit on 1/8/11 by bing0 because: been



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by bing0
Wow you talk about dis-info and then you post a paragraph like that.

Tell me did it sucker you in ?

My favourite part.

(Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)


please, explain what are you trying to tell me? My English skill doesn't match yours, that i know


I suspect he's saying that wake turbulence is utterly irrelevant, since it is behind the plane - wake turbulence affects other aircraft that might come along later - it does not affect the plane making it.
edit on 1-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596


Sounds good. I am happy to see that you finally accept that 19 Muslim extremists hijacked four airliners, flew them into three buildings and caused total/partial collapses of those three buildings and caused a couple other buildings to either fall or have to be torn down because of the damage done to them........as the PHYSICAL evidence shows.


No that is not what the physical evidence shows.

A couple of questions...

How did the planes fuselage punch through the wall and yet the engines didn't, and not only that the engines were not to be found in front of the building they didn't penetrate?

How did the plane punch through a reinforced wall, but disappear once inside the building? If it had the energy to punch through that reinforced wall, what did it hit to make it disappear once inside the building? Do you think it burned up into nothing?

Keeping that in mind, do you believe a plane went through the steel outer mesh columns of the WTC towers, AND still had the energy to cause the much larger core columns to be severed? Do you think the planes added weight helped in the collapse of the towers?

If you do, then how do you address the contradictions between the two similar event types? Remember the laws of motion apply to all physical objects and their movement, and a plane burned into nothing adds no mass.


edit on 8/1/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
A couple of questions...

How did the planes fuselage punch through the wall and yet the engines didn't, and not only that the engines were not to be found in front of the building they didn't penetrate?


the Engines did punch through the walls - www.911myths.com...


How did the plane punch through a reinforced wall, but disappear once inside the building? If it had the energy to punch through that reinforced wall, what did it hit to make it disappear once inside the building? Do you think it burned up into nothing?


the picture above shows a great deal of wreckage inside the building - there are many more such photos available on the net.

To claim there was no plane wreckage inside the building is to show either ignorance or stupidity.


Keeping that in mind, do you believe a plane went through the steel outer mesh columns of the WTC towers, AND still had the energy to cause the much larger core columns to be severed? Do you think the planes added weight helped in the collapse of the towers?


added weight?? I wouldn't have thought so - however the internal core columns weer reinforced concrete weren't they?

I am happy that the heat from the fire would have sufficiently damaged the integrity of the core columns to initiate collapse, and momentum would be plenty to do the rest.

The remainder of your post is predicated on a positive answer to your last question, so isn't relevant.
edit on 1-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bing0
 


And this is why it is hard to take you seriously....




The official story unfolds something like this. The rather diminutive Hanjour, sometime after take-off, fought his way into the cockpit, and wrestled control of Flight 77 from a 6'4" former Marine combat fighter pilot named Charles Burlingame, a man family members and colleagues say would never have given up his aircraft or the safety of his passengers.


Hani Hanjour was the PILOT. There were four other hijackers that were the muscle for dealing with the pilots. Not to mention, sitting in the pilot's seat of a 757 you are extremely vulnerable to an attack from behind. You are not just going to jump up and be ready for hand to hand combat.

Then there is one of Hani's instructors, Marcel Bernard...
""Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it,""

As for the idea that it was pinpoint flying....




As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the #ty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."


www.salon.com...

edit on 1-8-2011 by vipertech0596 because: Adding....

edit on 1-8-2011 by vipertech0596 because: add



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



How did the planes fuselage punch through the wall and yet the engines didn't, and not only that the engines were not to be found in front of the building they didn't penetrate?


The engines did punch through the building......

Here is picture of one that landed in street several blocks away



What looks like compressor disks from engines






Even back in 1945 one the engines of the B25 that hit Empire State Bld punched clean through and landed
on roof of nearby building. Other one struck elevator shaft and fell in basement


One engine shot through the side opposite the impact and flew as far as the next block where it landed on the roof of a nearby building, starting a fire that destroyed a penthouse. The other engine and part of the landing gear plummeted down an elevator shaft.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
The engines did punch through the building......


That was referring to the pentagon, not the WTC.

Read the whole thing again, very slowly a couple of times, and you might get the point I was making.

When you finally get my point, please attempt an explanation of the contradictions I pointed out.

(what's the betting folks that they will continue to pretend to not understand what I'm getting at?)

Edit; Just to be sure here it is again in a comprehension for dummies version, just for you my friend...

How did the planes fuselage, of the plane, punch through the reinforced wall, of the pentagon, and yet the engines, of the plane, didn't, and not only that the engines, of the plane, were not to be found in front of the pentagon building they didn't penetrate?

How did the plane punch through a reinforced wall, of the pentagon, but disappear once inside the pentagon? If it, the plane, had the energy to punch through that reinforced wall of the pentagon, what did it hit to make it, the plane, disappear once inside the pentagon building, that being the pentagon building? Do you think it burned up into nothing inside the pentagon building? BTW that was the pentagon building not the WTC, just to be sure.

Keeping that in mind, do you believe a plane went through the steel outer mesh columns of the WTC towers (not the pentagon), AND still had the energy to cause the much larger core columns, of the WTC (not the pentagon) to be severed? Do you think the planes added weight helped in the collapse of the WTC towers (not the pentagon)?

Now, I think if you had actually read past the first part of my original post, you might have realized I was referring to the pentagon, because the very next point I make is about the WTC. You guys don't even pay attention to the posts you're replying to. I am proving this post after post, and you ain't even wise to it yet.

So, hopefully now you understand me, can you tell me how you account for the contradictions I pointed out?


edit on 8/1/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


His are from the WTC - mine was a picture from the Pentagon - whichever it is you think you have a case to prove about, one of us has it covered....
edit on 1-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by ANOK
 


His are from the WTC - mine was a picture from the Pentagon - whichever it is you think you have a case to prove about, one of us has it covered....
edit on 1-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


Please read what I just posted above, you may have read before I edited to make my point, I hope, crystal clear.
Your and thedmans pics are irrelevant, and just prove neither of you bothered to read the whole post.

Thank you for your cooperation in these matters, it is much appreciated.



You love to throw that word 'proof' around don't you, I never claimed anything I said was proof of anything. I am simply pointing out a contradiction in the physics, as an example of how the physical evidence does not point to 19 Arabs on a suicide mission as claimed by you lot.

Can you clear up the contradiction?


edit on 8/1/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Right - you said there's no evidence of engine wreckage "in the building" - we provide the evidence...and it is not relevant....


Here's a small quote from you:


How did the plane punch through a reinforced wall, of the pentagon, but disappear once inside the pentagon?


And I answered, above, that it didn't - the photo I linked to showed an engine part and a heap of othe wrechkage INSIDE the Pentagon......and ther are many, many such photos.

Edited to add: Here's an easy link for you - www.rense.com...

And that tells me that it's not "us" who aren't reading!

I'm glad you linked to egg on a face - you deserve it. You probably don't think it's ironic, but real people will see it as hilarious!


......JAS911TF*



edit on 1-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by ANOK
 


Right - you said there's no evidence of engine wreckage "in the building" - we provide the evidence...and it is not relevant....


I'm glad you linked to egg on a face - you deserve it. You probably don't think it's ironic, but real people will see it as hilarious!


......JAS911TF*


So if there was wreckage of engines inside the building, how did they get in there, seeing as the engines did not punch through the wall, of the pentagon. BTW three engine parts do not make two massive turbo-fan engines. One thing I know is jet engines, x-Navy NEC 6418, go look it up.

Sorry but that does not clear up the contradiction it simply adds another one. Keep trying though.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


and that's why i won't take it seriously : i have a long interesting article for you, and i hope you can spend 10 minutes on it, that proves he didn't had the skills at all

www.globalresearch.ca...


Have you found an updated list with 7 replaced hijacker names meanwhile? I m searching also, but nothing found so far



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
i also had in interesting article about the pentagon, thought i had bookmarked it, but
atm
A jetfighter was ordered to fly over the Pentagon short after the impact, and the pilot hadn't seen any airplane wreckage/parts at all

also, various Pentagon employees smelled cordite, and no jet fuel
edit on 2/8/11 by bing0 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
172
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join