Animation Video for Pentagon Proof, best ever made - and why it's wrong.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by GodIsPissed

 

I agree - they seem to casually look over the fact the airplane was performing FAR over recommended top safety levels, and the guy happened to be in a 35 degree bank. But, I'm not a pilot... so I weigh other pilots responses, seems right now 500+ pilots say he wouldn't have been able to, but there are three pilots on ATS who all say it's normal. I'll argue that point somewhere else

Ah, the plane crashed.

Originally posted by 911files
Name those 500 + pilots. Who are they?

I think it is these guys he is talking about




well at least now we're on the same page
pretty sure that's the guys.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by GodIsPissed

 

I agree - they seem to casually look over the fact the airplane was performing FAR over recommended top safety levels, and the guy happened to be in a 35 degree bank. But, I'm not a pilot... so I weigh other pilots responses, seems right now 500+ pilots say he wouldn't have been able to, but there are three pilots on ATS who all say it's normal. I'll argue that point somewhere else

Posted again for an answer. Who are these 500+ pilots?

anyone want to actually address the point of the thread, and take a shot at why the precise location of the alleged crash doesn't have damage that a vertical stabilizer would make?




ETA:
p.s. reheat... maybe read the last line of my post saying I'll argue that somewhere else. It doesn't matter to me and makes no difference to the evidence. It's heresay - I will not be naming 500+ pilots who believe the moves were not normal; you actually discounted that 500+ line yourself by saying the move was not normal anyway...

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
anyone want to actually address the point of the thread, and take a shot at why the precise location of the alleged crash doesn't have damage that a vertical stabilizer would make?

ETA:
p.s. reheat... maybe read the last line of my post saying I'll argue that somewhere else. It doesn't matter to me and makes no difference to the evidence. It's heresay - I will not be naming 500+ pilots who believe the moves were not normal; you actually discounted that 500+ line yourself by saying the move was not normal anyway...

edit on 20-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: added a comment

You made that statement in THIS THREAD. Furthermore, you are STILL writing that ANYONE here said anything other than the bank angle in the turn was not unusual. Now, you're distorting opinions that WERE NEVER STATED. Portions of the entire flight were indeed normal. Now, we're talking about portions that WERE NOT NORMAL and apparently you don't know the difference. Why do you need to distort what several have said here at this Web Site?

Did you post a lie to make a deceptive point?

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Already freakin told you. That image does NOT show the area where the hole is!

You can clearly see a LOT of damage in plenty of other pics, yet you keep showing this one that has a huge stream of water over half the building!

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

Already freakin told you. That image does NOT show the area where the hole is!

You can clearly see a LOT of damage in plenty of other pics, yet you keep showing this one that has a huge stream of water over half the building!

Not only is a major portion of the photo obscured, but the B-757 is 155 ft 3 in long. That would make the distance from the nose to any portion of the "tail" about 145' or so. To pretend to know EXACTLY where the tail hit or what happened to it is sheer hypocrisy of the first order.

In the beginning it was stated or implied that the animation was commissioned and/or paid for by DOD. There is NOT a shred of evidence posted that it was commissioned or sanctioned or paid for by anyone connected with the US Government.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
p.s. reheat... maybe read the last line of my post saying I'll argue that somewhere else. It doesn't matter to me and makes no difference to the evidence. It's heresay - I will not be naming 500+ pilots who believe the moves were not normal; you actually discounted that 500+ line yourself by saying the move was not normal anyway...

Since you are obviously attempting to evade substantiating that there are 500+ pilots who have said or say that the aircraft performed impossible maneuvers I'll actually lower the bar and ask you to post the names and links to the comments of 5 pilots who have stated this.

At the same time we need specifics on why you think saying something in NOT NORMAL in any way whatsoever makes something impossible or even difficult. This should be very interesting!

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Hi, I'm very much interested in the inconsistencies and controversial aspects of the 9/11 events. Do you know of a site that has original, uncompressed footage of the events?

Thank you!

~Aura~

Originally posted by PrincessAura
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

Hi, I'm very much interested in the inconsistencies and controversial aspects of the 9/11 events. Do you know of a site that has original, uncompressed footage of the events?

Thank you!

~Aura~

There used to be a site that had all the original coverage from many TV/cable stations but last time I checked it, maybe a year ago, the link didn't work. It may still be out there if you search for it.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

Already freakin told you. That image does NOT show the area where the hole is!

You can clearly see a LOT of damage in plenty of other pics, yet you keep showing this one that has a huge stream of water over half the building!

The point of this thread is comparing REALITY to their video. The video shows that precise spot as where the tail enters - you can count the windows from the open one I marked. They show the tail going THROUGH the red rectangular marking.

The big spray of water is in front of the ground floor, the tail enters between the 3rd and 4th floors, yet IN REALITY based in the picture, there is no damage.

I'm addressing the EXACT spot where they say the tail went, but there's no damage - meaning the video is wrong.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

Already freakin told you. That image does NOT show the area where the hole is!

You can clearly see a LOT of damage in plenty of other pics, yet you keep showing this one that has a huge stream of water over half the building!

The point of this thread is comparing REALITY to their video. The video shows that precise spot as where the tail enters - you can count the windows from the open one I marked. They show the tail going THROUGH the red rectangular marking.

The big spray of water is in front of the ground floor, the tail enters between the 3rd and 4th floors, yet IN REALITY based in the picture, there is no damage.

I'm addressing the EXACT spot where they say the tail went, but there's no damage - meaning the video is wrong.

You know. I would stick around and talk nonsense with you guys, but Thermo has reminded me why I don't post on ATS. Idiots with absolutely no understanding of the topics they post pretty pictures about talking nonsense. When you have people asking why a piece of composite fiber broke off without damaging hardened concrete, then it becomes clear that you are dealing with people who are completely stupid or just talking crap. I would rather not waste precious moments of my life answering stupid people. Have fun in fantasy land fellars.

reply to post by 911files


C'ya

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

Already freakin told you. That image does NOT show the area where the hole is!

You can clearly see a LOT of damage in plenty of other pics, yet you keep showing this one that has a huge stream of water over half the building!

The point of this thread is comparing REALITY to their video. The video shows that precise spot as where the tail enters - you can count the windows from the open one I marked. They show the tail going THROUGH the red rectangular marking.

The big spray of water is in front of the ground floor, the tail enters between the 3rd and 4th floors, yet IN REALITY based in the picture, there is no damage.

I'm addressing the EXACT spot where they say the tail went, but there's no damage - meaning the video is wrong.

Pardon me, is your objective now to show that Integrated Consultants were wrong by using such words as "precise" and "exact" or is it to show that no B-757 struck the Pentagon?

There are several questions that you have avoided. Have you shown that this animation is in any way connected with the US Government? Have you reminded anyone that the "tail section" of the aircraft is approximately 145' behind the nose? Have you reminded anyone that the tail section is largely composed of composite construction? Seems to me you've avoided several SIGNIFICANT issues. Are you keeping those items a secret because it would destroy your premise in this and another similar thread? Nah, of course not!

reply to post by Reheat

There are several questions that you have avoided. Have you shown that this animation is in any way connected with the US Government? Have you reminded anyone that the "tail section" of the aircraft is approximately 145' behind the nose? Have you reminded anyone that the tail section is largely composed of carbon fiber construction?

Are you inferring that the plane "crumpled" when it first hit the Pentagon wall?
If that is true then wouldn't it also show far more wreckage outside the walls?
Maybe even some largish sections ?

The walls didn't seem to crumble the planes noticeably at the WTC's..
I guess if we had those damn videos then we'd know more.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

There are several questions that you have avoided. Have you shown that this animation is in any way connected with the US Government? Have you reminded anyone that the "tail section" of the aircraft is approximately 145' behind the nose? Have you reminded anyone that the tail section is largely composed of carbon fiber construction?

Are you inferring that the plane "crumpled" when it first hit the Pentagon wall?
If that is true then wouldn't it also show far more wreckage outside the walls?
Maybe even some largish sections ?

The walls didn't seem to crumble the planes noticeably at the WTC's..
I guess if we had those damn videos then we'd know more.

I wasn't there and did not examine the wreckage, but, of course there was a degree of crumpling. You really don't believe that it entered undamaged, do you? Why should a large number of pieces fall in the opposite direction away from the line of kinetic energy flow?

The point is that where the tail section hit the wall or where it went in any identifiable form is simply silly speculation. To expect to see any identifiable pieces of a largely composite tail is asinine. Conspiracy sites show Aluminum tail sections of more controlled crashes with a flat trajectory and say "see there". As I said it's just a silly issue. There was an enormous amount of smallish size debris at the base of the wall. There are only a few photos where it can be seen when the smoke, foam, and water spray were not obscuring it. I'm not speaking of identifiable limestone blocks, I'm talking about numerous smallish pieces of whitish type debris. It is not identifiable in any photos I've seen.

As it was some of the pieces outside were at least 4' or larger.

As you well know, the construction of the WTC and the Pentagon were significantly different. I understand that some pieces did fall directly below the building and injured people at the base of the towers. Whether that was aluminum cladding or aircraft parts, I simply don't know. I'm sure that was not a major concern at the time and after the buildings fell, there was no way to determine anything of that nature, even if there was ever any question or interest about it.

An FBI agent testified under oath that any of the videos still in the possession of the FBI showed nothing of significance. In fact, many of them were not of the Pentagon area at all. Also, there is no proof that all of the cameras even had a recording capability. The Pentagon had/has a large Security Force of people and most of the camera were not directed in a direction that would have included sky anyway.

PS: I don't have any of the videos.

Carbon graphite does not crumple it shatters. If you are looking for the tail of AA77 this is what you should be looking for.

reply to post by Reheat


All discussed on other threads..
No point starting the same debates in this one so I'll leave it there.

ya I'm pretty much done with this thread.

The 911 CS video shows a very precise location for where the airplane went through. At that location there are some small missing sections with columns still intact, and the place where they say the tail went through is 100% untouched, not even a broken window... If someone is so nieve and stuck on being right that they think an airplane can crash into a building and NOT break a window, yet after going through 6 walls it's still got enough kinetic energy to punch a perfectly round hole in a reinforced wall... there's no arguing with a person like that.

The video is wrong because it shows an airplane tail going through a wall, but the wall is still there, end of story. hasta la vista - and none too soon I'm sure.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
ya I'm pretty much done with this thread.

The 911 CS video shows a very precise location for where the airplane went through. At that location there are some small missing sections with columns still intact, and the place where they say the tail went through is 100% untouched, not even a broken window... If someone is so nieve and stuck on being right that they think an airplane can crash into a building and NOT break a window, yet after going through 6 walls it's still got enough kinetic energy to punch a perfectly round hole in a reinforced wall... there's no arguing with a person like that.

The video is wrong because it shows an airplane tail going through a wall, but the wall is still there, end of story. hasta la vista - and none too soon I'm sure.

Well now,

Look at this capitulation simply because the OP can not or will not answer a couple of tough questions. There are two blatant FALSEHOODS that have not been resolved.

What about those 500+ pilots you mentioned?

What about the allegation that this animation was ordered, sanctioned, approved and/or paid for by TAX PAYER FUNDS? You stated that as FACT in the OP, not once, but twice.

Without evidence that is misleading and deceptive.

Mr. Thermo Klein, I and I'm sure others are questioning your honesty and integrity. Is it OK to lie for the truth? Apparently so, as you appear to be abandoning a thread with these question unanswered.

I'm sure a lot of folks understand this animation without your spin. By pretending it is a DOD or US Government sanctioned product accurate to the inch you have been successful in perpetuating the same type of thing the truth movement is known for. The word that describes what you're doing begins with an F.

I can't say that I blame you for leaving. Your thread is TOAST along with your CREDIBILITY.

Good Luck!