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.

 

New Footage 9/11 Second Tower Explosion Incredibly Clear Video From Helicopter - Where Is The Plane?

page: 46
106
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
hmmm the arir traffic controllers at Dulles seem to disagree with your assesment as well PB



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.'"

(ABC News, 10/24/2001, also archived at www.cooperativeresearch.org)

The official story of Hanjour's flight path continues in an even more bizarre narrative. Having successfully entered D.C. airspace, with no idea how soon fighter aircraft would show up to shoot him down, he finds himself pointed in the ideal direction toward the East wing of the Pentagon, where all the top brass in the military are known to be stationed. But then he apparently changes his mind as to his heading, and pulls off that incredible, sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph to approach the Pentagon from the opposite direction. There, he inexplicably lines up the less valued West wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day, September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees. "The section known as Wedge 1 (the West Wing) had been under renovation and was scheduled for final completion on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001."



edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Danbones
 


Huh??



the survelance cam calculation is from the footage released of the plane at the pentagon as it crashed


The parking lot gate camera?

That is the only footage of AAL 77.

But, there is NO NEED for camera footage to know there was a plane crash!

Check out the history of ALL major airliner crashes, and then come back and tell us how many of those KNOWN crashes had video footage to record them, in process of crashing?


the video cam was simply used to calculate the speed at crash time which indicates a discrepency in the OS they say.
I think the reporting of the air traffic controllers opinion at Dulles is even better for that purpose and really backs up Kolstads opinion ..which is what we are really discussing at the moment.

edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: spelling grammer


also I just noticed the aircraft contoller quoted indicates the plane was surveiled at a much later time then you indicated was the last time the plane was clocked.
edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Ah.....that old canard??

What they saw at the TRACON was a jet that was exceeding the "normal" speed limits, below 10,000 feet.

In the USA there is a "speed limit" of 250 knots, below 10,000 MSL (MSL = "Mean Sea Level" It is how altitudes are measured, in aviation).


So, no....that particular person's "tale" is not worthy of assuming the rest of the evidence is "faulty".....it is an OPINION, taken out of context.

There are HUGE amounts of evidence to refute that "opinion"....I have tried to explain it, if you'd bother to pay attention.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Oh, really? Care to cite a source for this?:


the video cam was simply used to calculate the speed at crash time which indicates a discrepency in the OS they say.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 

that as right there in the quote i posted that was the fame rate calculation in the qoute


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.'"



what about the aircraft controllers at dulles PB?
that certainly, from a qualified real person,( well people ) agrees with kolstad


edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Sorry.....does NOT "agree" with Kolstad.

Dude, I have SEEN the FDR video!!!! The 84th RADES matches the FDR!

A personal "opinion" that was made "at the moment" is not worthy of consideration, once ALL the evidence is taken into account.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
yours is a personal opinion pb

theirs is qualified publically proven professional



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Please....go take some flying lessons.....(I do NOT work for free...except here on ATS!)

Here's a place in Las Vegas, NV...USA:

www.monarchsky.com...

Just use the Internet Search Machine of your choice, and find a similar place near you!

GO!! Learn About Flying!!!

(I am still here, free of charge....because, I CARE about knowledge and facts and truth....)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I see you don't do links

from th link I posted earlier where the quote was cut just at the angle statement

Now let's work backwards to see what the minimum approach velocity of AA77 would have to be in order for these two "undoctored", "back-to-back" video frames to be captured exactly as we have been told they were by government officials.

465 feet traveled in 1/30th of a second = 13950 feet/second = 2.64 miles/second = 158.5 miles per minute = 9511.36 mph = 8263.5 kts. = Mach 12.48

www.democraticunderground.com...

edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
admittedly I am not a technical expert PB
I stated that early on in this thread

One of my specialties is in house security re data management and comparative analysis.

My job in that particular field is to determin how to prevent negative movement in the bottom line.

and taken in toto as such the OS does not add up.

If I were to see a credible investigation that showed it does I would certainly consider it,
I have several well qualified "bush" pilots in the family, and several military aviators in my immediate circle
they do not think the OS is possible

when I see calculations based on the OS like the one above I conclude something is out of whack.
if the OS were true
it would not be out of whack.
and the speed in ths calculation seems quite impossible...My first guess would be missing frames. not a super duper transonic warp drive ufo
why missing frames
because it wasn't the plane that was stated
it is a video that is similar in context to the likely obfuscated video in the OP

which lends weight to the arguement re missing wings and engin sizes
why not just release the definitive video?


edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Much of the bumping of gums of people sucked into this conspiracy is based on their assumption of what airliners can actually do. You see it repeatedly on ATS and other forums when they assume that airliners are some sort of 'delicate flowers' of the aviation world and can't fly impressive display routines. It is based on simple ignorance of aviation. What they assume is 'dangerous maneouvers' is actually perfectly routine.

Example of ignorance on ATS because these individuals know no better. See claims of what a Boeing 757 can't do.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why is Royal New Zealand Air Force Pilot, Tony Davies, not clambering to join P4T?

www.airliners.net...

The reply from the Royal New Zealand Air Force Pilot

www.airliners.net...

Hi,

I'm the display pilot of the RNZAF B757 video you posted. I'm not a member of airliners.net and probably won't join either. But there is quite a bit of speculation in the threads about technical details of the maneouver we displayed. If you want to post the facts then send me an email and I'll give them to you. I also have plenty more spectacular videos of other maneouvers perform with out B757s.

Tony

Dylan,

I was the captain of that particular shot, filmed during a Squadron open-day a couple of years ago. It's part of a routine that has been performed over thirty times at various airshows and practices around the world including RIAT Fairford 2003, Kemble 2006, RAF Waddington 2006, Warbirds Over Wanaka 2004, Avalon 2005.

The low pass is flown into wind at 350 knots (indicated) and 100 feet above the runway. It's a 2g pull up to between 45 and 55 degrees nose up pitch (although there has been higher) and the zoom climb ends at an altitude between 8000 and 10000 feet depending on the type of pull up used. The sequence does not end with a loop as some of the readers speculate, but in fact with a 60 degree wingover at around 220 knots. It is easily possible to enhance this maneouver with a steeper climb and bank but there is no need - it is spectacular already, and safe.

The aircraft is NZ7572 (formerly PH-TKB of Transavia) and it's sister ship, NZ7571, is seen in the foreground of the video shot. Both aircraft are operated by 40 Squadron at Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Whenuapai in Auckland, New Zealand. It is a B757-2k2 with RB211-E4 engines, shortly to become E4Bs.

Feel free to post this information if you so desire. If you want more details, I can provide. I can also pass you more videos of other maneovers we have done but I am a little busy right now and need some time to convert them to MPEG. I have attached a shot of the same aircraft involved with a formation practice for a London flyover with 3 Typhoons taken in November this year, as well as a quick shot taken from inside the B757 at the same time.

Regards,
Tony Davies'

Practice display during 2005



It is an impressive display and demonstrated all over the world for a number of years.







Seriously, hand up all those die-hard believers in 911 conspiracy have never seen an airliner performing such a spectacular airshow routine? It isn't just the Royal New Zealand Air Force that display the Boeing 757 at airshows but also commerical pilots and some airlines. People just assume based on pure ignorance of aviation. AA77 flight path and maneouvers gets repeatedly bent out of shape by those twisting for the full conspiracy effect.

Ask yourself again why Boeing 757 Pilot Tony Davies is not clambering to join P4T?
edit on 17-3-2012 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
while those are impressive, those are professional "don't try this thick at home pilots"
in specialized craft loaded apropriatly for the day.
the guy whom the top gun and the air craft controllers think did impossible manuvers on 911
couldn't even manage a cessna

so apples to oranges

again that is a tactic of obfuscation


edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Danbones
 


GO!! Learn About Flying!!!

(I am still here, free of charge....because, I CARE about knowledge and facts and truth....)


SURE, just dont teach anyone how to keep log books, as your have already said
you cant be bothered with such a task.


Can you stay on topic? I mean seriously PROUD wacker this is not free
advertising for you to garner students in some pie in the sky pilot trianing
school you hope to open.

Then again,
maybe that is on topic, as it certainly might have a way of working into
the pilot training that was offered to the supposed "terrortists" down there in
Florida....

edit on 17-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


The calculation is based on the assumption that the camera was recording at 30 fps. That is very unreasonable assumption to make. If it wasn't a plane, then I'm assuming it was a missile. What missile flies at 12+ mach?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
You can see an aircraft entering the the field of view (missiles don't move that slow) .

This is this same video from the WNBC Helicopter that is available in a higher resolution.


Posted on Oct 2, 2010 = nothing new about it.
Select 480p quality

Another angle from the WCBS helicopter, and the aircraft is clearly visible.


720p available here:

www.youtube.com...#!
edit on 17-3-2012 by Regenmacher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Ms. O'Brien has NO doubts that it was Flight 77. Look it up.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142
reply to post by Danbones
 


The calculation is based on the assumption that the camera was recording at 30 fps. That is very unreasonable assumption to make. If it wasn't a plane, then I'm assuming it was a missile. What missile flies at 12+ mach?

well
do the math with the various fram rates it might be
either its going ufo speed or there are frames missing

hhhmm
why not just publish the video complete?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


you have been here long enough
Im sure you know the drill
Link please



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenmacher
 

thanks
as Im watching...:
right off the hop
how come you don't have that kind of impact hole in the pentagon?

yup that does look like a plane coming in

so now question two

why scrub the vid in the OP?
why obfuscate
Its such a common tactic to obfuscate to support the OS, while obfuscation doesn't help the truth movement
especially when it can be easily refuted on yuotube.

man! thats a + hole in the wall

also that is not near the manouver necessary to support the OS in the pentagon strike
edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by Regenmacher
 


why obfuscate
Its such a common tactic to obfuscate to support the OS, while obfuscation doesn't help the truth movement
especially when it can be easily refuted on yuotube.



I've got to hand it to you. Truthers can lie, fake, photoshop, cherry pick etc, as we have seen just on this thread, and you will rely on it for support. However, as soon as it is revealed you can blame it on OS supporters who are allegedly trying to discredit the "movement". Perfect 360 degree defence.




top topics



 
106
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join