It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" It's not rocket science-COMMON SENSE!! VS DENIAL!!

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

Given what we just discussed, it's irrelevant - the feeding of the honey pot, not needed, and neither is any notions about caller ID spoofing or "voice morphing".

The cell phone record is very clear that the cell phone calls, taken together even as reported in the "9/11 Commission Report", can only have been made, from the ground.

Now you're kind of overdoing it again, as i've pointed out before in regards to the nature of the "honey pot", because the cell phone record proves that the OS is false and cannot be accepted as true.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 03:10 PM
Part 1. "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (1/3) :

I only have one quite IMPORTANT correction to make, about the video with Captain Rusty Aimer and the young guy in the flight simulator, at 1:07:15 from 1:55:07 its video length.

The scene starts with Captain Aimer saying that the simulated plane now flies at 311 knots (1 knot = 1.15077945 mph, so 358 mph). Then 360 knots (414 mph), then 420 knots (483 mph), then coming out of the turn at 500 knots (575 mph).
"Your radius of turn is becoming so great ---" indicating they are in the simulated near full 360 degree turn above the area south of the Pentagon as he remarks those speeds. Also the view from the simulator cockpit confirms this.


According to the, by these same Pilots for 911 Truth posted on their website, flight data recorder (FDR) animation, constructed by the NTSB, where this Pf911T Boeing 757 flight simulator video got based on, these kind of speeds INSIDE that huge turn-around flightpath maneuver were far less than is shown and executed in this flight simulator video.

Intended to show the near impossibility to perform that near 360 degrees turn at the excessive speeds Captain Aimer dialed into that 757 flight simulator while stating them aloud.

The fairytale character of this Pf911T-video with Captain Aimer, telling us how ridiculous fast Flight 77 has flown that turn, according to his loudly stated speed inputs, is obvious.

Because he ought to have known about that NTSB animation its true airspeed data inside that near 360 degree turn, since that whole exercise inside that flight simulator was based on the NTSB publicized flight data recorder read-out data.

Which you can clearly see for yourself in that online NTSB animation.
The airspeeds in REALITY inside that turnaround you can check yourself.
Just check the shown cockpit meters on the right side of its animated screenshots for the airspeed meter (KTS, top one) and scroll to the point in the online NTSB AA 77 animation where the animated plane enters that turn around maneuver.
That's at 1:18:30 / 1:30:00 at 289 kts.
During all the time needed to perform that near 360 degree turn, airspeed was only between 10 to 30 kts SLOWER than 300 kts.
Enough to easily fly that near 360 degrees turn.

Only at 1:21:20, after nearly 3 minutes, it reached a speed of 300 kts, when it had completed its total turn and was starting a nearly straight dive towards the Pentagon, accelerating slowly to full throttle.
At 1:21:40 the full throttles positions were set.

Only at 1:22:00, already long into that straight dive, it reached the 420 kts mark.
When the animation halts at 1:22 :08 the speed dial stops at 462 kts.
Even at the end of the animation a reading of 500 kts was never reached.

These so-called honestly investigating pilots that rule that site, should be demanded to retract that video from their web-site's pages and forum by their own membership.
It's a disgrace to the real honest pilot members there, who should openly withdraw from membership there, if the Pf911T site and forum's owner does not retract that video.

At least Captain Aimer should distance himself from that video, and I am curious who gave him those turn speeds to feed into that flight simulator, at the time of recording of that disinformation-video.

The impression is given that they have only the real true nature of the history of 911 as their target. However, their own huge ego is more important to them.

Now this Italian narrator of this great addition to the 911 truth pool, also got fooled by this fairytale video.

REMOVE that video, and while you are at it, remove your main page subject about another departure gate than gate D26 also. I proved you here at ATS sufficiently clear, that you are wrong about that.

Refs :
This is the full version of the NTSB animation of AA Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, obtained via FOIA request :

At last, The "Watergate" Of 9/11 page 14 :

This is my post where I proved conclusively that Gate D26 is the real departure gate from Flight AA77, as opposed by certain Pf911T members :

edit on 18/1/14 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

It could be there was an error of some kind made in trying to replicate the flight path in the slight sim for "flight 77", but not in regards to speed, as reported, which reached 500 knots within the Vd altitude range below 17,854 ft. altitude, representing an airspeed of 80 knots over the Vd limit whereby they've used the lessor Vmo/Mmo max operating speed limit benchmark/threshold in the documentary, which does represent the beginning of the outer flight envelop that terminates at the Vd design dive limit (420 KCAS) as established by wind tunnel and flight testing (aka flutter testing).

As to the range or limit beyond Vd at which structural failure amid a complete loss of flight control, has taken place, there are the various precedents also depicted on the VG-Diagram the data of which is accurate and not falsified in any way.


TWA Flight 841 and China Airlines Flight 006

Flight 175 (Vd + 90 knots)


VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points

V-G Diagram explained

Flight envelope - rebuttal

edit on 18-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

I was mistaken in regards to the anticipated altitude of the aircraft for CeeCee Lyles' second call, which, as allegedly reported, could and would have taken place well beneath the critical 6-8000 ft. level, although the speed at over 500mph would still have been problematic to maintain a continuous connection.

However, when the cell phone record is taken together, as a whole, the official story completely falls apart as the recognition dawns that the calls must have taken place from the ground with the alleged passengers offering certain pieces of information as if delivering a scripted narrative - a record that the 9/11 Commission Report relies heavily upon to describe the status of the aircraft and "passengers" even in those instances where such a call could not possibly have been made from altitude and speed.

As with the data offered in the Moussaoui trial where only two such calls are acknowledged as having been made from cell phones, the others blatantly omitted from the record, the 9/11 Commission also botched the cover up of the cell phone record.

As a historical data point, this aspect of the official story record requires additional research and investigation.

Just wanted to clarify.

More Holes in the Official Story:
The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 05:24 PM
Link :

Speeds for a Boeing 767-200ER (WTC planes)
Normal Operating Speed True (vii) : Vno = 460 to 490 kts

Normal Ops Speed Indicated : Mno = 0.78m - 0.80m (Mach speed)

NAM's table mentions Vno = 360 kts. (Vne = ? )
Vno, Mno, Vne = ? for a Boeing 757 (Pentagon plane) ?

May I strongly suggest to any moderator reading this, to contact the site owner Bill "Overlord" who put NAM's thread into the HOAX forum bin, so nobody can add a correctional post or star excellent posts anymore in there, and tell him about the following excerpt from that same site :

1.2 Manual Limitations

Flying Tigers Group and Flying Tigers Name and logo Copyright 2001

Project Open Sky and respective developers have provided the aircraft and components contained therein for use by the Flying Tigers Group.

The manual is provided as freeware and as is, with no warranties expressed or implied. This is a freeware and may not be resold or repackaged, rented, leased, or charged any fee for use of this document.

By downloading this document you acknowledge the copyright and limitations and agree to abide all copyright laws applicable.

This manual is written using the references and interviews obtained from real world sources.
However, this is developed for the Virtual flight and MicroSoft flight simulation only.

Under no circumstances this manual is to be used as a reference for the real world flight training.

Edition: FS2002 Boeing 767 – 200/300ER
Effective: February 12, 2003
Copyright: The Flying Tigers Group

At the end of this PDF, this turns up, which seem to me, the REAL references that should have been used by EVERYBODY involved in that thread :

Acknowledgements and References
1. Boeing Corporation, “Commercial Aircraft Reference”
2. Aeroflot Russian International Airline, Captain B767-300ER V. Grinko
3. Aeroflot Russian Int. Airline, First Officer B767-300ER A. Prokhanov
4. EL AL Israeli Int. A.L., Senior Aircraft Maintenance Technician B. Pecht.
5. Boeing Corporation. “B767 200/300 PIOH” 1996, June 17
6. Jeppesen, “Commercial Pilot Manual”, 1995
7. FAR AIM, Federal Aviation Regulations Aeronautical Information Manual, 2002

When I enter exactly ref. 5 into Google search, I get only ONE result, this exact same Microsoft Flight Simulator GAME instruction pagePDF, which is used by Bill to show its page 5 chart with various speeds limitations.
BUT that is a GAME-simulator instruction site page !

I found this at another one of their Tigers-FS pages :

Vmo = Velocity Max operating
Vne = Velocity never exceed
Vno = Maximum structural cruising speed

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 05:26 PM
Bill "Overlord", I read pages 3, 4 and 5, their Aircraft Performance Limitations tables and I see NOT ONE plane-type ever come near to that Vno of 460 to 490 kts you got from that same site's other page's link by dragonridr.
But they all float around the Vno value of 360 kts NAM mentioned and linked to on his chart.

I think that single time, in that whole site, listed Vno of 460 to 490 kts is a typo (or the NSA wants to play games with you or ATS again and changed just that value's description, one character, e for o), and should read Vne (Velocity never exceed).

That whole Tigers-site is clearly written by non-native English speaking/writing people, I think they are Japanese (still damn good work done by them, but there are too many English style typos, so why not other typos too, in their numbers f.ex. Or mistyping Vno instead of Vne.

The real deal, you have to get at Boeing's public sites regarding Vno.
But you will find it nowhere at Boeing anymore, without proper credentials.
This is all for a 767-200 :
Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet : Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 851 kph)

No Vno to find anywhere publicly at Boeing's site pages anymore.
Only Mach values, which are for all commercial plane types about the same, 0.80m, with a 0.02m spread maximum.

Thus let's go to Biggles.
A message screen :

Under Maintenance
Copyright, Confidentiality and Licensing

Biggles Software can only supply FCOM and AOM-based software to Aircraft Operators and TRTOs, and to pilots who are currently operating the aircraft type.

To ensure better compliance with manufacturer Copyright, Confidentiality and Licensing requirements - whilst respecting your data protection and confidentiality - Biggles Software is developing a more robust method of determining individual eligibility. It will no longer be possible to 'self-certify' eligibility.

Well, that done it, they now want you to state that you are a certified pilot or such. End of an era of free Internet searches for flight manuals for interested 911 researchers.

Have spend 8 hours to try to find an OFFICIAL source for the Vno value of a Boeing 767 or 767-200, with no result.

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 05:32 PM
An idea suddenly popped up, so I went to the PPruNe forums site !

The Tech Log forum, the very best in practical technical aeronautical discussion on the web, and found this in their archived pages :

Title : 757/767 V-G Diagram?

Pugilistic Animus 26th Aug 2010, 23:05.
If you can get the the following data you can draw it.

Vs1, Vmo, design limit load; you can draw it


The generic Vg diagram was from this web site -

Keith135 2nd Dec 2011, 10:51.
That is the same fake Vg diagram. Balsamo, the leader of pilots for truth, a silly conspiracy theorist group, faked the diagram (or you did). He took a generic Vg diagram and photoshopped in the legend. No matter how many times you show a fake Vg diagram, it will not be believed. The diagram has no weight. You confirm it is fake by saying it is for all weights and good up to 18,000 feet.

The other clue it is fake; not sourced from Boeing. Balsamo or you photoshopped it. The aircraft does not structurally fail at 420 knots 1 g flight at 18,000 feet. The legend does not line up properly.

Next time get the speed legend to line up with the grid on your fake diagrams. Please.

As explained in posts above, the diagram was faked using generic Vg diagrams. The fake 767 Vg diagram is not from Boeing Engineering. No legitimate source for the Vg diagram. RalphTheMouth was not a good source; was it sourced from him, or is A320Slave, Balsamo?

Boeing 757 Boeing : Vmo/Mmo Limitations Review
Biggles software 757

galaxy flyer
14th Feb 2012, 20:01
First, it should be easy enough, if there is a legitimate need, to source a Boeing V-G diagram. The fact that the "need" is based on a whacko 9-11 conspiracy theory probably takes going to Boeing out of the picture.

Second, while you can graph a few V speeds onto a generic V-G diagram and make it work for students, but hardly good enough for engineering data. There are lots more to a V-G diagram than those 3 speeds.

Last, an airplane does not suddenly come apart at the right side of the diagram, as any number of LOC events have shown in numerous types. There are a number of other factors to the right side-bird strike protection, flight control characteristics (aileron reversal, hydraulic control limits, wing bending) and flight test design. None of which was a concern to hijackers. I have no doubt a B757-767 could exceed the right side and maintain integrity for the short while they needed it.

A320Slave 14th Feb 2012, 20:06
All we are doing here is plotting a V-G diagram. I think you will agree that Vd is the end of the diagram and the start of the structural failure zone?

Second, while you can graph a few V speeds onto a generic V-G diagram and make it work for students, but hardly good enough for engineering data. There are lots more to a V-G diagram than those 3 speeds.

Agreed. But the diagrams offered above can hardly be considered "fake". It is constructed directly from the Boeing Type Certificate Data Sheet.

No one is claiming an aircraft breaks apart 1 knot over Vd. Keith is the only one making that claim in which he claims comes from some conspiracy site. But for some reason he does not want to source it.

Perhaps this is why.

Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum ( )

Such a claim was never made.

There are a number of other factors to the right side - bird strike protection, flight control characteristics (aileron reversal, hydraulic control limits, wing bending) and flight test design.

-- snip --

And then that thread was closed. It seems Pf911T also do not have a high degree of respect there. Just as is the case here at ATS, at least not from those with some more experience with their usual operating mode.

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 05:34 PM

SkepticOverlord :
Notice how it does not show "Vno" and states, "For other airspeed limits, see the appropriate FAA-Approved Airplane Flight Manual."

The relevant page from that manual has more information…
--snip-- Table shown -- snip--

Which does indeed include the much higher "Vno" speed as discovered, and confirmed, by dragonridr.

That is deception by obfuscated omission, by whomever created the material on which the opening post is based.

And then you let yourself be fooled by dragonridr's link and his mentioning of a flight engineer that gave him that GAME-link, and you showed us NOT an FAA -approved 767 Flight Manual, but a Microsoft Flight Simulator page from a Japanese firm who offers modifications for their (MS) GAME software.

And then you had the decency to not blame NAM, which is admirable, but you still shifted that whole interesting thread that I REALLY want to add some things to, to the dust bin. Labeling its information, "HOAX".

I'm not pleased, and I think you're neither with what happened there, then and now.
It took you there and then 27 pages patience to take that decision, a tad bit of patience more could have spared us the loss of a good thread. (now? )

Perhaps we should ask ourselves WHO changed that Vne value to Vno on that Flying Tigers FS game site's page ????

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 05:38 PM
An extensive list of velocity and speed terms in aeronautics which will be very helpful in this thread :

Link Page 1 :

New Pilot mistake: Use indicated airspeed (IAS) not true airspeed (TAS).
Check your realism settings in Flight Simulator and make sure that you have Indicated Airspeed set.
Go to Settings --> Realism and make sure you're using "Display indicated airspeed".
KIAS means "Knots Indicated Airspeed".
#3 Airliners have limitations, exceed them at your own peril! You fly too fast and the wings or engines will fall off. Most airliners have a max speed anywhere between 290 and 350 knots (KIAS). When you look at airliner performance limitations you will find the following terms:

V Velocity
Va Design Maneuvering speed
Vat Velocity at touchdown
Vc Design cruising speed
Vd Design diving speed

Vf Design flap speed
Vfe Flaps extended placard speed
Vgnd Ground velocity
Vls Lowest selectable airspeed
Vle Landing gear extended placard airspeed
Vlo Maximum landing gear operating speed
Vmc Minimum control speed with critical engine out
Vmlo Minimum maneuver speed
Vmax Basic clean aircraft maximum
Vmin Basic clean aircraft minimum
Vmo Velocity Max operating
Vne Velocity never exceed
Vno Maximum structural cruising speed

Vr Takeoff rotation
Vref Reference velocity
Vs Design speed for maximum gust intensity
Vsi Stalling speed in a specified flight configuration
Vso Stalling speed in the landing configuration
Vu Utility speed
Vx Speed for best angle of climb
Vy Speed for best rate of climb
V1 Critical engine failure velocity (Takeoff decision)
V2 Takeoff climb velocity

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 05:41 PM
This is All you can find nowadays on the FAA website about the 767-200 :


Airspeed Limits Model 767-200 :
VD = 420 KCAS to17,854 ft / .91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points. (LT : Vd=Design diving speed)
VFC = 390 KCAS to 17,600 ft / 382 KCAS at 23,000 ft / .87M above 26,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
(LT: VF=Vf=Design flap speed. VFC=? Vc=Design cruising speed, seems the logical option to interpret for this VFC shorthand. I have no idea which is right)
VMO = 360 KCAS / .86M (LT : Vmo=Velocity Max operating)
VLE = 270 KCAS / .82M (LT : Vle=Landing gear extended placard airspeed)
VLO = 270 KCAS / .82M (LT : Vlo=Maximum landing gear operating speed)

For other airspeed limits, see the appropriate FAA-Approved Airplane Flight Manual.

The 420 KCAS is the highest value you now can find on the web, the only one with the 460 to 490 kts Vno value is the single mentioning in one page of that Flying Tigers website (the MS flight-simulator game site).

As long as no certified pilot ATS member asks Biggles or the FAA or Boeing, we are at a crossroads of opinions.

However, I think I brought the better indication on board, namely the lack of any type of commercial airplane in that Flying Tigers list, that may go faster than about 360 kts or so, according to their airplane make & type list.

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 05:52 PM
Found also this at JREF :
Retired NASA "expert" Inspires Balsamo Fraud? [Archive] - JREF :

That first post by Beachnut puts the lid on the colorful Vg diagram re-posted time and time again by everyone eating from that honeypot.....

Damnit, they are granted to use some specially colorful language there, I laughed my orthodontic teeth out. It's just a comic book , SMILE !

Read post #68 for more in-dept evidence that Balsamo's Vg diagram is flat out wrong.
And post #70 (page 2) to find our ScepticOverlord as SkepticGuy there.
So he knew it from the beginning, that that Vg diagram was a bad construct. (or did you forget, just as me, where you saw that thing before? )
Post #89 (page 3) offers a list of forums, linked to, where Balsamo, during/after 3 years tries/tried to sell the same colorful Vg diagram dis-info.
After post #91 (page 3)on 6th January 2014, it gets interesting......

I'll repeat it one more time :
Do not believe anything on that Pilots for 911 Truth website and then take it for granted.

INVESTIGATE and make up your OWN mind, and do not follow that fraudulent forum dictator. There have been so many mistakes made in those years by a lot of their members, and especially by their "chief illusionist", that it should be clear by now for the bulk of the readers here, that they should search for opposition information on their & his repeatedly posted crap.
The man can not bring himself to an honest level at all, he keeps his lies up on his main pages and in his posts in their forums.
While he got lectured on his mistakes and straight out lies so many times in this ATS forum, at JREF, at PPRuNe, and numerous more sites and forums.

He can not admit any of his numerous faults, he has a brain-block.
Can someone there "upgrade" him to a pensioner or emeritus position, than give him his own forum where he can ramble around as much as he wants, then the real professionals can take over their main forum and site.

Silently I have some hope high on him making a new site with that former wrestler, ex-governor Jesse Ventura.
That will keep him too busy and off the 9/11 streets again with a bit of luck.

Or let him follow my example, stay mainly in one thread of your own, then your haters can simply avoid it (and you).

PS : I am still convinced that the interviews by CIT with those 13 North of CITGO flightpath witnesses were genuine, and something very strange happened at the Pentagon. When is CIT at last understanding that a plane flying just north of that gas station, could surely impact the west wing.? Only flying slower than indicated in a possible FDR falsification.

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 07:36 PM
What the heck are you doing or trying to do, LaBTop ? You're just confusing the issue, or again, "feeding the honey pot" unneccessarily. Be aware of it and then don't do it.

I don't really get what you're up to, as it was already obvious that it was a type of hoax in and of itself which was responsible for placing that thread into the hoax bin, and that's obvious for anyone who cares to take the time to read that thread.

I explained it very simply, the "Vno" referenced is no longer used on Commercial Jets and hasn't been since the late 60's, which is the same thing as the Vmo/Mmo that is used. In the "flying tigers" MS2000 FLIGHT SIM manual (apparently offered to try to somehow trump the FAA TCDS) they even confused Vno with the max cruising speed, which is actually about 499knots at an altitude of 35,000 feet, as shown here (below).

Altitude matters because the air is 2/3rds thinner at 30,000 feet (less density) than it is near sea level. Furthermore the debunkers you ref'd clearly don't understand the relationship between EAS, CAS and TAS, which the Pilots for 9/11 Truth do, as pilots and aeronautical engineers who've committed no fraud, regardless of how you feel towards the co-founder of that group.

Also, in relation the south tower plane's groundspeed of 510 knots, the windspeed vector should be added to get a true airspeed, but because the wind was light and to the N/W, relative to the plane's trajectory, it would add, not substract to the speed, making it about 515knots airspeed. The debunkers are wrong and are in error in a variety of ways.

Here's my reply to you earlier

Info added for clarity and precision. There's nothing wrong with the data offered by P4T, it's accurate and valid. The Vd design dive limit established during flutter testing is 420KCAS/.91M (low vs. high altitude). For the 757 it's fair to use the same V-G diagram, because the critical speeds are a bit lower, making it a conservative estimate.

Ah i see now with your final P.S. to redirect back to the Pentagon, where a Boeing was present, but did not actually hit the wall - you're a "honey potter" LaBTop, whether you realize it, or not, that's your gig and that's why you overdo it every time. You've fallen victim to the honey pot, either knowingly, or unwittingly.

Prove only what needs proving and communicate it clearly and precisely. Always serve the truth in the simplest terms possible, never overdo it or allow yourself to be drawn into muddying the waters, so that you will never serve the wrong master who does not want this information to be known with clarity and understood and recognized for what it is and represents.

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association” – Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research:
“The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.”

P.S. you cannot play both sides against the middle. Me and S.O. cannot both be right and those debunkers are all over the map and their analysis is garbage. They don't even understand the relationship between EAS, CAS and TAS nor seem to have an awareness of air density which defines those values through ascending and descending altitude, and they even lied about the windspeed direction and how that vector would apply to the aircraft groundspeed.

Please don't data bump to here, from JREF, who if they were really "skeptics" would also possess the capacity to question the official story about what actually happened on 9/11, but it did make for an interesting read.

You want to be helpful? Don't confuse the issue, unnecessarily, or allow yourself to be attracted to the honey pot and then to work diligently from that domain which the operation seemed to put forth and convey wherever a "slight of hand" was needed. Don't play into it, as so many do like the "no planers", the DEWer's, etc., and even the "skeptics" in trying to make the impossible seem probable.

Don't do it. It serves the wrong master.

Data is data and facts are facts.

From that little flurry of posts, which was all over the map and extremely confusing, even obscuring, and the way you ended it, makes you appear.. slippery and unreliable and seemingly unconcerned with what's real and true with the utmost care, precision and clarity as a "historian".

There's no need to muddy waters that are otherwise clear.
Do not judge data based on feelings and judgements towards others either, which also sows seeds of unnecessary confusion where there needn't be any to begin with.

In matters and issues such as this, it's important to be disciplined and committed to nothing but the truth as it is, no matter what the implications or who is presenting it. There is no place in this process for competition or jealousy, that attitude belongs to the knowing or unwitting disinfo shills like Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and John Lear.



edit on 19-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 05:34 AM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

What the heck are you doing or trying to do, LaBTop ?

In fact, quite easy to understand, your thread got send to the hoax dust bin based on a wrong conclusion.
That's not the honesty we expect here at ATS, and thus I expect an explanation soon.

And eventually a resurrection of that thread, not to please you but to offer us a life thread we can evaluate with our stars.

I am trying to bring that dead thread back into this 9/11 forum, alive. Because a lot of members, you included, have posted quite some clever info that deserves a lot of stars, so fresh members can understand the quality value of that info. And that thread has to reach a consensus. And a conclusion the majority can accept.

You posted the right Vno of about 360 kts; while a new wrong Vno, 460 to 490 kts was mistakenly introduced, and that was used as the reason to move and close that thread.

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 05:46 AM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

Let's now compare your diagram of a plane flying at 35,000 ft (10,668m), Mach 0.86 where TAS and EAS, EAS and CAS are very different.
TAS speed 499 kts at cruising altitude height :

with my Pentagon attack plane diagram of a plane flying at 10 ft (3m), Mach 0.63 where TAS and EAS/CAS are nearly the same.
End-speed TAS speed 422 kts, according to the NTSB animation, which ended just short of the West wall of the Pentagon, height is crazy low at 10 ft (3m) at impact :

You posted just one diagram, and you should have posted at least two (your cruise altitude one and my Pentagon one), but better also two extra, for the height and end-speed for both Twin Tower attack planes, since you will show then that those two will be very much the same for TAS, EAS and CAS as in my above Pentagon diagram.
You still can correct that here.

By the way, the bolded Mach values inherit the crux of the matter.
Regards, LT/.

PS : As you see, at lower altitudes the speed of sound increases, so take that in consideration too. It influences the Mach number.
edit on 20/1/14 by LaBTop because: PS.

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 06:18 AM
reply to post by soulpowertothendegree

When people keep bringing this up I keep reminding them that this is not the first time that radical Muslims have wanted to cause havoc on the American people and on Europeans.

People like you seem to be completely ignorant that the first large battles that the United States fought right after becoming a nation was against....Muslim extremists.

It doesn't take a genius to find this information.

These wars were called "the Barbaric Wars".

Let me give a source most of you trust about this.

The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Tripolitan War or the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the Northwest African Berber Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were Tripoli and Algiers, which were quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Ottoman Empire, and the independent Sultanate of Morocco.

Barbary corsairs and crews from the North African Ottoman provinces of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli and the independent Sultanate of Morocco under the Alaouite Dynasty (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean.[2] Capturing merchant ships and enslaving or ransoming their crews provided the Muslim rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. The Roman Catholic Trinitarian Order or Order of "Mathurins" had operated from France for centuries with the special mission of collecting and disbursing funds for the relief and ransom of prisoners of Mediterranean pirates. According to Robert Davis, between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries.[3]

Barbary corsairs led attacks upon American merchant shipping in an attempt to extort ransom for the lives of captured sailors, and ultimately tribute from the United States to avoid further attacks, much like their standard operating procedure with the various European states.[4] Before the Treaty of Paris, which formalized the United States’ independence from Great Britain, U.S. shipping was protected by France during the Revolutionary years under the Treaty of Alliance (1778–83). Although the treaty does not mention the Barbary States in name, it refers to common enemies between both the U.S. and France, which would include the Barbary States or pirates in general. As such, piracy against U.S. shipping only began to occur after the end of the American Revolution, when the U.S. government lost its protection under the Treaty of Alliance.

This lapse of protection by a European power led to the first American merchant shipping seized after the Treaty of Paris. On October 11, 1784, Moroccan pirates seized the brigantine Betsey.[5] The Spanish government negotiated the freedom of the captured ship and crew; however, Spain offered advice to the United States on how to deal with the Barbary States. The advice was to offer tribute to prevent further attacks against merchant ships. The U.S. Minister to France, Thomas Jefferson, decided to send envoys to Morocco and Algeria to try to purchase treaties and the freedoms of the captured sailors held by Algeria.[6] Morocco was the first Barbary Coast state to sign a treaty with the U.S. on June 23, 1786. This treaty formally ended all Moroccan piracy against American shipping interests. Specifically, Article 6 of the treaty states that if any Americans captured by Moroccans or other Barbary Coast states docked at a Moroccan city, they would be set free and come under the protection of the Moroccan state.[7]
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripolip/eise]'s envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.[21]

There were 2 Barbary Wars, and despite claims from the naysayers, the Muslim radicals have ALWAYS wanted to attack in one way or another the western empires as their Koran clearly states.

So this claim that Muslim radicals do not want to destroy the way of life of the western world, is't a lie and shows the ignorance of people who try to research this topic and claim "the Muslim radicals don't want to destroy our way of life".... They do want to do so at any cost even by lying and deceipt

This way of life exists to this day and the western world didn't invent it.

The radical Muslims don't even care about moderate Muslims, and would even kill, and torture those who do not follow their creed. and that is the fact.
edit on 20-1-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

You've fallen victim to the honey pot, either knowingly, or unwittingly.
There is no place in this process for competition or jealousy, that attitude belongs to the knowing or unwitting disinfo shills like Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and John Lear.

You do not realize that you are the one deep inside the honeypot which is named Pilots for 911 Truth.

Investigate the Balsamo debacles.
His 10 G+ Math debacle, ACARS debacle, GATE D26 debacle, Roosevelt Roberts interviews interpretation debacle, their Fly-over debacle. the V diagram debacle addressed now here and at JREF (link given, you say it was interesting reading, did you understand Beachnut's arguments in all 4 pages? ).
There are more, but thats a good start.

If you persist after that investigation in trusting Balsamo and his minions, I will from then on see you as a sadly mistaken and indoctrinated person.

I will gladly oppose or help you in my own GATE D26 thread, if you honestly want to be guided into the process of lifting the curtains around the honeypot PF911T in reality is.

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 08:10 AM


Those victimized on 9/11 and in it's wake, deserve better than to be simply forgotten without any lessons learned other than a security crackdown and the erosion of privacy rights and civil liberties.

Yes, they do. And as George Monbiot says in his article, they also deserve that cause not to be polluted with the sort of nonsense you're retailing. Undrestand this: you are not the hero for asking the 'questions' that you are; you're part of the problem, because you are muddying the waters so that a genuine investigation of the issue becomes more difficult. You are the unwitting ally of tyrants.

Telling me that i'm just wasting my time because everyone's forgotten and moved on, that's not the recommendation and encouragement of the brave or of the one who's prepared to take a stand on behalf of us all for the sake of what's right.

I didn't say that. I said you're wasting your time because your reading of the evidence is faulty and your notion of the role and primacy of 9/11 in recent history flawed.

In a way, your reply, although again it got it's cadre of stars and the sycophantic applause from all the usual suspects, is pathetic.

Perhaps. I'm sure history, as you once again so grandly suggest, will decide. But it's not looking good for you. The mainstream (and I particularly include the mainstream of radical, left-field and oppositional thought) thinks your ideas absurd and indeed obstructive to genuine resistance.

And i thought the truths being discovered about 9/11 were sad, but in a certain way, that's even more sad, and it most certainly doesn't do the victims of 9/11 any justice of any kind, at all.

What doesn't do them justice is enlisting them as a silent partner in your ignorant theories. But then all you saviours need people to save I guess. Willing or not.

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 09:22 AM
reply to post by LaBTop

The first impact plane, we have no reliable TAS speed from, we only have the Naudet brothers video.
Here's the second, North Tower, impact plane diagram where 510 mph calculated air to ground speed was based on video analysis of the last seconds of its flight path. That is 821 kmh, and that is 443 kts TAS.
TAS, EAS and CAS are just not fully identical, as is also the case in the Pentagon diagram, however again, nearly the same :

Speed of sound is identical with the Pentagon attack diagram. Mach number is of course a bit higher, since the TAS speed is 41 kts faster.
edit on 20/1/14 by LaBTop because: Last lines added.

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 09:25 AM
Perhaps a refresher of the actual post is necessary. I have seen many replies that simply have no foundation for the truth of what actually transpired that day. It really does not matter how many times you convince yourself the PACK OF LIES they put forth about the events that transpired that day....there is no way they have put any ounce of truth in any investigation that came as a result.

Like me, over the course of the past 12 years, I am sure most of you have read or watched many articles and videos about the events of 9/11, along with possibly witnessing the events unfold on TV right before your very eyes. Also, like me, I am sure many of you remember where you were and how you felt then about what the official version was...we wanted revenge at all cost and the culprits were force fed to us very quickly. Terrorists wanted to teach America a lesson and bring the financial capital of the world to it's knees...."Praise Allah"...we have systematically given up many of our own freedoms over the course of this time in the name of justice and we were willing to give up our right to privacy to protect America from further instances of "Terrorists".

Iraq we were told had weapons of mass destruction, Suddam has to go and we must find Bin Laden and eradicate his entire organization, they were responsible for this attack on American soil and must feel the "Shock and Awe" of American fists slamming them to kingdom come.

I believed the original story line for about 10 minutes, until I started to think about how ridiculous it was for them to blame this on 11 hijackers. Forget about it. They needed a reason to get into Iraq, but this whole thing is so much more it's not even possible for me to list all of the reasons.

Insurance Fraud, Money Laundering, Missing Money, Oil Reserves, False Flag, Drones, Asbestos Abatement....

I was not really going to ever believe one reason was possible or that 11 hijackers were responsible, it took a massive effort of misdirection for this to happen, coordinated through back channels in the interest of National Security and only a handful of very important players know the whole fabricated pack of lies for the truth, the rest of the players only knew limited information on a need to know basis, but all were sworn to secrecy and threatened with bodily harm to themselves and immediate family members if they ever spoke about the truth they knew.

This is what I believe transpired for so many people to have "perished that day" without very many actual bodies accounted for...rather many were presumed to disappear in the rubble of all the "supposed" terrorist attacks that occurred that day. This is not to say that real people did not die that day, I know they did, I just don't think the actual number is truthful in every instance, nor do I think that there were any actual passengers on any of the planes that they say were used that day...witness protection programs for anyone involved is quite possible. It, also, is not meant to diminish the feelings of those that did lose family members, they believe it whether it happened the way it did or not either way many lives were changed instantly and were affected dramatically by the events of that day.

To many unanswered questions....too many lies....the best way for a magician to carry out an illusion is to use misdirection and sleight of hand....look over here....poof...gone...where did it go?

No way if you use common sense of a 5 year old could you believe the actual events took place the way they say they did in the official version of the NIST report or the official version from the FBI on any of the "attacks"...they simply could not have happened the way they did, PERIOD.

Now, I am not skilled enough nor do I have the capabilities other than my writing skills, to put together a demonstration for all to watch....fortunately, I stumbled across this 3 DVD series of videos from a fairly interesting author that I wanted to share with you all here.

They are worth the effort in my opinion because the presentation is easy to follow with concise information and detailing most of what I always felt but was never capable of actually demonstrating.

I have watched other videos and to date this is the first time I have ever tried to share any with others.

I simply felt compelled to do so with these for the simple fact they were very well done.

So, I implore you all to watch them and report back to me if you so desire with your own opinion...even if you don't watch all of them, which I think if you start the first one will be very difficult not to do, I would still like to hear your opinion.

I tried to get the video's to download and to no can view them all at this website...
edit on 9/11/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-9-2013 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 11:25 AM
edit.. error.
edit on 20-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in