Flight 175 Turning And Burning, ...i`ve never seen this before! Options

[CocaineImportAge...]

south tower impact

...anybody!?!

[CocaineImportAge...]

..this is strange!... this links to not the intended video!.... just cant get this to work!?!..... on the scroll list to the side clk` on turning and burning!

try again

...think i got it!?!

This post has been edited by CocaineImportAgency: Jan 3 2008, 02:50 AM

[BaNoyes]

..this is strange!... this links to not the intended video!.... just cant get this to work!?!..... on the scroll list to the side clk` on turning and burning!

try again

...think i got it!?!

Have to wonder why this is so avoided.

[ROBO6]

south tower impact

...anybody!?!

You know I've seen that video before and looked at it really close and it looks wierd to me. Im no pilot but it looks like the plane has been modified or something. It has also been proposed the planes were holograms. The plane seems to just dissapear. To me there should have been some resitance there forcing significant wreckage to fall to the ground. Instead it penetrates the building on both sides seemingly with its nose intact viewd from a diferent angle. I dont know I may be wrong in my assumptions. Interestingly the video footage of the notrh tower strike shows a flash on the surface of the building right before the plane impacted. Its all very strange to me.

[dMz]

Is Ace Baker in the hizzzouse?? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

[amazed!]

How many different videos and pictures are there of this? Too many to count, I reckon.

The most unusual part for me is and always has been why the aircraft was descending and turning.

I think the reason is that it was a drone having locked on to some homing signal just in the last few seconds. It almost missed the building completely, and does not appear to have involved the center core structure.

The aluminum airframe was shredded by the steel building.

This post has been edited by amazed!: Nov 29 2008, 11:30 AM

[Omega892R09]

I think the reason is that it was a drone having locked on to some homing signal just in the last few seconds. It almost missed the building completely, and does not appear to have involved the center core structure.

That is my take on it, but see below, and I also think (and this is I know speculation) that one of the guys controlling what he took to be a simulated flight suddenly realised, from overhearing conversation or seeing something he should not have relating to the WTC1 'strike' (AA11), that he was guiding a real target onto real people and baulked. An overide kicked in, or maybe the operator was shot out of his seat, and continued with the plan.

The aluminum airframe was shredded by the steel building.

Now that 'see below':

I think this piece of video is highly suspect and produced as a red-herring to cause much discussion and disagreement amongst those trying to find a rational explanation for the events of the day and the ensuing cover ups.

I do not believe for one minute that the outer columns of those buildings would have enabled any 767 meld into the building in the way implied by this clip. My world experience of aircraft hitting objects tells me that the force of the initial impact would have caused stresses to ripple out from the centre to the extremities and causing these to buckle and break off. There should be visible debris falling to the streets below outside of the building.

The fact that this clip shows no such things is clear evidence of it being faked.

There is another dichotomy about flight UA 175 and that is between the video that shows a long section of near level flight on approach and the FDR data showing a steep decent from altitude in short spaces of time and distance.

[amazed!]

You might be right about that Omega, but it seems to me that if the moving object is doing 400 knots or so, and the two objects are made of substantially different metals in hardness, with the stationary object having the makeup of a sieve, I don't see why the moving object of softer metal would not mostly pass through the sieve.

[dMz]

Now if we (or the FIB) could only figure out where those 2 keel beams, 4 main gear "trucks," 2 SSFDR, and 2 CVR went that day in Manhattan. Don't mil-spec planes have different avionics systems? Or did I lose count again?

[Omega892R09]

... but it seems to me that if the moving object is doing 400 knots or so, and the two objects are made of substantially different metals in hardness, with the stationary object having the makeup of a sieve, I don't see why the moving object of softer metal would not mostly pass through the sieve.

Well it may just do that but not without being subject to severe deceleration forces (G) enough to cause the wing tips and other extremities which still want to go as fast as their inertia is leading them to and thus causing break offs of structure which will then suddenly be subjected to aerodynamic couples making them rotate and lose momentum, through increased drag, before hitting the sides of the building where nothing else has entered and falling to the ground - our friend G again, only one G this time.

[amazed!]

I speculate that the Boeings were part of the fleet delivered to USAF by Zakheim and Co, in which case they might not have CVR or FDR.

As for the deceleration forces, I wonder if that can be calculated? And if so, how would the aluminum v. steel factor in, and how would the sieve-like nature of the exoskeleton factor in?

Some part of the landing gear was found blocks away. Of course we cannot investigate, but it would be interesting to know whether it was nose gear or main gear.

[skyarcher]

You might be right about that Omega, but it seems to me that if the moving object is doing 400 knots or so, and the two objects are made of substantially different metals in hardness, with the stationary object having the makeup of a sieve, I don't see why the moving object of softer metal would not mostly pass through the sieve.

Here is a little test for everyone regarding this clip. This video event features a plane passing through a stationary wall. None of the plane is left outside. It doesnt deform or crumple in any way. All the plane enters the building.

So, if the the plane was stationary and the wall moving at a supposed 500 mph, would the plane pass through the wall and emerge on the other side intact??

Basic 3rd grade physics here.

Lets hear your answers,

thanks

Skyarcher

[amazed!]

Now we are into hypotheticals Skyarcher, so what's the point?

It seems to me that the point is there were no Boeings at WTC, which I am willing to accept IF somebody can offer some sort of proof. To me, the existence of doctored video proves nothing but the existence of doctored video.

There are too many ordinary people who seemed to have seen and heard the airplanes. I am willing to accept the long-shot theory of holograms too, IF there is some sort of proof.

As I stated above, it seems to me that the exoskeleton with its multiple holes spaced maybe two feet apart could be compared to a sieve. The mass of the airplane was but a tiny fraction of the mass of the building. I am no engineer at all, but it seems the post impact damage appeared consistent with having been struck by the airplanes. And, if one were going to do this, why NOT fly 2 drones into the buildings? The technology to do so is long mature and refined, and airplanes are cheap.

Whatever the equations prove, which have not yet been offered for a long list of reasons, the point is that the buildings were brought down by CD, and the events regarding the airplanes were virtually irrelevant in their demolition.

[rob balsamo]

Well said amazed! Couldnt have said it better myself... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


Has any NPTer tried to take their theories to ae911truth and ask the sheer/tensile strengths used in the outer perimeter? It appears to be rather thin steel, boxed.

(IMG:http://images.quickblogcast.com/81199-71081/fig_B_1.jpg)

I personally know how hard and durable a leading edge of an aircraft is just by feeling it with my own hand... and bumping my own head into it more times than i wish to admit..

Consider that same "arc" (wing) is filled with a fluid (read: uncompressable), and combined with the fact that there are so many witnesses which most NPTers fail to address and/or interview (read: Seeking Witnesses by posting on a forum instead of making calls and walking the NYC streets), the leap of logic from VF to NPT which most NPTers use to 'prove' their theory, is weak and short.

[Omega892R09]

I personally know how hard and durable a leading edge of an aircraft is just by feeling it with my own hand... and bumping my own head into it more times than i wish to admit..

As am I, after all I had to work with the blighters on a dark flight deck often in a howling gale and horizontal driven rain, sleet or snow.

Worse than wing leading edges were the various aerials sticking out below especially those very nasty Sparrow missile aerials, long and thin and projecting at about 30 degrees down and aft'. Walk into one of those, and it was at just the right height as one ducked down and walked, and it would go straight through an eye socket and out of the skull at the back.

We didn't have hard hats to wear in my day.

Consider that same "arc" (wing) is filled with a fluid (read: uncompressable),...

I am not familiar with that abreviation 'arc', but be that as it may the structure behind that filled section would not be indestructable - aircraft have to get off the ground and carry a payload, unlike WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Now don't get me for a no planer. My pitch is that the video clip concerned does not show an aircraft entering the tower, as I said there are no visible pieces falling to the ground as there would be if it were a real aircraft being filmed entering.

The official line is that a plane hit the Pentagon and you have demonstrated the fallacy of that. Why should WTC be any less of a smoke and mirror show?

There may have been some planes but I doubt that they were as alleged by the OCT, why could there not have been fly-bys just as at the Pentagon with something else going on in and internally placed explosives enlarging the hole.

BTW that image, is that from inside a tower before collapse or at GZ afterwards?

[rob balsamo]

Worse than wing leading edges were the various aerials sticking out ....

Working my way up the ranks, fueling and towing aircraft... i've had my fair share of bumping into a pitot now and then... ouch.

I am not familiar with that abreviation 'arc',

An arc is one of the most strongest structures engineered by man going back to the Romans. The leading edge of a wing is essentially an arc. I really should have said "arch". My apologies for the confusion.

but be that as it may the structure behind that filled section would not be indestructable

Agreed

as I said there are no visible pieces falling to the ground as there would be if it were a real aircraft being filmed entering.

Personally, im puzzled by the wing tips. As they are much more 'fragile' when compared to steel and the wing root. But again, i would like to get Richard Gage's take on the outer perimeter materials, thickness, strength, etc... i may contact him myself soon as i'll need to consult for our upcoming presentation Pandora's Black Box - Chapter IV - Flight of American 11 and United 175. We will be using 3D scale modeling as used in 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon....

The official line is that a plane hit the Pentagon and you have demonstrated the fallacy of that. Why should WTC be any less of a smoke and mirror show?

If there is "Video Fakery" at the WTC showing clear impacts from numerous views, why not at least one at the pentagon? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

There may have been some planes but I doubt that they were as alleged by the OCT, why could there not have been fly-bys just as at the Pentagon with something else going on in and internally placed explosives enlarging the hole.

You know P4T policy on speculation Omega.. so i cant really give you a reply without speculating...

BTW that image, is that from inside a tower before collapse or at GZ afterwards?

Just a quick seach i did.. i think it may be at GZ. Could be at Freshkills^TM...

[chek]

Well said amazed! Couldnt have said it better myself... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


Has any NPTer tried to take their theories to ae911truth and ask the sheer/tensile strengths used in the outer perimeter? It appears to be rather thin steel, boxed.

(IMG:http://images.quickblogcast.com/81199-71081/fig_B_1.jpg)

I personally know how hard and durable a leading edge of an aircraft is just by feeling it with my own hand... and bumping my own head into it more times than i wish to admit..

Consider that same "arc" (wing) is filled with a fluid (read: uncompressable), and combined with the fact that there are so many witnesses which most NPTers fail to address and/or interview (read: Seeking Witnesses by posting on a forum instead of making calls and walking the NYC streets), the leap of logic from VF to NPT which most NPTers use to 'prove' their theory, is weak and short.

While I'm no mechanical engineer, a couple of years ago, I took the time to check the values attributed by Calum Douglas to the forces required for penetration (ooh, er missus etc. etc.) and they seemed if anything overly reasonable to me.

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic...ger+tanks#48162
To my mind there is no question regarding the WTC strikes happened as they were perceived.

I have since come to the (somewhat speculative) conclusion that the whole NPT at the WTC scam - as espoused primarily by the formally insane Webfairy and Nicointelpro Haupt along with their ragtag bunch of after-the-fact supporters - and designed very cleverly as it is on deliberately misinterpreting 2-D representations of 3-D events (an art in itself which required a finely trained - or more likely fine-art trained - eye) was intentionally designed to muddy the waters regarding no B757 at the Pentagon.

Not a single WTC NPT objection has sustained in over 4 years.
End of story.

This post has been edited by chek: Dec 2 2008, 06:31 PM

[rob balsamo]

Hey Chek... !

How's the truth[attack].org forum coming along? Havent been there in awhile.. im sure its still a bash fest?


But yeah.. the way we've been dealing with alot of these NPTers... it appears an op mostly... but again.. we still have Lear on board. Although he has said to kick him to the curb if he becomes a liability... he has only been a liability to those Govt loyalists who like to paint with a broad brush.. and those at truthaction/attack. ie... laughable.

Good to see ya posting chek... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[skyarcher]

Now we are into hypotheticals Skyarcher, so what's the point?

It seems to me that the point is there were no Boeings at WTC, which I am willing to accept IF somebody can offer some sort of proof. To me, the existence of doctored video proves nothing but the existence of doctored video.

There are too many ordinary people who seemed to have seen and heard the airplanes. I am willing to accept the long-shot theory of holograms too, IF there is some sort of proof.

As I stated above, it seems to me that the exoskeleton with its multiple holes spaced maybe two feet apart could be compared to a sieve. The mass of the airplane was but a tiny fraction of the mass of the building. I am no engineer at all, but it seems the post impact damage appeared consistent with having been struck by the airplanes. And, if one were going to do this, why NOT fly 2 drones into the buildings? The technology to do so is long mature and refined, and airplanes are cheap.

Whatever the equations prove, which have not yet been offered for a long list of reasons, the point is that the buildings were brought down by CD, and the events regarding the airplanes were virtually irrelevant in their demolition.

I didn't mention doctored video. You did.

If I was cocaine importer I would not be pleased that the tread he started way back was quickly moved out of sight on even the slightest mention of doctored video.

Get the picture anyone?

I asked a simple question which is based on logic in relation to the laws of physics. There are no equations.

The answer is simple but was not forthcoming from anyone here.

The force is the same. Plane hits building or building hits plane. Newtons laws of motion. These were doing very well and proving very reliable up until 911. Building hits stationary plane - the force IS the same, plane should pass through intact and without deforming in any way as portrayed in this, now very famous, CNN clip.
This video also is missing a building. 19 rector street. Very much tall in real life but in this clip stooping down to tie shoelace behind some trees. Geo positioned incorrectly as flat.


As for your last point, military working with Government is bad but unfortunately the norm. Government + military + MEDIA (propaganda) working together in this manner is called fascism. An attempt to deceive to whole world, through the media, and garner support for this deception through the media.

Goebbels was Hitlers number one man.


Skyarcher.









.

[skyarcher]

Hey Chek... !

How's the truth[attack].org forum coming along? Havent been there in awhile.. im sure its still a bash fest?


But yeah.. the way we've been dealing with alot of these NPTers... it appears an op mostly... but again.. we still have Lear on board. Although he has said to kick him to the curb if he becomes a liability... he has only been a liability to those Govt loyalists who like to paint with a broad brush.. and those at truthaction/attack. ie... laughable.

Good to see ya posting chek... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

Rob, just a reminder, you too are a no planer. Pentagon.