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 )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Final Approach Of 175

Freedomlover911
post Apr 20 2009, 12:25 PM
Post #41





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



QUOTE (BaNoyes @ Apr 18 2009, 02:27 PM) *
(CGI planes need an entrance-watch it glide inside with out a scratch)


The problem with "TV Fakery" and "CGI planes" is not just that it is a red herring, it just doesn't fit! You still have the problem with several eyewitnesses actually seeing planes with their own eyes, planes in live video feeds and several images of planes on home video. Anyone with basic knowledge of home video knows that there is no way to "implant" fake images of planes on hand held analog recording devices. This is a rabbit hole with a hungry fox at the end. Time to back out and reevaluate.
peace
FL911
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Apr 21 2009, 12:24 PM
Post #42





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



QUOTE (Freedomlover911 @ Apr 18 2009, 03:25 PM) *
The problem with "TV Fakery" and "CGI planes" is not just that it is a red herring, it just doesn't fit! You still have the problem with several eyewitnesses actually seeing planes with their own eyes, planes in live video feeds and several images of planes on home video. Anyone with basic knowledge of home video knows that there is no way to "implant" fake images of planes on hand held analog recording devices. This is a rabbit hole with a hungry fox at the end. Time to back out and reevaluate.
peace
FL911


After studying CGI for sometime, I would have to agree. However, I could see the live feed use a CGI cover-up to mask the model of the impact plane from the world that may or may not have been a hijacked airliner. I would imagine it would be nearly impossible to determine the model when viewing or filming from the ground.

Too bad they hid the black boxes from the public, eh?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BaNoyes
post Apr 21 2009, 01:47 PM
Post #43





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 24
Joined: 25-June 07
Member No.: 1,242



QUOTE (Freedomlover911 @ Apr 18 2009, 02:25 PM) *
The problem with "TV Fakery" and "CGI planes" is not just that it is a red herring, it just doesn't fit! You still have the problem with several eyewitnesses actually seeing planes with their own eyes, planes in live video feeds and several images of planes on home video. Anyone with basic knowledge of home video knows that there is no way to "implant" fake images of planes on hand held analog recording devices. This is a rabbit hole with a hungry fox at the end. Time to back out and reevaluate.
peace
FL911

Well
You can accept dubious witness
but
then you have to accept an airplane "entering" a building
then exploding after it is totally inside
seems like thats no problem for you
for me it spells ,CGI
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MANOLETE
post Jun 10 2009, 07:20 AM
Post #44





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 1
Joined: 10-June 09
Member No.: 4,359



Dear All:

Please look the attache video,

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

is the final approach. I realized yesterday that there is a flashing light in the right wing before the impact. I suppose that is the navigation light, butis this position normal for an boieng 767 222 comercial liner????

The flash is in the seconds 4 to 5 of the video.

Thanks,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Jun 10 2009, 10:18 AM
Post #45





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



QUOTE (MANOLETE @ Jun 8 2009, 09:20 AM) *
Dear All:

Please look the attache video,

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

is the final approach. I realized yesterday that there is a flashing light in the right wing before the impact. I suppose that is the navigation light, butis this position normal for an boieng 767 222 comercial liner????

The flash is in the seconds 4 to 5 of the video.

Thanks,


The flash in question appears to be a video artifact. That flash doesn't appear on other source videos that haven't been "stabilized".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Jun 16 2009, 08:34 AM
Post #46





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



This may answer some questions about the final approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ

But there are a lot of open qustions.
I thought the Rades data were just displaced because the Rades flight path is parallel to the visible flight path but about 520m displaced to the south + too high (wrong time).
The Rades data for AA11 are wrong as well. According to these data AA11 would have passed behind Naudet at the junction of Church and Lispenard. May be Naudet would have panned the camera to the left but the Rades plane would have entered the screen from the left side in a high banking turn.
I checked Google Earth for any failure of the longitude/latitude. GE is correct.
So how correct is a USAF radar? What are these Rades data?

This post has been edited by achimspok: Jun 16 2009, 08:36 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Mar 22 2011, 08:46 AM
Post #47





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 561
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 21 2008, 09:41 AM) *
My opinion is that there was some sort of homing device located in each of the towers. One in Bremer's office and one in the Fuji bank's office. To me, that would possibly explain the bank at the last few seconds.

It appears that if it had NOT banked, it would have mostly missed.


Let's put some points that have been made together here:

The exact floors "hit" by the two aircraft, are the same floors that are made suspect by
evidence of "prior preparation" and/or "connection to the crash effects".

That means that if these floors were prepared to display "crash effects", then they are
necessarily the floors that MUST be hit, because to hit any other floors would not obtain
or explain the "crash effect" results, that would be displayed in the aftermath of the crashes.
[a bit convoluted I know, but it means that; if the crash sites were prepared to display
in a certain way, the planes must hit them precisely, or you've created yet another
conundrum.]

Therefore, if videos are faked, the makers do not have any choice of "crash points". They can only alter the way the planes arrive at these points.

Now, this is what I believe, gives rise to the "last second" maneuvers; the need to bring the aircraft to their precisely located strike points! Where even 20 feet higher or lower, right or left, results in plane part strikes, that leave no damage at all. And damage to building areas, where no plane parts have struck at all. The prepared crash effects require precision alignment with the video evidence.

I also think that, because there is a time limit factor, since the prepared areas would have to initiate their methods of displaying crash damage, at a particular point in time, the arrival of the aircraft at these strike points is also fixed, and cannot be altered.

With the elements of place and time of the crash points so fixed, the video makers had to work backwards from these points and times first, in creating the video "explanations" for them. However, after working backwards and putting things in place, they then need to run forward and assess for anomalies that need to be removed if possible.

Okay, having said the above, the question becomes then: Why do these anomalies still exist?

For example, why does flt 11 exhibit 510 knots for over a minute?
Why do both flights exhibit suspicious maneuvers?

I believe that the answers lay in the expected times of arrivals of the flights into the local areas. Since flights cannot hover in the air, the only way to absorb additional time, is to alter the flight paths of the crafts in getting to the local area. But this takes time and once the "evidence" is put into the data tracking systems, it's locked for release, thus robbing the perps of needed flexibility.

Looking at flight 11 and 175, one question that comes to mind is: Why the 18 minute delay of flight 175 when both flights could easily have hit at the same time?

This seems to say that the perps were not at all worried about any and all interception possibilities! This delay assumes completely free airspace/access for the needed additional time. So then, who are the perps, most likely able to make such an assumption?

So the speculation loops back and forth between a)prepared strike points (floors) b) flight paths to these strike points. c) Times of arrivals at these strike points. d) The extreme difficulty of arriving at these strike points. e) inability of the skyjackers to fly to these strike points on time, using the paths given. f) Lack of collateral evidence of aircraft post crash.

Where we have evidence of fake planes flying impossible paths to precise strike points on floors that have undergone "renovations", if we simplify and solve, we come away with... what?

Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DonM
post Mar 22 2011, 01:03 PM
Post #48





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 33
Joined: 12-March 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 2,921



Obwon,

Go and watch "September Clues"
http://www.septemberclues.info/

and spend a day reading Leslie Raphael's site
http://frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%...Home%20Page.htm

I'm not saying that they are completely correct, but they give one lots to think about
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Mar 22 2011, 03:23 PM
Post #49





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 561
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (DonM @ Mar 22 2011, 12:03 PM) *
Obwon,

Go and watch "September Clues"
http://www.septemberclues.info/

and spend a day reading Leslie Raphael's site
http://frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%...Home%20Page.htm

I'm not saying that they are completely correct, but they give one lots to think about


Mostly a lot I've already seen and have been thinking about for nearly 10 years.
Site has a lot of rhetoric to wade through, that kind of thing detracts from the
"authority" the site wants to achieve.

That aside, they make a very good point that the north faces should be in shadow.
The sun is not known to selectively illuminate buildings and as we all know, moss grows on the north side of trees.

Obwon

PS: Here, take a look down at the bottom of the page:

http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911JUL...shot_in_39_cuts

The north face of the south tower is in shadow, the north face of the north tower is sunlit.

This post has been edited by Obwon: Mar 22 2011, 04:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
localbod
post Mar 22 2011, 05:39 PM
Post #50





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 37
Joined: 12-January 07
From: UK
Member No.: 433



QUOTE (Freedomlover911 @ Apr 18 2009, 03:25 PM) *
The problem with "TV Fakery" and "CGI planes" is not just that it is a red herring, it just doesn't fit! You still have the problem with several eyewitnesses actually seeing planes with their own eyes, planes in live video feeds and several images of planes on home video. Anyone with basic knowledge of home video knows that there is no way to "implant" fake images of planes on hand held analog recording devices. This is a rabbit hole with a hungry fox at the end. Time to back out and reevaluate.
peace
FL911


I have also checked out Leslie Raphael and September clues.They both offer compelling arguements especially Raphael.
I recently heard a Scot Forbes interview on Fetzer's site -Real Deal. Now this guy is not a 'Conspiracy Theorist' by his own admission and sounded very genuine.He described seeing Flt175 ( with his Mk.1 Eyeball ) simply dissappear into the south tower! He was left dumbfounded and unable to comprehend what he had seen with his own eyes.
He seems like a credible witness to me. Surely taking into account eye witness accounts and all of the video evidence that corroborates a large jet going straight into the south tower upon impact without slowing down , deformation of the airframe -wing tips entering intact , lack of tail section breaking off and debris outside the tower etc.... we are looking at the use of a Hologram!?
I have to say that when it comes to audio and the sounds witnesses heard i give up.
I can just about get my head round the possibility that Holographic tech exists and is useable but how do you create the illusion of a moving sound source?
I know John Lear has already suggested NPT / Holograms but i cannot see what else would meet the requirements for all the known evidence imho.
Just my 10 cents worth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Mar 22 2011, 06:16 PM
Post #51





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 561
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (localbod @ Mar 22 2011, 04:39 PM) *
I have also checked out Leslie Raphael and September clues.They both offer compelling arguements especially Raphael.
<snips>
I have to say that when it comes to audio and the sounds witnesses heard i give up.
I can just about get my head round the possibility that Holographic tech exists and is useable but how do you create the illusion of a moving sound source?
I know John Lear has already suggested NPT / Holograms but i cannot see what else would meet the requirements for all the known evidence imho.
Just my 10 cents worth.


The idea is, no matter what anyone claims they saw or heard, has to match with corroborating evidence, that what they saw or heard, was actually available to be seen or heard and not merely imagined.

For example, you could swear up and down that you heard a 747 crash into the building next door to you. You could claim that the building being on fire and flattened, was good evidence that what you're saying is true. Other people could also join in and claim that what you've said was true, that they too saw a 747 crash into the building next door to you.

Now, if any videos and/or pictures that happened to have been taken of the event in progress, don't verify the claim. If they show things that are impossible, like say the aircraft taking off, after the crash, and flying away. People have to have a serious problem believing the story. But, let's say the video showed the plane going completely into the ground. But, no amount of digging can retrieve but a part or two, and they can't be verified as having come from a 747. Then what is there to believe? The "eyewitnesses"?

Minds are very poor witnesses to events, because they're so flexible. People can make up stories, they can lie, they can imagine things, and they can hallucinate, something that cameras can't do. So, if the cameras were supposedly faithfully recording, what these people claimed they saw. But the examination of those pictures and vids, show things that could not possibly have happened, then the pictures and vids are fakes. If there is no residue of the 100 ton jetliners, then there simply weren't any jetliners downed there.

Either they want us to believe the official story is true, in which case they should have made every effort to recover and display the plane parts, which I believe they would have if they could have. Or, there were no plane parts to recover and display, because there weren't any planes to begin with... In which case you'd only hear stories and claims, just as we've been hearing for the last 10 years. All manner of explanations as to why the plane debris can't be found, even though a paper and plastic passport/id, managed to escape the inferno intact and flutter to the ground nearby. Even the "black boxes" couldn't be recovered or found, so we're told. So all the hard evidence that should be there, if planes had crashed, are substituted for by stories and fake images/videos and a raft of suspicious data that doesn't line up. Large heavy aircraft don't simply disappear into thin air, merely because they've crashed into a building at 500 mph or so.

So, it comes down to a question of whether or not one wishes to believe in magic.

Obwon blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
localbod
post Mar 22 2011, 06:45 PM
Post #52





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 37
Joined: 12-January 07
From: UK
Member No.: 433



[quote name='Obwon'
Either they want us to believe the official story is true, in which case they should have made every effort to recover and display the plane parts, which I believe they would have if they could have. Or, there were no plane parts to recover and display, because there weren't any planes to begin with... In which case

I would concede that occums razor would dictate that if no aeroplane wreckage (debris field, bodies and body parts , miles of cable etc...) has been recovered then no aeroplane has crashed!
All of the videos available of the tower strikes being doctered however well, seems like a very big ask.
Whereas using a Hologram per plane where 'witnesses' would be able to see the right event i.e. a plane impact at the correct floor level for the ensuing fireball.
If it can be done a hologram seems alot simpler and therefore easier to achieve!?
I guess if they wanted to get people rubbing their temples and screaming 'i know the OCT is bullshit but what the fuck happened to Newton here' -they achieved that!
If there is a hell it would certainly include eternity in the company of Bush , Cheney and Rumsfeld!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Mar 23 2011, 06:24 AM
Post #53





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 561
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (localbod @ Mar 22 2011, 05:45 PM) *
[quote name='Obwon'
Either they want us to believe the official story is true, in which case they should have made every effort to recover and display the plane parts, which I believe they would have if they could have. Or, there were no plane parts to recover and display, because there weren't any planes to begin with... In which case...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would concede that occums razor would dictate that if no aeroplane wreckage (debris field, bodies and body parts , miles of cable etc...) has been recovered then no aeroplane has crashed!
All of the videos available of the tower strikes being doctered however well, seems like a very big ask.

<snips>


Yes! That's is exactly their point! It would seem that it's a "big ask" to most people around the nation and around the world! But the facts tell a much different story. In truth, anyone who has surveyed early morning downtown NYC, would know that most people simply would not be paying attention, if the Statue of Liberty were to start walking up Broadway at 9 to 10 am.

Firstly, because of the tall buildings and the narrow streets, and the sidewalks up close to the buildings, where most people would be walking, there are very few sight lines to view the towers from, up close. In the areas where there were local views of the towers, there were very few people by city standards at that time of day. At 9 am, in the Wall street area, you can actually walk without being "crushed" by the crowds that develop at lunch hour.

What you have mostly at that time is, a trickle of people coming out of PATH and the subways, and dispersing through the streets. These people's biggest concern is scurrying into work. Loud noises? New Yorkers are used to loud noises, there's always plenty of construction and other odd events going on around. I've heard and watched as trucks backfired on Church street and nary a soul on the pavement even bothered to stop or turn a head to see what the matter was.

If someone was to walk nude through the streets, around the wall street area, they'd get away with it until a police or other official got involved, the people would just shake their heads and keep walking, same goes for people who collapse on the street, most people just step around them, not wanting to get involved/sidetracked from their daily personal ordeals.

So, with the towers, people as close as a block away, would be oblivious to what was happening. Even after the first hit, there weren't that many "looky-loos" standing around gawking at the towers. Most New Yorkers just don't have that kind of time on their hands, so they just keep walking to work, after giving the towers a few glances. They expect they'll pick up the rest of it on the news. One reason there is no point in hanging around is, in New York, when the first responders arrive, the area, in question, is usually quickly cordoned off. Most of the people using the PATH (port authority trans-Hudson, which carries people from New Jersey into New York for about 2 dollars), are professionals with very important jobs, like stock traders, lawyers, consultants and others with jobs that thousands, if not millions of people depend on. These are ultra high stress jobs, involving extremely high stakes. A "mere" plane crash pales by comparison to tasks many of these people are performing and the consequences of making mistakes or failing to execute in timely fashions.
So there's a lot of pressure on the people in this area, hardly a wonder they pay so little attention to things they see on the streets.

There was a gun fight that broke out between a bank robber and a cop over on Cedar st. and people didn't even duck for cover, they just kept moving along. An executive secretary was hit in the leg by a stray shot, her concern? That she wouldn't be in to work that day! Of course, Wall Street breathed fire and brimstone down on City Hall, so police in the area are advised not to shoot, let the criminal get away to an area better suited such efforts (and we know what areas those might be). Can't have Mr. CEO getting hit by a stray shot, in an attempt to recover the paltry sums bank robbers handle. Btw, the robber had 2,500, I'm sure the Executive secretary made more than that per week, heck, I was making more than that, often in a day as an expediter.

Point is, most working people would not have cameras handy, and even if they did, in that area, few if any would have time on their hands to dally. Many people coming out of the WTC at the south east entrance onto Liberty street, as well as out the south side entrance on Greenwich, probably would not even know that the north tower had even been hit. They're only two city blocks away, yet, once they crossed the street and continued east on Liberty, a few feet, their view of the north tower is blocked out.

The media, however, should have had their choppers in the air with their high resolution, broadcast quality cameras, in the hands of professional operators. There's usually at least one media traffic chopper up during rush hour. But all we have to gawk at is a police chopper video, which avoids taping the most interesting effects?!? Go figure, eh?

Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 24 2011, 02:10 PM
Post #54





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



What you say is true Obwon, about the noise and distractions in Manhattan in the morning.

But how would they (the planners) know which parts to place here and there? Would they know that landing gear and engine parts would be the only parts to survive the impact?

Further, would they have planned to have those pieces in the video record landing at the exact location they did?

My apologies for not being able to link to it, but I have seen work, accurate drawings, here at PFT showing the trajectory the pieces took according to video record, and the pieces end up right were they should be.

I think the debris found down range was consistent with what we saw.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: 31st October 2014 - 05:48 AM