NPTers pissed off about WTCA, Split from Latest News Options

[BaNoyes]

Hi archerace7.

Welcome to the forum and thank you for your support!

As you know, P4T doesnt speculate, but to help answer question, there are all types of state of the art precise guidance systems for aircraft in the civilian world, that were very precise and state of the art in 2001. Some claim Military technology is 20 years advanced that of the civilian world. With that said, the possibilities are endless.

Here are some keywords to use for searching and research into aircraft/aerial vehicle guidance systems, although keep in mind we do not claim any of this was used on 9/11, but its to give you an idea of the technology publicly available and how precise it can be...

Category 3C ILS or CAT IIIC ILS
GPS
FMS
UAV Technology
Semi-Active Radar Homing
Active Radar Homing
Infrared homing

just to name a few...

Hope this helps...

You are claiming an airplane flew inside a building,without slowing down,without breaking to pieces,the wings and tail slicing through steel guiders and concrete and then exploding after the entire plane is inside the building,thats what you are saying.

Do you expect any respect from anyone with the simplist understanding of physics.?
WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL-AND WHY??

This post has been edited by BaNoyes: Sep 27 2009, 10:22 PM

[rob balsamo]

We make that claim? Thats what we are saying? Really?

Can you quote that from our site or the scene from which your above post was split?

Didnt think so...

You do that again and i will show you the door personally.

[BaNoyes]

We make that claim? Thats what we are saying? Really?

Can you quote that from our site or the scene from which your above post was split?

Didnt think so...

You do that again and i will show you the door personally.

You are pointing out
"there are all types of state of the art precise guidance systems for aircraft in the civilian world, that were very precise and state of the art in 2001. Some claim Military technology is 20 years advanced that of the civilian world. With that said, the possibilities are endless."

Guidance systems for aircraft that didn't exist -performing the impossible
Hardly "unsubstantiated"
and in the right place

This post has been edited by BaNoyes: Sep 27 2009, 11:08 PM

[BaNoyes]

No Planes validated by Pilots for 911 Truth
Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:22 AM
From:
"Ben Noyes"

Rob Balsamo -co founder of Pilots for 911 Truth has made the video
"9/11: World Trade Center Attack"
I watched it
and although the site - "Pilots for 911 Truth" remains neutral
the evidence they provide points out the truth

Rob
"the aircraft observed are not the same as aircraft reported" (21:29-)
"in no way validates any theory"
well it certainly does validate facts
analysis based on data....proves the speed shown on video is "impossible"
(Kolstad 23:38)

Impossible for novice to hit building
pretty much impossible for any pilot no matter how experience
(30:00)

Rob says (43:00) data provided ( numerous video and eye witness)
prove impossible (speed maneuverability,pilot skill, etc)
"physically impossible"

It is not a story as "told by the government"
it is the evidence
the evidence is the videos
not words

Here is a simple fact
Airplanes do not enter buildings as shown in videos
airplanes smash,crash and fly to pieces

Pilots for 911 Truth have push the envelope
All their investigations lead to the same conclusion
"physically impossible"
ergo-fake
The aircraft shown on videos are fake-they are cartoons
Thank you pilots

This post has been edited by BaNoyes: Oct 3 2009, 08:43 AM

[rob balsamo]

No Planes validated by Pilots for 911 Truth

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yawn.gif)

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

We do no such thing. And since you put words in our mouth. Enjoy your 2 month vacation.

[painter]

Rob Balsamo, Pilots for 9/11 Truth: "We at Pilots for 9/11 Truth would like to make it clear that we do not indorse any theory, which is also clear in our Mission Statement atop our home page and subsequent analysis we have provided over the years based on data. This World Trade Center analysis is based on precedent and bench-marks set by data provided by the NTSB in terms of Egypt Air 990 as compared to the data provided for the World Trade Center aircraft and in no way validates any theory. However, the analysis conclusively proves the story we have been told by our government is at the very best not accurate and at the worst intentionally deceptive for an apparent agenda. Your mileage may vary. Either way, the events of 9/11 have once again been proven a grave issue which needs urgent, serious inquiry."

Video presentation, "9/11 World Trade Center Attack" 21:50 -- 22:14 released September, 2009

Rob -- Why wait to BAN some BS No/Yes who has come here to INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENT this organization and no doubt will continue to do so no matter how many warnings or vacations he is given? It is ONE THING to come here and ask a question about what conclusions can be drawn from this analysis, quite another to come here and intentionally misrepresent those conclusions. Anyone doing so should not have the privilege of posting in this forum. My 2¢.

[EDITED: for mileage- but yours might vary. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
d ]

http://www.answers.com/topic/mileage

[painter]

Here is a simple fact
Airplanes do not enter buildings as shown in videos
airplanes smash,crash and fly to pieces

"Simple facts" of complex and chaotic events involving complex physics in dynamic situations are for "simple minds."

With its "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" presentation, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has shown that the aircraft type alleged to have been used for the attacks on the World Trade Center could not have been flown accurately under the control of rookie pilots, indeed flown at all given aerodynamic stresses to the aircraft type, at the speeds officially reported at altitude. This is ALL that Pilots for 9/11 Truth is saying and this is more than enough to question the official narrative.

The No Planes struck the WTC hypothesis has to PROVE:

1) All witnesses at the crash scene were deceived
2) All video footage of the plane crashes were faked
And/Or
3) It is physically impossible for ANY AIRCRAFT TYPE matching the descriptions of witnesses or reported on video to completely penetrate the outer steel structure of the WTC towers as observed and reported.

Until you NPTers have done this work you can not be expected to be taken seriously. Without this all you have is a hypothesis that has not been proven to be sufficiently accurate enough to even be called a "theory".

[tnemelckram]

What's with this guy BaNoyes? Can't he read what Rob said. He went ahead and wrote the wrong thing anyway! If he can't read, you have to wonder how he knows how to write.

[BaNoyes]

These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.[/b][/size]

Not impossible for a CGI plane

KISS principle - apply it
There were no planes.

This post has been edited by BaNoyes: Jun 23 2010, 09:53 PM

[lunk]

My, what big "i"s you have.

Interesting theory.

It has been around for quite a while now.
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&...nes+Hoax+Theory.

FYI

We at Pilots for 9/11 Truth would like to make it clear that we do not endorse any theory

[GroundPounder]

do cgi planes show up on radar?

[Sanders]

These experts state the speeds are impossible ...

... Not impossible for a CGI plane.

Not impossible for a missile either. Given the parameters that what allegedly hit the towers (a) was flying at 500 + MPH and (b ) sliced through the exterior girders of the WTC, you can conclude that there were no planes and that it was a CGI event, or you can conclude that some kind of aircraft that could (a) fly at 500 + MPH and (b ) slice through the exterior girders of the WTC hit the towers. The fact that it couldn't have been stock commercial aircraft does not logically demand that there were no planes.

(That's me talking btw, not Pilots 4 Truth.)

[BaNoyes]

Can someone please give Bursill a helmet.

If a pilot who has flown the type Acft says that the
plane cannot do what they say it did, you should believe
it. There are some things that happen in aviation that never make
it to "public consumption" . Most pilots (and mechanics) have a bit of "hidden"
experience of the "super pucker factor" variety.
A pilot knows his plane.

Same goes for mechanics.
I dont need to trash an engine to know that if i dont cut fuel
at max EGT im gonna smoke a turbine wheel.......its a certainty.
Ailerons, rudders and elevators begin to depart the plane
when emergency max speed is breached. And breached it
was, by a long shot.
We dont do overspeed inspections for nothing, and this
was beyond anything ive ever even heard of.


Thanks for the hard work brothers.

Just amazing
You claim to look at EVIDENCE
YET
THE FACT that cgi airplanes answer ALL of the incongruities is NOT discussed
There were NO PLANES involved
you cannot count 7yourself as a logical thinker and dismiss all the evidence that point to no airplanes were involved
You may be pilots
but first you have to be real
Pilots and friends of pilots
there were no planes
no matter how many times this information is deleted from this group[size="3"][/size]

[Obwon]

Just amazing
You claim to look at EVIDENCE
YET
THE FACT that cgi airplanes answer ALL of the incongruities is NOT discussed
There were NO PLANES involved
you cannot count 7yourself as a logical thinker and dismiss all the evidence that point to no airplanes were involved
You may be pilots
but first you have to be real
Pilots and friends of pilots
there were no planes
no matter how many times this information is deleted from this group[size="3"][/size]

While it certainly seems to me, that the logic for "no planes" has grown stronger with each new discovery/discussion by the experts and professionals here, make no mistake. It is only by treating each area of these events as separate, and applying expert analysis to them, that we even learn of the possibility of no planes.

I don't believe they are deleting anything, I think, as much as I've seen so far, is stuff is moved to more relevant threads, so as not to obstruct focus on the conversations at hand.

Even so, there are certain post left where they are because of their dual/multi relavencies.
Guard against the sound of "railing" because explaining is so much better.

Obwon

[07august]

The fake video posted here has the smoke blowing in the wrong direction.

You can rant & tear down all the posts that tell the truth, but you cannot stop all the people who know you are lying. NO PLANES ON 911 01

How much does Witch Ann Cappelletti pay you to run this lying site. NO PLANES ON 911.

This post has been edited by paranoia: Jul 5 2010, 08:34 PM

Reason for edit: added a link to the actual video in question

[07august]

You can rant & tear down all the posts that tell the truth, but you cannot stop all the people who know you are lying. NO PLANES ON 911 01.

Time to shut down this lie of a website.

There were NO PLANES ON 911.

This post has been edited by 07august: Jul 5 2010, 05:06 AM

[07august]

Smoke in this video is blowing in the wrong direction. It is a fake. The perp who made this video was paid $1000 by Witch Ann Cappelletti.

[Sanders]

07august, you certainly are a pleasant poster.

Watch it fellow, say your peace and be polite about it, please.

[Sanders]

While it certainly seems to me, that the logic for "no planes" has grown stronger with each new discovery/discussion by the experts and professionals here, make no mistake...

You weren't here 2 or 3 years ago when the "experts and professionals here" tackled this topic.

80% of the content of "September Clues" is both bogus and debunkable. I personally posted on this topic many times, addressing each and every one of the claims made in the September Clues series that purports to prove the NPT theory.

What about the other 20%? Is there some evidence that actually DOES support the idea of video manipulation on 9/11? I personally believe there is some evidence which suggests that notion. But all this business about entire videos created via CGI is complete garbage. I have personally looked into this very carefully and my posts on every aspect of this are a matter of public record, here, somewhere on this site. (Sorry I don't feel like digging it all up for you.)

One quite infamous allegation what was addressed here was that the Hezarkhani footage couldn't have been real video footage because of the height of the trees in Battery Park - we here at P4T proved that the footage could have been and almost certainly was taken from a ferry docked just off the shoreline.

So, don't even go off on us here at P4T about IGNORING the No-planes BS - a number of members here looked at all this and picked it apart piece by piece. There may have been some video manipulation to hide the fact that the planes were not "stock", but that is the most that can be gleened from the available evidence (IMO). This whole topic is a red-herring, a means to stir up sh#t.

Get a grip.

[paranoia]

Smoke in this video is blowing in the wrong direction. It is a fake.

could you please provide some sort of visual evidence that that is indeed the case? i'd like to see a pic (or pics) of the impact (from other angles) labled with cardinal directions (wind direction included), compared to a still from the video you claim is fake (again labled with cardinal directions), so that we could see its "fakeness" for ourselves. such visual evidence would really help to substantiate your claim.

thanks!