IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Flight 175 Turning And Burning, ...i`ve never seen this before!

skyarcher
post Dec 2 2008, 07:02 PM
Post #21





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Dec 2 2008, 03:18 PM) *
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.


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?



You make the best point here. No visible parts of the plane fall to the ground as in a real crash.


Skyarcher.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 2 2008, 07:05 PM
Post #22





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Dec 2 2008, 03:18 PM) *
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.


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?



You make the simple and best point here. No plane parts/debris are seen falling to the ground as in a real crash.

This post has been edited by skyarcher: Dec 2 2008, 07:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 2 2008, 07:10 PM
Post #23





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



[quote name='rob balsamo' date='Dec 2 2008, 03:43 PM' post='10759868']
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.



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.



Agreed



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....



If there is "Video Fakery" at the WTC showing clear impacts from numerous views, why not at least one at the pentagon? wink.gif



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





Just a quick seach i did.. i think it may be at GZ. Could be at FreshkillsTM...




Hi Rob, explain this ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRQvTDj3374


Bird! hits leading edge of plane and puts hole in it. plane hits one of the strongest building ever made and leading edge slices through building like butter?

Are you for real?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chek
post Dec 2 2008, 07:23 PM
Post #24





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 187
Joined: 24-October 06
Member No.: 157



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2008, 10:37 PM) *
Hey Chek... !

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


Hi Rob! Things have been a bit majorly distracting over in everyday world for the past while, so I tend to be in a "keeping up" i.e. a-quick-scan-of-the-forums-every-few-days" posture rather than an actively partcipating one. For the moment at least.

Regarding truthattack (lol), it's a strange and conservative set up - but despite the behaviour of one or two of the resident 'silverbacks' I think their collective hearts are in a more or less in a right, if sceptical place - overly so sometimes. But no more so than the everyday critically-minded people we raise the subject of 911 with. Though put it this way, you'd be advised not to be too trusting if it came to babies and bathwater over there!

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2008, 10:37 PM) *
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... salute.gif


Thanks!
Well, you know my opinion on NPT, and JL is a bit of an enigma to me; but who knows?
If any of us had seen what Mr. Lear claims too have, would we think as we do?
We can only make our own estimations according to our own experience, and being a bit of a Dave McGowan fan I have to wonder at even that.
(His exploration of the dark underbelly of the '60's Laurel Canyon scene is not to be missed by those of us d'un certain age: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/ )
Meanwhile, being stuck with my own life memories leaves me where I am smile.gif

Looking forward to your next published investigations Rob.
Take care.

Charlie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 2 2008, 08:26 PM
Post #25



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (skyarcher @ Dec 2 2008, 05:55 PM) *
Rob, just a reminder, you too are a no planer. Pentagon.



Skyarcher, you may want to do your research...

Pay specific attention to the second bullet point.

The next time you equate me to NPT to add weight to your ridiculous leap of logic, i will show you the door.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 2 2008, 09:44 PM
Post #26





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2008, 08:26 PM) *
Skyarcher, you may want to do your research...

Pay specific attention to the second bullet point.

The next time you equate me to NPT to add weight to your ridiculous leap of logic, i will show you the door.




Thanks Rob for clarifying that.


My position is this. I am definitely a no planner when it comes to the pentagon. Like many other people, I have seen the smallish round hole in the side of the pentagon. Unless the plane was sub 15 foot across from wing tip to wing tip it cannot be a plane. The windows above and the area to the side of the hole are not damaged. This is before the whole face of the wall collapses. I will post a link to a video of this small round hole if you want. No wings there. The official story claims a large 757 jet hit it. I cant think of anyone who believes this.
I think, like many other people that it was a missile. THis would also account for the round hole piercing 3 reinforced concrete walls.


Anyway , you were mentioning on this tread about the wings.

I asked you to have a look at this video regarding a bird hitting the wing of an airplane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRQvTDj3374


Bird hits leading edge of plane and puts hole in it. plane hits one of the strongest building ever made and leading edge slices through building like butter?

What do you make of this?

Cheers

Skyarcher
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 3 2008, 10:57 AM
Post #27





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Skyarcher

Perhaps you did not say "doctored video", but you are suggesting that there is something mysterious about the video of the airplane striking the building, something that is not right. Suggesting...????

Whatever.

Perhaps you could refine your point, because I missed it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Dec 3 2008, 12:34 PM
Post #28


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (skyarcher @ Dec 2 2008, 10:55 PM) *
Rob, just a reminder, you too are a no planer. Pentagon.


Wrong. He knows there was a plane used in the Pentagon attack. It just didn't hit the building.

Don't lump PFT in with that disinfo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 3 2008, 07:01 PM
Post #29





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 3 2008, 10:57 AM) *
Skyarcher

Perhaps you did not say "doctored video", but you are suggesting that there is something mysterious about the video of the airplane striking the building, something that is not right. Suggesting...????

Whatever.

Perhaps you could refine your point, because I missed it.




No problem amazed, I may have jumped the gun a bit.

THis video event is very mysterious because it breaks Newton's laws of motion.

I will explain.

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

the object here is the plane moving through the air in a uniform motion( uniform motion = to us it seems to be moving in a constant way, not accelerating or slowing down before it hits the tower)
The external force applied to it is the building.

The problem with this video as far as Newtons first law of motion is concerned is this. The plane continues in its uniform motion, although it has met an external force. It doesn't slow down in other words.
The opposite of this effect can also be seen. A football does not suddenly leap into the air unless someone kicks it.

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

Newton's 2nd law of motion is why I asked earlier about the building hitting the plane, would the plane pass through the building as we are shown in the CNN footage.
Force = Mass x acceleration. Acceleration is the rate at which something speeds up or slows down. The plane has a certain mass/weight. The building has a fixed mass/weight. Many people say ' o but the plane was travelling at 500mph and that is why it enters the building'. If the building was traveling at 500 mph and the plane was stationary ... force is the same. We should see the same effect as in this video ... the plane passes through the building without deforming in any way. Clearly this would be impossible.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The CNN video shows the plane pushing against the building but DOES NOT show the building pushing against the plane. This building, one of the strongest buildings ever built, does not have any effect on this plane. There is an action here but no reaction.

I hope this helps. This is why this is called 'ghost plane'. Only a ghost can pass through a wall.

How did they do it ?
Well here is one suggestion .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

It is very disturbing for anyone to think about the idea of 'doctored video' when it comes to news events. This would be the ultimate betrayal of trust.
However, it is, as this video illustrates, a very real possibility. What I found very disturbing about this thread was the speed at which it was moved to a non public viewing area at the very mention of doctored footage. It makes you (me anyway) wonder. Also the Ad hominem attacks on anyone who broaches the subject here is very disturbing. Anyone who points out the inconsistencies in the TV footage of 911( and there are many many) are described as 'disinfo' agents or crazy people.
This happens a lot in 'official' type 911 truth movements. it is my belief that these official type 911 truth movements exist to cover the media s involvement in this mass murder. Who exactly did it is unclear. One thing for sure is that it would not take many people to set this up.

Here is a shot of the 2nd explosion without any plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZR4Jfx9dmc
Notice also that this what NY looks like. Other videos are colored blue or brown and the background is missing.

Here is the BBC footage of the same event.
The anchor is talking to someone who is under the tower but did not see any plane . Neither does the anchor!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB7ehoL_67Y



Plane hits super strong building and not quite bounces off it, but at least slows down, breaks up, and parts of it fall to the ground. Maybe an engine of something penetrates the building. This would follow Newtons laws of motion. Debris on the footpath below.


Skyarcher

This post has been edited by skyarcher: Dec 3 2008, 09:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
keroseneaddict
post Dec 3 2008, 08:37 PM
Post #30





Group: Core Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 12-September 08
From: An Island off the coast of RSW
Member No.: 3,813



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2008, 02:41 PM) *
Well said amazed! Couldnt have said it better myself... 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.



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.


Well said, Rob!!!!

Are you telling us that you've been so exhausted, cold and wishing you were home that you, as one of the crew (during preflight) actually ran into your own aircraft? <grin> Hell, I've done it in full view of a window full of pax waiting to board!!!!!!! pilotfly.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 3 2008, 09:11 PM
Post #31





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Dec 3 2008, 11:34 AM) *
Wrong. He knows there was a plane used in the Pentagon attack. It just didn't hit the building.

Don't lump PFT in with that disinfo.



What disinfo are you talking about?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 3 2008, 09:20 PM
Post #32





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (chek @ Dec 2 2008, 05:30 PM) *
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.



Let me get this straight. In reference to the video under discussion in this thread, you do not think there is anything suspect with it?

Is that correct?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 3 2008, 09:35 PM
Post #33





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



This is important in relation to the CNN video under discussion in this thread. THe outside walls of the WTC were 'load bearing' making this one of the strongest structures ever constructed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z-0VSPFTcA

Again, there are people on this site who wish you to believe that a plane can pass through this steel mesh without deforming or crumpling in any way/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRQvTDj3374

Here a bird hits the leading edge of a jet and puts a hole in it.

Disinfo alright.

This post has been edited by skyarcher: Dec 3 2008, 09:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 4 2008, 11:07 AM
Post #34





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Skyarcher

The plane does slow down, abruptly. It went from 400kts to 0 in just a second or two.

Again, you are using a hypothetical, which can go only so far. In fact, the building was not moving and the airplane was. Thus your second point is lost on me, despite your reference to Newton's II

According to what I have read, in fact the building did react to the strike by moving very slightly, as designed. I wish I could provide a link, but I've read that the building did sway, and then recover to static. That is the building absorbed the energy of the plane, and was damaged in the process. Exactly how this works out to equal and opposite reaction I'm not sure. I am no physicist. The interview with the architect of the building compared it to mosquito netting being pierced by a pencil. That seems an apt comparison to me.

Not being a physicist, I would think that if the exoskeleton of the building had been solid and continuous, as opposed to having something like 2 foot spacing in windows, then it would not have allowed penetration such as we saw.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 4 2008, 11:15 AM
Post #35



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (skyarcher @ Dec 3 2008, 08:35 PM) *
...... without deforming or crumpling in any way/



Strawman, no one ever claimed as such.


Clean up your act Skyarcher and stop telling lies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 4 2008, 02:22 PM
Post #36





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 4 2008, 10:15 AM) *
Strawman, no one ever claimed as such.


Clean up your act Skyarcher and stop telling lies.



Thank you for bringing up the subject of fallacy arguments ) i have seen a few in my time and can spot them a mile away.

you mention one here. 'Strawman' involves mis-representing your opponents position. Distortions designed to more easily refute someone.
I was asked by amazed what I saw wrong with the video under discussion in this thread.
I replied (note the 'I' here)that the plane passes through the side of the WTC without distorting or crumpling in any way.
This is my observation and so I am not mis representing anyone.It is not a straw man argument.
I respectfully suggest that your argument is a strawman argument as you misrepresent me.
TO fellow members, view the ghostplane here , in slow motion and stabilized ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lOcEOsmAtA

and make your own mind up as to the question of the plane deforming or crumpling in any way?? If any member sees any deforming or crumpling please point it out to me. cheers.

Here a few other fallacies.

Suppression of evidence..hiding evidence or a discussion of it.

Smear tactics , which lead to the 'ad hominem' fallacy.. NOT addressing the argument and evidence in front of you and portraying the opposition as 'something'.. crazy or whatever. This is sure sign someone has no argument and is hiding something. This one is easy to recognise.

Thanks

Skyarcher

This post has been edited by skyarcher: Dec 4 2008, 03:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 4 2008, 02:32 PM
Post #37



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Skyarcher,

You said that people of this site are trying to make others believe an airplane can pass through a wall without crumpling or deforming in any way.


That is a lie and that makes you a liar as we have never claimed as such. Which is also the reason why you do not source such a claim because it doesnt exist.

Be advised. Your spin, strawmans tactics and flat out being wrong (eg. there arent 3 concrete walls between C-E ring at pentagon on the first floor, wings dont seperate till second floor between C-E)... are wearing thin on my patience.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Dec 4 2008, 05:26 PM
Post #38


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (skyarcher @ Dec 4 2008, 02:11 AM) *
What disinfo are you talking about?


You know, the whole 'no plane' disinfo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 4 2008, 06:08 PM
Post #39





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Dec 4 2008, 04:26 PM) *
You know, the whole 'no plane' disinfo.


I am not sure what you mean.

I have given here a scientific explanation of why i think the video under discussion is not correct according to the laws of physics..
Would you mind reading this post, and if you do not agree with something please come back and tell what it is you dont agree with because
I dont think that this is a representation of a real aircraft crash. Please tell me where I am spreading disinfo. If you could be specific i would really appreciate it )

looking forward to your response.

best of luck.

Skyarcher
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Dec 4 2008, 08:41 PM
Post #40


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (skyarcher @ Dec 4 2008, 11:08 PM) *
I am not sure what you mean.

I have given here a scientific explanation of why i think the video under discussion is not correct according to the laws of physics..
Would you mind reading this post, and if you do not agree with something please come back and tell what it is you dont agree with because
I dont think that this is a representation of a real aircraft crash. Please tell me where I am spreading disinfo. If you could be specific i would really appreciate it )

looking forward to your response.

best of luck.

Skyarcher


A pressurized cabin with a pressurized forward bulkhead and presurized wings is going to enter a building moving 600 mph.

Go find some witnesses to your lunacy. Until then you are just another operative here to sow your confusion and discrediting tactics.

That's all I have to say on the matter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th October 2014 - 02:55 PM