VNE is an FAA imposed limitation, not an airframe or engine limitation; it is NOT a part of a plane's performance envelope, which, as far as I know, Boeing has never released for the 767 series
If you can get hold of Boeing's actual wind-tunnel test data that would shed some light on this issue, until then, the speed calculated from the videos are good enough for me, because they appear to be genuine, to my experienced cameraman's eye.
@alawson911 there is still the matter of check captains and other pilots who fly the 767 series who publicly claim it cant be done
That is the problem I have. No one is challenging them that I know of and how can anyone fly any plane cross country, or locally when turning and banking required and they have not been taught? These offenders allegedly were not taught to land after a circuit as students, never mind pilotage or navigation. A mystery
Anthony. What about the employed pilots of 767s that say they could not perform these manouvres and the people whom allegedly did this did not qualify to land, never mind navigate cross country?
To be fair, hitting a building is not exactly landing, in the accepted sense of the word. But it is true that many pilots have claimed that amateur pilots probably could not have hit the buildings the even experienced pilots think would have been almost impossible for them. Which leaves computer assisted remote, real-time visual control, such as is used in the Predator system, to iron out sudden wind changes.
id love to see the 50 angles of planes hitting towers as the disinformants claim... ive seen probably 9 videos and they all have problems. this film falsely relates air speeds for engines on different aircraft. rubbish
They are all over the Internet; try Killtown's page. If you cannot be bothered to look for yourself, why should anyone take notice of your foolish assertions?
If you really want some accurate information, which I seriously doubt, you do, Google: UA175 - the last 12 seconds by achimspok
Learning is the best cure for ignorance, and your comment is evidence that you are ignorant on this issue, at least.
My question is simple?? Could it be a missile flying at that speed and the TV camera brushed it off as a plane because one video proved that there were no planes.I mean take a look at Pentagon and Shanksville there were no planes there????
all the lies are falling apart and my opinion is there were never planes just missile!!!
What happened at the Pentagon and Shanksville has no bearing on what happened in New York.
About 50 videos captured the aircraft that hit the South Tower, which looks very like a Boeing 767 passenger plane. If there are videos that do not show this, the cameras were either pointing in the wrong direction; were a long way away, or the videos lost quality when being broadcast and later copied.
@alawson911 What are trying to point that 19 hijackers were in these so called planes.Because I saw missiles in one video which gives me the missing links and there were no hijackers muslims or any muslims involvment at all.In fact there are no planes in New York!!It is image fakery!!You may not believe me but mass murdering muslims in Iraq and afghanistan is serious enough to drag the real terrorists Yank to public hanging!Simple look at the all false flags!
17,000 ft might "include the altitude of 700 ft", but it ignores the fact that the air is much thicker at 700 ft. Jet engines are designed to intake a lot of THIN air because they fly at 28,000 feet.
At the end of this video, a lawson suggests that the "plane" had a depleted uranium tip on it? I don't understand what the suggestion is here: is that fl 175 or not? If it is not, then the camera shot is not what it purports to be. Is a lawson suggesting that it is a missile?
You are a fool. The fact you keep ignoring is that the South Tower plane has never been forensically identified.
The depleted uranium suggestion was made because it is not fanciful to suggest that the perpetrators would not have known exactly what would happen if an unreinforced plane was used. It has nothing to do with speed capabilities; you are just moving the goalposts. The videos of the impact are real, the issue is what kind of plane was it.
@alawson911 ad hominem is the desperate act of one who runs out of logic. I never said that the south tower plane had ever been forensically identified. I sincerely doubt it was fl 175.
If you are willing to admit it was not fl 175, why are you so married to the idea of a "plane"? Instead of calling people names, perhaps you should be more open minded
Do me a favor and show me the plane in this video: watch?v=qFyYNDzm8wo
It hits near the end at 9:30, but it's not in the long shot
Calling someone a fool is not an ad hominem, if they are acting like one. The photographs and videos prove a plane was there; not a missile.That is a fact, not something to admit to. The plane IS in the long shot you refer to, as I have demonstrated in September Clues -- Busted! at 8:10.
You choose what you want to see and ignore what you don't want to see, it seems. Have you actually watched that video, or do you only comment on it?
@alawson911 ad hom is an attempt to negate a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person supporting it
I watched your video, but I was trying to verify it on another video. I posted the link to the entire WNYW 10 minute clip of the second hit watch?v=qFyYNDzm8wo I asked you to show me where it was in that clip. I'm trying to be objective because that is what the scientific method is supposed to be. (Not name-calling) It is not at 8:10 in the video I posted.
Calling someone a liar is not a personal attack, when someone tells a lie, which you did by omission; leaving out a crucial element of what Deets said. And I still think you are a fool for not looking at the body of evidence.
Scientific? There are enough videos showing that there was a plane heading for the WTC to demonstrate that not finding that plane in ONE particular clip is meaningless, and I am not obliged to satisfy your foolish request to try.
@alawson911 You haven't proven that I am either a liar or a fool. I did not purposefully leave out anything. You won't even apologize after your bad behavior has been brought to light.
I don't know why the clip watch?v=qFyYNDzm8wo is meaningless. That is the entire WNYW coverage. I am perfectly willing to believe that the plane is visible if you can point it out to me.
Shouldn't planes obey the physical laws? ie break apart rather than melt into buildings?
The faster speed mentioned by Deets is crucial, you lied by omitting it.
Can't you understand that not seeing the plane in the clip you sent has no bearing on whether a plane crashed into the WTC? It could be missing from that copy for a number of reasons, one of which may be that Fox is playing mind games. It was in the copy of the clip I used, so it was in the live broadcast.
The plane did not melt, it pierced the wall. Check out kinetic energy.
Liars don't change; they rarely admit their lies or they move the goalposts.
Deets gave 4 alternatives:
(1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope... But In your comment on September Clues -- Busted! you chose to quote him ONLY on the speed issue for a STANDARD 767.
No steel was cut, Google: WTC PLANES THRU STEEL CONSTRUCTION
@alawson911 You are now just stubbornly repeating yourself about how I'm supposed to magically fit extra characters into one box; None of Deets' points contradict what I said. I've said that several times. You even tried to contradict my use of the term "flight envelope".
Where did you get your clip? I showed the source for the one I provided.
You call people names when your safe at home. You wouldn't talk to me like that if I was in the same room as you.
@alawson911 Well at least you have stopped calling me names.
I'm sorry that you couldn't find the plane in the video I sent. I was trying to verify your claim about the plane being visible in the long shot.
Deets' comments can be taken to mean that the measured speed proves that the video contradicts the official story: it was not a standard 767 because it was going well beyond what that plane was capable. The video was of a 767 so this would tend to support video fakery.
I don't much care whether or not you take any notice of my responses to your comments; I am now making them only in case some genuine truth seekers read some of your nonsense.
You are one of those types who refuses to look at the body of evidence, choosing to select small details like: Was the plane in the Fox 5 wide shot? which is not a big issue, because the plane is in about 50 other videos; the crash clearly captured in at least 5 of them.
KCAS is the key there genius. Calibrated. the air speed indicator is calibrated to high altitude. The actual speed at or near sea level is roughly half of that number due to the difference in air density. Shame shame. It looks like the investigator investigating the investigator didnt do any investigating either.
Calibrated airspeed is indicated airspeed corrected for instrument errors, position error (due to incorrect pressure at the static port) and installation errors.
Boeing's and the FAA's agreed test parameter for the 767, Vertical Descent, VD is 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft. So your comment is irrelevant regarding corrections to be made for air density. The 767 can be tested close to sea level at 420 knots CAS. K420 + 21% = the impact speed, and it was almost certainly not a standard 767.
Please consider the following statement from Dwain Deets, former NASA Flight Director:
(1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target.
The plane has never been forensically identified, so I'll leave you to work out whether your inference that the speed was impossible should carry any weight.
I repeat: Only Boeing knows the speed capability of their planes near sea level, and they do not release such figures. KCAS and other test and safety parameters are set between aircraft manufacturers and the FAA, they are quite different from a plane's ultimate performance capabilities.
This has nothing to do with being a genius, although you used the word derisively, it has to do with understanding what issues are relevant, which is what you do not seem to comprehend.
This video is pretty much split on the votes. All you so called truthers who speak out of convenience why don't you wrap yourself in the American flag and bury your head in the sand! I'm sorry but you wouldn't know truth if it slapped you in the mouth.. And it is!
@MediaLiesTV sorry but you just described those who believe in the official story! it was an inside job, if your stupid you won't believe it or even look at official stories and compare it to what was really said or video proof,
such as wtc7 (which was not even put in the story) fell at free fall yet no plane! (besides the only thing that can make any building fall upon itself are implosions!
This video is prop. If people want proof of TV fakery on 9/11 check out September Clues. It cannot be debunked because the evidence of media involvement is overwhelming.
There is not one instance of proof of video or TV fakery in "September Clues". If you think that there is, name it, and explain why. The media, by its very nature, was involved in reporting the events of 9/11; who or what else should have reported these events, the New York Sunday School Society? The mainstream media certainly covered up much that was subsequently found to be suspicious, but they were not complicit in any TV fakery, because there was no TV fakery
The no-planes-in-New York crowd are very jealous of their theory. It is unsupportable, using physics and the videos, but not in their minds. It is a kind of religion.
RasgaSaias: If you cannot understand that accusing people of being complicit in mass murder is demonizing them, then you clearly have fascist leanings. These people could not defend themselves and had no reason to hang up, because Hill had not stated what his telephone call was really about. Publicly accusing people of murder, without a shred of evidence, is a unconscionable thing to do, and condoning it means that your moral values are no better than if you were a member of a lynch mob.
I wrote "leanings", not that you WERE a fascist. You cannot even follow what people write, or is it that you do not want to? Maybe you have Nazi leanings, who knows. The point is that you do not seem to regard due process or honesty as being important, and that is a feature of all kinds of extremism. Now you are writing about "other people's concepts". Another twist. Hill's concepts have never been the issue, and you know it. It is his method of demonizing people that started this discussion.
RasgaSaias: Interviewing people you are about to accuse of being complicit in mass murderer, without pointing this out to them in advance, is wrong, by any standards but yours, it would seem. It is what is going on in Guantanamo Bay and secret prisons around the world. If you are okay with that, then you are okay with anything! And you are the person who has accused me of using an ad hominem against him. Where do you work? The Bureau of Double Standards, perhaps?
Why are you talking about issues that have nothing to do with this? Did anyone force people to answer anything? Was there any kind of torture?
If the people interviewed are not guilty then they have nothing to hide. They just have to tell the truth. If their "truth" is inconsistent, then we can try to figure out why.
I have no idea why are you talking about Guantanamo Bay. It has nothing to do with this. It looks like you're trying to demonize me too. And that's not a nice thing to do.
Jeff Hill's approach is what goes on in secret prisons, where the victim is never told what the charge is. So, you can twist, wriggle and squirm as much as you like, with your defence of Hill and your retaliatory attack on me. What Hill did was reprehensible and unjustifiable, and he deserved to be demonized for it, because that, in fact, is what he was doing to John Del Giorno, Carmen Taylor and Park Foreman. If you can't see that, then your moral values are questionable, to say the least.
Jeff's approach is what goes on in secret prisons!?
If that's true (I've never been in one so I can't tell if it is) Jeff's approach has a huge difference. People can hang off the phone when they wish to. And the "nightmare" ends instantaneously.
I don't understand why you insist to compare two completely different realities. But I guess that's the whole point used to demonize someone.
Wasn't that the same thing the US gov did to the middle east people? (evil terror terror death terror...)
You're demonizing the people you talk about in your video. It's not like you're just saying they're wrong. Which would be fair. No. It's more like you're just making you point based on demonizing them. And that's not a nice thing to do :]
People who accuse others of being complicit in a capital crime, without giving them a chance to defend themselves, deserve to be demonized. Hill's technique is not to ask the direct questions he is skirting around: "Did you video a real plane?" Did you really take that picture?" Instead, he is accusing them, by innuendo, of lying, because his hypothesis is that a real planes did not hit the Towers, but he doesn't tell them that, up front. The accused must be told the charge. They were not.
I guess his style of interviewing is intended to be like that cause when you're interviewing someone you suspect to be a criminal you can't start to call that person a criminal and wait for questions to be answered.
The fact of not telling them he does not believe a real planes hit WTC doesn't change the answer they would give him if he actually believed on such thing.
If people have nothing to hide then there's no problem to ask question. The truth doesn't need to be protected. Only lies do.
Oh just 12% . Is that all? Try driving your car as fast as it will go and then go 12% faster. Now try that with a plane that you don't even know how to fly in a country that you don't even live in or read the language. Now try hitting your target dead on at 700ft. TWICE in one day. Top that off by having NORAD stand down 5 times in one day and for the finish; collapse 3 buildings at free fall speed and a third at free fall speed without even hitting the third building. WOW that's some day.
You appear to be one of those who thinks that believing planes hit the Twin Towers automatically means a belief in the official story. Look at the "About This Video" section and note that the man flying the F4 Phantom, in the video, Field McConnell, endorses my research, as does a (then) serving USAF maintenance officer. The planes were almost certainly NOT off-the shelf Boeing 767-200s, flown by amateur pilots, but specially-prepared, remotely-controlled, 767 lookalikes.
oh he has an english accent so he must be right. Nevermind that every pilot ever interviewed says it's impossible and can't even be replicated in a simulation.
How I sound has nothing to do with what I say. But you write nonsense, that's for sure. "Every pilot ever interviewed..." what absolute rubbish. I've just cited one pilot, who does not say it's impossible for the plane to fly as fast as the speed shown in the videos. What you should have written was that MOST pilots do not accept the OFFICIAL STORY that poorly-trained amateurs flew those planes. Your problem is that you can't think outside of the official fairytale box.
how does a airliner pull 4 g's flying a 180 at 10,000 ft a minute decent and pull off a horizontal impact.? it doent the plane would collapse and only a nasa pilot could handle the flight. let alone find a building without airtraffic control. watch 9-11 explained in about a minute
Some kind of 767 lookalike did this, otherwise thousands of eyewitnesses would not have seen it, and it would not have been captured on about 40 videos. Explain that!
Yes, I have been in direct touch with "Captain Sherlock" Field McConnell. If you look at "About This Video" you will see that I refer to his expertise. I e-mailed this formally-phrased question to him: Could a Boeing 767-200 have dived from, say 30,000 feet, then levelled off to hit the South Tower moving at 586 mph (509 K)? His answer was: "Yes."
In fact Field believes that radio-controlled military lookalikes were used, which does not change the fact that a 767 could have done it.
NINEELEVENNEWS: Your post has been removed, because of your obscene language, not your foolish opinions, which you are fully entitled to express. If you want to, re-post them, without swearing.
planes or no planes. to be or not to be. busted or not! Lets put that aside. What is your explanation for the collapse of the 3 buildings!
Be as technical as you may wish! (seismic data, thermal imaging, gravity, resistance, structural integrity etc...). To many theories about twin towers are out there. What about the forth plane. I really cant see one. Just find it weird!And why do you think they dont show the pentagon videos and put all this to rest. Must have been caught on dozens of cameras.
odetoinsolence: Simon Shack is not blocked on my videos. You have obviously looked at quite a few of my responses. Do they look as though I am trying to avoid answering reasonable queries or requests for explanations? There have been 304 posts on this one; about 221 of those are mine, into which I've put a lot of thought and effort, but if some people cannot move beyond what has already been implanted in their minds, that is their problem, not mine. There are other forums.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of jackasses about, take a look at the way they fawn all over the presidential hopefulls. Besides, it doesn't take long to expose barefaced misinformation. It needs to be done.
The prevalence of this confusion explains all this effort is spent defending against red-herring arguments that NO ONE takes seriously.
No planes?!
If the administration knew details of the proposed attack (which it is very well documented that they did) and didn't act to stop them... well, that's treason, pure and simple, and it DOESN'T MATTER who, if anyone, was FLYING the planes. The treason committed by whoever FLEW them is another matter.
No, but our service provider is on the case. I have almost certainly got copies of the videos, in my files, so if you could take some key screen shots, or stills, from each video, and attach them as JPEGs to an e-mail, I will find the relevant clips and comment on them. However, I doubt that I will find anything startling or suspicious, because I have already studied every available video of the approach and impact, very carefully. Perhaps you could tell me what I should be looking for.
But let me spell it out: I can reach the appropriate page, and, obviously, post comments, but the little dots in the middle of the video frame keep running around in circles, and the video doesn't run; play; or show up, either sound or picture. I can't believe that this has never happened to you on a web page. If you are interested in my comments, do as I ask, or wait until I CAN view videos again on YouTube. Your choice.
merged, I've had enough of you. I try to explain what you are unable to understand. You are free to believe what you want. Now, I am removing your latest post, because I do not like your language, and blocking any future ones. You can make your own videos, if you chose to, to make any further points. Over and OUT!
There is an apparent difference. In the first shot, the plane is traversing the screen, from right to left, on a fairly wide angle lens with the camera tilted up, slightly. In the second shot, it is approaching the camera, diagonally, at approx. 60 degrees, on a long lens, with the camera fairly level. The same thing occurs with action replays, during football broadcasts: different camera positions and lens settings produce different-looking shots, from exactly the same on-field action.
PYTHAGORAS101, I wrote, edited and narrated the video. No one else was involved, except the people I've credited for their support and prior research.
Ha! Such a silly parody I laughed my ass off. I still don't see no grapes yet (annoyed). You do that an' I'll give you 1*. Better yet, show us a beer can with wings pass through a shopping cart with nose intact. That would be great, lets see it.
A beer can, it should be at least half-full, travelling at 840 ft per second would probably do some substantial damage to a shopping cart. Have you tried it?
But you're talking nonsense about the nose being intact, that was almost certainly an extrusion of drywall dust being pushed out by the air in the plane, and the explosion.
Idiot alert! Why would a shill make "WTC7 - This is an Orange" ? Either you are a shill, yourself, or you didn't get enough practice with join-up-the-dots books, when you were young. And to pick such a lofty pseudonym. What a phony!
The list goes on and on for those who forget the eyewitnesses, and the fact that upwards of 35 non-TV station videos showed a plane hitting the building. If you ignore those factors, then you have a reality problem. The plane didn't come from different angles, the cameras were in different places. The apparent different shapes, etc, were caused by incorrect original exposures or poor NTSC, PAL transfers. The list only goes on and on for someone who is ignorant about photography and lenses.
"The plane didn't come from different angles, the cameras were in different places."
watch?v=rh7cKDXnS_s
This video not only show the plane come in from two different angels but also has the infamous invisible plane all . I would love to see you dance around this one.
As far as the eyewitnesses go you can find just as many people saying tehy didn't see a plane and the majority of people interviewed first either worked for the media or had connections to the media.
Sorry alawson911 but there is way too much edvendince that there was no planes. The fact that NBC live footage showed no plane, other stations had the plane coming in from completely different angels, the perspectives on buildings were impossible, the plane had a different shape and wingspan in different footage. The list goes on and on.
So NBC missed the shot. That proves what? Maybe it proves that they didn't know a plane was about to hit the South Tower. My e-mail address is at the end of the video. You send me the video clips you allege show the plane coming from completely different angles (not angels) and the impossible perspectives, and I'll explain it all to you. You've got a week, otherwise I'll delete your posts as being irrelevant.
There is no evidence to support the official story that the planes which hit the Towers were the planes which were allegedly hijacked. ID transponders were switched off, and radar tracks crossed. The passenger lists, therefore, are irrelevant to any investigation regarding what kind of planes hit the towers, and their take-off points.
Many videos of the 2nd plane have a bright sky background, and show a normal range of colour and auto-exposure variations. If you doubt me, take a medium-priced video camera to an airport, make sure the sky background is bright, and you'll find out for yourself. The plane only appears to be coming from different directions--to someone like you, who appears to know nothing about photography--because the cameras were in different places. There are no directional or altitude discrepancies.
merged, Now I get it. You think because I believe that planes hit the Twin Towers, I do NOT believe it was an inside job, so you direct me to a BBC item about an alleged 9/11 hijacker being alive.
Your thinking: hijacker alive, therefore no hijackings. Conclusion: no-planes.
What about this. No hijackings, instead: Radio-controlled planes. Explains the professional-pilot-style manoeuvres; explains the eyewitnesses, the videos, the plane wreckage, the engine in Murray St., etc. Some IQ!
I didn't ask the question, merged asked it, I only responded. But merged isn't terribly bright; in fact I'm surprised that he knows what IQ stands for.
If you are so sure you are right, why do you block me from commenting on your absurd "SC Part 9"? Is it because you don't want me to expose your utter ignorance regarding the basics of motion parallax and variable focal-length lens photography?
I'm no "OCT," "Truther," nor am I a, "no-planer." I do believe 911 was brought about by a rogue American government. I am trying to discover as much of what is real in regards to the occurrences on 911, and disseminate it to all the people I know.
I think it is reprehensible behavior from the people on all sides posting these videos to be blocking the volume of people that you are. I'm trying to learn here, and you've deleted some peoples' comments I would like to have read.
Right now I believe there were planes; but for a long time now the video of that plane flying straight through the face of the building like that has rankled. There is news coverage of witnesses who say that there was no plane - the FOX footage of the dust-covered guy with the heavy accent saying, "no second plane, it was BOMB! Who say second plane?!" A cannot see my way to calling people who believe there may not have been planes - or maybe there were not FOUR planes - "stupid."
I hope you guys realize that so many people are coming out with so many different user names, BECAUSE YOU KEEP BLOCKING THEM. I just want everybody to realize that. This stuff is ridiculous. I have this ONE screen name I use, and I can go post on a video for the first time, get into a conversation with someone I've never spoken to, and then they're accusing me of being Jackmove26, Woozles, YorkshireTERRIER and a hundred other different names. This, is ANNOYING.
I had good reasons for my actions. I don't like people swearing, or calling me names, that's not debating, that's bar-room brawling. The week was given to someone who accused me of being a paid agent. Why shouldn't I ask that he or she make good on the accusation? There are limits to arguing with people who go over the same thing, endlessly. Pests exist; you've got to look at the context. Why shouldn't one ask for proof of statements and get rid of the person if the proof is not produced?
Well man, my point is that if you're going to be doing stuff like that, then it is more than a little hypocritical of you to complain when someone else has done the same to you. You do always have the choice of just ignoring irksome people though. There's usually someone willing to debate/argue with them, and it draws more traffic and attention to your videos. And as a plus, if they are REALLY ignorant and petty, then it cripples the credibility of their agenda.
mr. lawson.... can you tell us why the FBI and FAA refuse to give information (ID "parts" ) of the "airplanes" involved in the "attacks" on 9/11/2001?
Mr.Lawson : it seems your relentless attack on the Tv Fakery/No Plane research has failed. A quick look at your Youtube videos reveals a dismal level of popular consensus :
"September Clues - Busted!" : 2 STARS
"Impossible Speed & Impact Busted!" : 2 STARS
"The Great Nose In-Nose Out Hoax" : 2 STARS
"Fade to Black Lie-Busted!" : 2 STARS
Will you now concoct a video to 'debunk' the relevance of popular consensus ?
those whom were inteviewed by the MSM, some say that they saw AN EXPLOSION then, they saw an airplane, besides some telling that it was a small airplane others a BIG airplane.
PEOPLE WHO PUT ATTENTION AND ANALIZE THE VIDEOS SHOWN BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WILL REALIZE THAT THOSE VIDEOS ARE FAKE, AND YOU WILL NOT CHANGE THAT FACT.
People who are not able to express themselves very well, often resort to insults, as you have just done. Mostly, I DO show what the mainstream media showed, with some explanations as to why the speed and the manner of the plane's impact were possible.
Now you explain why thousands of eyewitnesses saw a plane hit the South Tower, and how it was captured on so many videos if it had not been physically there, at that moment in time: New York, 9:02 am, September 11, 2001.
its rocket science for most americans to think that CIA and MOSSAD(israeli) did 911. they canT show u ONE single picture/movie on an airplane strike on pentagon, no proof that an airplane hit pentagon. They cant explane but still believes that wtc 7 collapse in a few secounds. they cant show you ONE single picture of pieces of an airplane in FLIGHT 93. all they know is that 2 planes hit twintowers, if the media(hollywood) showed them that ALIEN SPACESHIFT hit those they surley would believe it
Now tell me that the thousands of people who saw a plane hit the South Tower were lying, or media stooges. That is what you imply when you claim that the videos are fake.
Machfron, Do not call people like Eric Salter "a crook." He has more integrity in his little finger than you appear to have in your whole body. His detailed analyses of the ridiculous claims made by those who, without any firm evidence, insist that no planes hit the Twin Towers, are unbiased and closely match my own findings. He was an editor and graphics designer for 12 years and I have worked with moving film and video images for well over 40 years, as a cameraman/director and editor.
I've told you how to find Eric Salter's work on this. LOOK IT UP YOURSELF, then go and ask some of the thousands of people who saw the plane hit the South Tower if they noticed it slow down a little bit.
You are an unmitigated pest. I am going to block you from wasting any more space, here. If you want to keep airing your lack of common sense, e-mail me or send me a YouTube message.
Eric Salter is a crook.Rick Ratjer shows there was no decelleration,and he is an engineer.Hezarkhani refuses to say where he took the video from.Carmen Taylor doesn't say she saw him.And a building,19 Rector Street is missing.
You show yourself up as a fool, with more unsupported claims. 19 Rector Street is the reddish building, with an arch on top, directly to the left of the Towers in the wide-angled lens section of the Herzakhani video. Even the most rabid no-planers, such as Ace Backer, have admitted that this claim was ridiculous, shortly after it was propagated. And Carmen Taylor's still shot matches a frame from the Herzakhani video. They must have been close, otherwise the frames would not match. cont/
(cont.) You believe only what want to believe, but do no research to prove that it is accurate. You have made so many claims to superior theoretical knowledge, but when faced with a clear opportunity to check something which is, to say the least, improbable: a huge building being missed out of an alleged fake video, you can't even take the trouble to do that; not even with the vast resources of the Internet at your fingertips. But please keep making yourself look stupid, it only helps my case.
What NIST claims is not proof that the Herzarkhani video was faked. It was taken from a ferry, moored at a jetty in Battery Park, it matches the position of Carmen Taylor's location to within a few yards. You've not proved anything about the videos. 40 still to go.
Aircraft manufacturers do not build huge margins into their aircraft.They wouldn't fly if they did.The B777 was tested and the wings failed at 1.5 times the design load.
There were no planes.The lack of decelleration and damage to the aircraft are proof the videos are fake since they are violations of the second and third laws of motion respectively.The formula for thin shell buckling is additional proof.The aerodynamics is further proof.
The videos and eyewitnesses are proof that there WERE planes; you are working backwards. The videos show that you are misinterpreting the data. And there was deceleration. I've already told you to Google "eric salter" "deceleration", but you just don't want to learn, do you. And you can see parts of the plane falling out of the side of the building; one of its engines ended up in Murray Street. No damage!
This is your last chance. Prove that the videos are all fake, or be blocked.
What knowledge do you possess which says that the aircraft in question was the one which Russ Wittenberg flew? No one even knows how the aircraft was controlled. It was, however, seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses, and can still be seen in upwards of 40 videos crashing into the South Tower. You can theorise until Hell freezes over, but you've also got to explain away all of the videos, all of the photographs and all of the eyewitnesses. Get to it, or get blocked for being boring.
The Buccaneer's engines were tuned for high speeds at low altitudes.This aircraft had a number of unique design features for low flying high speed flight.
The formula for thin shell buckling proves the fuselage would have crumpled on impact,at 127 tons.The formula requires the Young's Modulus and not the tensile strength.The modulus for alclad is 69000 mPa as against 190000 mPa for steel.
UA 175 and UA 93 respectively according to legend.He said it would be impossible for the "hijackers" to have flown the aircraft the way we are told they did.
Samuel Johnson said: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." He might have added that verbosity is the last refuge of one who knows he is on shaky ground. You have not advanced your argument one bit; merely added a few irrelevancies. Although there is no way that your theory can be verified, your threatening tone indicates that you would be prepared to "put the noose around" others, in defence of it.
Your comments will be deleted, unless you can back up your claims.
Naudet Video NTSC copy: When the plane is first seen it has passed the red brick building on the right of frame. (F133) From this point until its shadow is fully on the Tower, virtually the moment of impact (F175), is 42 frames or 1.4 seconds. In stating it is 2 seconds, you have overestimated the period by about 40%. Whatever it is you are trying to prove, if your other calculations are similarly erroneous, I doubt that your case would stand up in a court of law.
nothing about 911 will ever honestly be handled by any court anywhere. The only clean way to handle your concerns would be to use weather baloons for reference, otherwise there will always be someone playing with minor recalculations to try to confuse the crowd. A plane flying over manhattan and nobody talking about it?? The observation deck at the empire state building opens at 8 am. Have any of the people from that date spoken about seeing this strange idea of a plane flying over midtown???
don't want to get caught up in jfk type minutea, distracts from the issues. Lost in the noise is the actions of the boermag on 911 in south africa. Was Moussaoui the richard nagell of these events, getting caught on purpose only to find that no one bothers to look at his evidence. Although I am comfortable with my calculations, I'll accept the need to tighten up what I know to be true to insure that it can't be so easily discounted. Now is the time to put the noose around the pinkman brigade.
No question that some of the parties who step forward and make arguments that bend the physics are of limited value, but there are some real problems with both the naudet film and the image of the item that pokes out of wtc2 after impact. In naudet WTC is farther out than others photos from the same spot,also angle of approach is off in naudet it angles up about 100 ft before it clears building at right. 767 is in image too long from that angle. In wtc2 image, wings not bending on approach, why?
The Naudet video shows the plane which hit the North Tower; it is the only known video of that incident. You will find that many of the South Tower videos have been slowed down, while copying, which will give a false impression of how long the plane should be in any given frame. Many of the angles are deceptive, too, which is not to say that they are incorrect. You cannot analyse these videos in five minutes, it takes a lot of time and effort; testing for speed discrepancies, etc.
you have spent plenty of time analyzing data, but naudet is not the only video of what happened with wtc1, the today show has a camera on top of rock center which always pointed beyond the empire state bldg to the wtc. they used it when they did the weather forcast. and has anyone taken a moment to do a sight line from where naudet was standing and where the plane would have come into view, seems there is a problem. 2 much space between bldgs and wtc1. It is fairly clear with LiveEarth
"...has anyone taken a moment to do a sight line from where naudet was standing and where the plane would have come into view...? You seem to have done, so why don't you publish your findings so that everyone can take a look at them. You are welcome to post them here. Using phrases like "there seems to be a problem" with no hard evidence to back it is not very helpful. Maybe you've found the real smoking gun which has eluded so many no-planers.
don't live in new york anymore so I will work off of what we have been presented. The Staehle photo purports the plane at about 1200-1400' and about 1100' north of impact, placing the plane 800'south of j/n or 1100'sw of j/n. j/n is on the ne corner of church and Lispenard and needs to clear ATT bldg. camera clears at 10th floor. The clearing should bring us to between murray and barclay street. at best 750' from impact. How do we get two seconds of film from a plane moving at 650'/second ??
You are getting even more boring. Read the contemporary newspaper reports, and watch some of the TV interviews. People on the streets and in the surrounding buildings saw the plane. I can't "produce" these people, any more than you can. But I'm going to delete all of your future posts until you answer MY question about Gary Wetz.
machron, I am not afraid of people who make broad statements, but who are unable to back them up with hard facts; they are simply time and space wasters. I have written that unless you make good on your claims, I will delete your posts. Now you have brought up Gary Wetz who allegedly said that he had seen the plane, but who in fact hadn't. Answer this: Does one recanted statement invalidate all of the other statements by people who said they saw the plane? Keep it simple: Yes or No? (cont.)
On top of that, you call John Del Giorno an "evasive creep". Listen to his lying interrogator telling him that he is with a "Canadian independent." Neither Jeffrey Hill nor you has proof that Del Giorno did not video the South Tower plane, but you call him "evasive," when he almost certainly knew that Hill had just lied to him. Hill has tacitly accused him and others of being conspirators, with no proof whatsoever. You can join Hill's lynch mob, if you want to, but not on this comments page.
People like you and Jeffrey Hill, Webfairy, Simon Shack, bsregistration and others are turning the maxim: "Innocent until proven guilty", on its head. If you had your collective way, it would be "Guilty until proven innocent", and that is how lynch mobs start. I'm being accused of all sorts of disgusting things, purely on the basis of my age and where I live. This reveals the miserable state of the gutter-like minds of the people who make up these accusations. They say nothing about me.
You show a 767 at a British air show.How fast was it going and who is the certifying authority ?Choking in fluid mechanics terms has a definite meaning.A converging nozzle will choke at a particular pressure ratio.I will elaborate on this as we proceed,if you permit me to.
You can theorise all you like about anything you like. What you have to prove is that every 9/11 video was faked. The engines on THAT plane, quite obviously, did not choke at 575 mph, or so. An ex-F4 Phantom pilot, with years of experience flying big commercial jets, and a USAF maintenance officer confirm this, and that the plane could do what can be seen in the videos. Read "About This Video." Are you calling these people liars, on the basis of your theoretical calculations?
Anthony,you are afraid of me and my scientific and engineering know how.You are determined to delete my posts even though I haven't been abusive in the least.
machron, Your arguments are quite absurd. I did not meet Adolph Hitler, or know anyone who did, but I have no doubt that he existed. If you reject all of the eyewitness accounts simply because you've never met an eyewitness, what are you doing bringing up Newton's laws? If you cannot prove that all of the major videos were faked, then I'm going to delete your future posts. No one has the right to take up the amount of space that you do, making statements which they refuse to back up with facts.
migca, There is no need to apologise, I cannot answer your questions, because I do not have the data required, and to try to find it would require too much time. My past experience with moving pictures has convinced me that the majority of the videos are not fakes, and I believe the majority of the eyewitnesses. Notwithstanding someone else's interpretation of Newton's laws, I'll go with the video evidence until it is proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the major ones were ALL faked.
I have never met an eyewitness to UA 175's impossible speed and impossible penetration of the tower.Neither has anyone I know.On the other hand I have read numerous first hand accounts that clearly indicate there was no plane.
The explosives could have been magnetically attached to the outside of the building like certain types of mines.The intelligence agencies and the military alone have 600 billion dollars in official budgets.There isn't much you can't arrange with that kind of budget.
The "aircraft" showed no decelleration.This violates Newton's second law.The very thin fuselage did not buckle.According to the third law the building applied the same force the plane exerted on the building.Given the far more rigid structure of the building,it was no contest.The plane should have shown massive visible damage.
All the videos showing "UA 175" melt into the towers are neccessarily fakes,since they show an impossible event.Impossible since the aircraft defies the laws of motion and the formula for thin shell buckling.
In what way did the aircraft defy the laws of motion? Did you take into account its velocity of about 840 feet per second and weight of over 320,000 pounds? Please explain how that mass with its relevant kinetic energy could suddenly come to a full stop, crumble and fall to the ground.
You either have to prove that possibility, or you have to prove that all the videos were faked and all the eyewitnesses were lying, including the firemen who witnessed a similar event, at the North Tower.
machfron, You must also explain the plane-shaped holes in both buildings, the edges of which showed little evidence of having been caused by internal explosions. How do you rig walls to make those holes from the inside, and conceal the explosives and the work required to set them from the staff in so many offices over so many floors? How were the large amounts of whatever caused the fireballs concealed from the office workers? If the planes were not real, you've got a lot of explaining to do.
machfron, If an aircraft did not hit the South Tower, how did Park Forman, among others, pan a camera over the New York skyline at exactly the correct speed and end up with the Tower framed at the exact moment it exploded? It is hard enough to pan a camera with someone passing behind a ten-foot wall, picking them up centre frame as they emerge, even after four or five rehearsals.
When you can explain all the videos and eyewitnesses, then your comments about the plane will become relevant.
The design dive speed of 420 knots is merely one boundary of the flight envelope.What is more relevant is Vmo in knots (applicable below 24,000 ft or so) is about 360 knots for the B767.
It is not slander to point out the truth. Joseph Keith's claims were outrageous. Turbofan engines do not "max out at 330 mph at 700 ft. altitude." Mr Keith was a software engineer, at Boeing, he was NOT an aeronautical engineer. Follow the links in About This Video and you will see why he was wrong about the engines and the airframe. He engaged me in a debate, by e-mail, the last time I heard from him he wrote: "I'm trying to get a complete report from FAA." That was on January 18, 2008.
Keith and Hill have been stonewalled by Mike Pasion of FAA,who however admitted that 546 mph at 700 (and presumably 1000 ft) was probably impossible and had never been demonstrated.
machfron, I have removed your posts, because of the personal abuse you insist on using in place of valid arguments. If you read the "About This Video" section you will understand why I believe that the plane was a real one. The FAA and the experts I have quoted have not lied, as far as I know, and the plane obviously performed all of the manoeuvres which appear in all of the videos, which, despite many accusations, no one has been able to PROVE to have been faked. If you have proof, roll it out.
alawson I think the real reason you removed my posts is because I have shown I know enough about aerodynamics,turbomachinery,aeroelasticity and flight mechanics to prove you wrong.
the max speed you mean is " VNE " { velocity never exceed } It's part of the A/C performance envelope
alanbstard4 1 week ago
@alanbstard4
VNE is an FAA imposed limitation, not an airframe or engine limitation; it is NOT a part of a plane's performance envelope, which, as far as I know, Boeing has never released for the 767 series
If you can get hold of Boeing's actual wind-tunnel test data that would shed some light on this issue, until then, the speed calculated from the videos are good enough for me, because they appear to be genuine, to my experienced cameraman's eye.
alawson911 1 week ago
@alawson911 there is still the matter of check captains and other pilots who fly the 767 series who publicly claim it cant be done
That is the problem I have. No one is challenging them that I know of and how can anyone fly any plane cross country, or locally when turning and banking required and they have not been taught? These offenders allegedly were not taught to land after a circuit as students, never mind pilotage or navigation. A mystery
alanbstard4 1 week ago
Anthony. What about the employed pilots of 767s that say they could not perform these manouvres and the people whom allegedly did this did not qualify to land, never mind navigate cross country?
alanbstard4 1 week ago
@alanbstard4
To be fair, hitting a building is not exactly landing, in the accepted sense of the word. But it is true that many pilots have claimed that amateur pilots probably could not have hit the buildings the even experienced pilots think would have been almost impossible for them. Which leaves computer assisted remote, real-time visual control, such as is used in the Predator system, to iron out sudden wind changes.
alawson911 1 week ago
id love to see the 50 angles of planes hitting towers as the disinformants claim... ive seen probably 9 videos and they all have problems. this film falsely relates air speeds for engines on different aircraft. rubbish
mfrank165 1 month ago
@mfrank165
They are all over the Internet; try Killtown's page. If you cannot be bothered to look for yourself, why should anyone take notice of your foolish assertions?
If you really want some accurate information, which I seriously doubt, you do, Google: UA175 - the last 12 seconds by achimspok
Learning is the best cure for ignorance, and your comment is evidence that you are ignorant on this issue, at least.
alawson911 1 month ago
My question is simple?? Could it be a missile flying at that speed and the TV camera brushed it off as a plane because one video proved that there were no planes.I mean take a look at Pentagon and Shanksville there were no planes there????
all the lies are falling apart and my opinion is there were never planes just missile!!!
koolkol009 1 month ago
@koolkol009
My answers are simple:
What happened at the Pentagon and Shanksville has no bearing on what happened in New York.
About 50 videos captured the aircraft that hit the South Tower, which looks very like a Boeing 767 passenger plane. If there are videos that do not show this, the cameras were either pointing in the wrong direction; were a long way away, or the videos lost quality when being broadcast and later copied.
Missiles do not look like Boeing 767s.
Clear now?
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 What are trying to point that 19 hijackers were in these so called planes.Because I saw missiles in one video which gives me the missing links and there were no hijackers muslims or any muslims involvment at all.In fact there are no planes in New York!!It is image fakery!!You may not believe me but mass murdering muslims in Iraq and afghanistan is serious enough to drag the real terrorists Yank to public hanging!Simple look at the all false flags!
koolkol009 1 month ago
@koolkol009
You obviously do not understand this video, I do NOT think that the planes were hijacked, by anyone.
There were no missiles in New York, but I agree that those who launched the attack on Iraq should be brought to justice.
alawson911 1 month ago
17,000 ft might "include the altitude of 700 ft", but it ignores the fact that the air is much thicker at 700 ft. Jet engines are designed to intake a lot of THIN air because they fly at 28,000 feet.
At the end of this video, a lawson suggests that the "plane" had a depleted uranium tip on it? I don't understand what the suggestion is here: is that fl 175 or not? If it is not, then the camera shot is not what it purports to be. Is a lawson suggesting that it is a missile?
ChristopherMarlowe 1 month ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
You are a fool. The fact you keep ignoring is that the South Tower plane has never been forensically identified.
The depleted uranium suggestion was made because it is not fanciful to suggest that the perpetrators would not have known exactly what would happen if an unreinforced plane was used. It has nothing to do with speed capabilities; you are just moving the goalposts. The videos of the impact are real, the issue is what kind of plane was it.
alawson911 1 month ago 3
@alawson911 ad hominem is the desperate act of one who runs out of logic. I never said that the south tower plane had ever been forensically identified. I sincerely doubt it was fl 175.
If you are willing to admit it was not fl 175, why are you so married to the idea of a "plane"? Instead of calling people names, perhaps you should be more open minded
Do me a favor and show me the plane in this video: watch?v=qFyYNDzm8wo
It hits near the end at 9:30, but it's not in the long shot
ChristopherMarlowe 1 month ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
Calling someone a fool is not an ad hominem, if they are acting like one. The photographs and videos prove a plane was there; not a missile.That is a fact, not something to admit to. The plane IS in the long shot you refer to, as I have demonstrated in September Clues -- Busted! at 8:10.
You choose what you want to see and ignore what you don't want to see, it seems. Have you actually watched that video, or do you only comment on it?
Open minded!
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 ad hom is an attempt to negate a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person supporting it
I watched your video, but I was trying to verify it on another video. I posted the link to the entire WNYW 10 minute clip of the second hit watch?v=qFyYNDzm8wo I asked you to show me where it was in that clip. I'm trying to be objective because that is what the scientific method is supposed to be. (Not name-calling) It is not at 8:10 in the video I posted.
ChristopherMarlowe 1 month ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
Calling someone a liar is not a personal attack, when someone tells a lie, which you did by omission; leaving out a crucial element of what Deets said. And I still think you are a fool for not looking at the body of evidence.
Scientific? There are enough videos showing that there was a plane heading for the WTC to demonstrate that not finding that plane in ONE particular clip is meaningless, and I am not obliged to satisfy your foolish request to try.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 You haven't proven that I am either a liar or a fool. I did not purposefully leave out anything. You won't even apologize after your bad behavior has been brought to light.
I don't know why the clip watch?v=qFyYNDzm8wo is meaningless. That is the entire WNYW coverage. I am perfectly willing to believe that the plane is visible if you can point it out to me.
Shouldn't planes obey the physical laws? ie break apart rather than melt into buildings?
ChristopherMarlowe 1 month ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
The faster speed mentioned by Deets is crucial, you lied by omitting it.
Can't you understand that not seeing the plane in the clip you sent has no bearing on whether a plane crashed into the WTC? It could be missing from that copy for a number of reasons, one of which may be that Fox is playing mind games. It was in the copy of the clip I used, so it was in the live broadcast.
The plane did not melt, it pierced the wall. Check out kinetic energy.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 Now it is the faster speed. Before it was the model of the plane. Just how many characters of text am I allowed in these boxes?
Where did you get your clip?
I don't believe that all of the plane could pierce steel. At least the tips of the wings and the tail would not have gone in.
We are supposed to believe that the wings at the pentagon folded back and slid in through a hole, but in the WTC they cut through the steel.
ChristopherMarlowe 1 month ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
Liars don't change; they rarely admit their lies or they move the goalposts.
Deets gave 4 alternatives:
(1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope... But In your comment on September Clues -- Busted! you chose to quote him ONLY on the speed issue for a STANDARD 767.
No steel was cut, Google: WTC PLANES THRU STEEL CONSTRUCTION
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 You are now just stubbornly repeating yourself about how I'm supposed to magically fit extra characters into one box; None of Deets' points contradict what I said. I've said that several times. You even tried to contradict my use of the term "flight envelope".
Where did you get your clip? I showed the source for the one I provided.
You call people names when your safe at home. You wouldn't talk to me like that if I was in the same room as you.
ChristopherMarlowe 1 month ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
I am no longer interested in answering your complaints or questions, because you clearly do not understand the issues.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 Well at least you have stopped calling me names.
I'm sorry that you couldn't find the plane in the video I sent. I was trying to verify your claim about the plane being visible in the long shot.
Deets' comments can be taken to mean that the measured speed proves that the video contradicts the official story: it was not a standard 767 because it was going well beyond what that plane was capable. The video was of a 767 so this would tend to support video fakery.
ChristopherMarlowe 1 month ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
One further point.
I don't much care whether or not you take any notice of my responses to your comments; I am now making them only in case some genuine truth seekers read some of your nonsense.
You are one of those types who refuses to look at the body of evidence, choosing to select small details like: Was the plane in the Fox 5 wide shot? which is not a big issue, because the plane is in about 50 other videos; the crash clearly captured in at least 5 of them.
alawson911 1 month ago
KCAS is the key there genius. Calibrated. the air speed indicator is calibrated to high altitude. The actual speed at or near sea level is roughly half of that number due to the difference in air density. Shame shame. It looks like the investigator investigating the investigator didnt do any investigating either.
dominic150 3 months ago
@dominic150
Calibrated airspeed is indicated airspeed corrected for instrument errors, position error (due to incorrect pressure at the static port) and installation errors.
Boeing's and the FAA's agreed test parameter for the 767, Vertical Descent, VD is 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft. So your comment is irrelevant regarding corrections to be made for air density. The 767 can be tested close to sea level at 420 knots CAS. K420 + 21% = the impact speed, and it was almost certainly not a standard 767.
alawson911 3 months ago
@dominic150
Please consider the following statement from Dwain Deets, former NASA Flight Director:
(1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target.
The plane has never been forensically identified, so I'll leave you to work out whether your inference that the speed was impossible should carry any weight.
alawson911 3 months ago
@dominic150
I repeat: Only Boeing knows the speed capability of their planes near sea level, and they do not release such figures. KCAS and other test and safety parameters are set between aircraft manufacturers and the FAA, they are quite different from a plane's ultimate performance capabilities.
This has nothing to do with being a genius, although you used the word derisively, it has to do with understanding what issues are relevant, which is what you do not seem to comprehend.
alawson911 1 month ago
This video is pretty much split on the votes. All you so called truthers who speak out of convenience why don't you wrap yourself in the American flag and bury your head in the sand! I'm sorry but you wouldn't know truth if it slapped you in the mouth.. And it is!
MediaLiesTV 3 months ago
@MediaLiesTV sorry but you just described those who believe in the official story! it was an inside job, if your stupid you won't believe it or even look at official stories and compare it to what was really said or video proof,
such as wtc7 (which was not even put in the story) fell at free fall yet no plane! (besides the only thing that can make any building fall upon itself are implosions!
sh9683 3 months ago
This video is prop. If people want proof of TV fakery on 9/11 check out September Clues. It cannot be debunked because the evidence of media involvement is overwhelming.
MediaLiesTV 3 months ago
@MediaLiesTV
There is not one instance of proof of video or TV fakery in "September Clues". If you think that there is, name it, and explain why. The media, by its very nature, was involved in reporting the events of 9/11; who or what else should have reported these events, the New York Sunday School Society? The mainstream media certainly covered up much that was subsequently found to be suspicious, but they were not complicit in any TV fakery, because there was no TV fakery
alawson911 3 months ago
@andymorejon Your comment has been removed.
Wash your mouth out before you post another message here, and find some evidence to back up your absurd claims.
alawson911 3 months ago
This is still the best around. Thanks for this.
beachcomber2008 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
megamogx 4 months ago in playlist 9/11 Official Stories and hit pieces on "truthers"
Why does this have so many dislikes? This is a legitimate video.
xxpeniskingxx 5 months ago
@xxpeniskingxx
The no-planes-in-New York crowd are very jealous of their theory. It is unsupportable, using physics and the videos, but not in their minds. It is a kind of religion.
alawson911 5 months ago
@xxpeniskingxx
Because it's a threat to their delusions about 9/11 being an inside job.
DTD110865 4 months ago
@xxpeniskingxx check out all the other videos that follow this line and you will see its common
imbetterthanyouis 4 months ago
RasgaSaias: If you cannot understand that accusing people of being complicit in mass murder is demonizing them, then you clearly have fascist leanings. These people could not defend themselves and had no reason to hang up, because Hill had not stated what his telephone call was really about. Publicly accusing people of murder, without a shred of evidence, is a unconscionable thing to do, and condoning it means that your moral values are no better than if you were a member of a lynch mob.
alawson911 3 years ago
Now I'm fascist? lol
And all I did was disagreeing with your method of "busting" other people's concepts...
RasgaSaias 3 years ago
I wrote "leanings", not that you WERE a fascist. You cannot even follow what people write, or is it that you do not want to? Maybe you have Nazi leanings, who knows. The point is that you do not seem to regard due process or honesty as being important, and that is a feature of all kinds of extremism. Now you are writing about "other people's concepts". Another twist. Hill's concepts have never been the issue, and you know it. It is his method of demonizing people that started this discussion.
alawson911 3 years ago
RasgaSaias: Interviewing people you are about to accuse of being complicit in mass murderer, without pointing this out to them in advance, is wrong, by any standards but yours, it would seem. It is what is going on in Guantanamo Bay and secret prisons around the world. If you are okay with that, then you are okay with anything! And you are the person who has accused me of using an ad hominem against him. Where do you work? The Bureau of Double Standards, perhaps?
alawson911 3 years ago
Why are you talking about issues that have nothing to do with this? Did anyone force people to answer anything? Was there any kind of torture?
If the people interviewed are not guilty then they have nothing to hide. They just have to tell the truth. If their "truth" is inconsistent, then we can try to figure out why.
I have no idea why are you talking about Guantanamo Bay. It has nothing to do with this. It looks like you're trying to demonize me too. And that's not a nice thing to do.
RasgaSaias 3 years ago
Jeff Hill's approach is what goes on in secret prisons, where the victim is never told what the charge is. So, you can twist, wriggle and squirm as much as you like, with your defence of Hill and your retaliatory attack on me. What Hill did was reprehensible and unjustifiable, and he deserved to be demonized for it, because that, in fact, is what he was doing to John Del Giorno, Carmen Taylor and Park Foreman. If you can't see that, then your moral values are questionable, to say the least.
alawson911 3 years ago
Jeff's approach is what goes on in secret prisons!?
If that's true (I've never been in one so I can't tell if it is) Jeff's approach has a huge difference. People can hang off the phone when they wish to. And the "nightmare" ends instantaneously.
I don't understand why you insist to compare two completely different realities. But I guess that's the whole point used to demonize someone.
Wasn't that the same thing the US gov did to the middle east people? (evil terror terror death terror...)
RasgaSaias 3 years ago
Demonize people is not a nice thing to do :]
RasgaSaias 3 years ago
Who, pray tell, is demonizing whom?
alawson911 3 years ago
You're demonizing the people you talk about in your video. It's not like you're just saying they're wrong. Which would be fair. No. It's more like you're just making you point based on demonizing them. And that's not a nice thing to do :]
RasgaSaias 3 years ago
People who accuse others of being complicit in a capital crime, without giving them a chance to defend themselves, deserve to be demonized. Hill's technique is not to ask the direct questions he is skirting around: "Did you video a real plane?" Did you really take that picture?" Instead, he is accusing them, by innuendo, of lying, because his hypothesis is that a real planes did not hit the Towers, but he doesn't tell them that, up front. The accused must be told the charge. They were not.
alawson911 3 years ago
I guess his style of interviewing is intended to be like that cause when you're interviewing someone you suspect to be a criminal you can't start to call that person a criminal and wait for questions to be answered.
The fact of not telling them he does not believe a real planes hit WTC doesn't change the answer they would give him if he actually believed on such thing.
If people have nothing to hide then there's no problem to ask question. The truth doesn't need to be protected. Only lies do.
RasgaSaias 3 years ago
Oh just 12% . Is that all? Try driving your car as fast as it will go and then go 12% faster. Now try that with a plane that you don't even know how to fly in a country that you don't even live in or read the language. Now try hitting your target dead on at 700ft. TWICE in one day. Top that off by having NORAD stand down 5 times in one day and for the finish; collapse 3 buildings at free fall speed and a third at free fall speed without even hitting the third building. WOW that's some day.
sunguard27 3 years ago 11
You appear to be one of those who thinks that believing planes hit the Twin Towers automatically means a belief in the official story. Look at the "About This Video" section and note that the man flying the F4 Phantom, in the video, Field McConnell, endorses my research, as does a (then) serving USAF maintenance officer. The planes were almost certainly NOT off-the shelf Boeing 767-200s, flown by amateur pilots, but specially-prepared, remotely-controlled, 767 lookalikes.
alawson911 3 years ago
oh he has an english accent so he must be right. Nevermind that every pilot ever interviewed says it's impossible and can't even be replicated in a simulation.
sunguard27 3 years ago
How I sound has nothing to do with what I say. But you write nonsense, that's for sure. "Every pilot ever interviewed..." what absolute rubbish. I've just cited one pilot, who does not say it's impossible for the plane to fly as fast as the speed shown in the videos. What you should have written was that MOST pilots do not accept the OFFICIAL STORY that poorly-trained amateurs flew those planes. Your problem is that you can't think outside of the official fairytale box.
alawson911 3 years ago
the impossible speed is in referance to the pentagone . explain how the reported flight path of what hit the pentagone was possible .
watch "911 In One Minute (and more)"... the planes were hijacked by electronicaly , the hijackers were hijacked.
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 3 years ago
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED: I have not made a video about the Pentagon impact. I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon.
alawson911 3 years ago
how does a airliner pull 4 g's flying a 180 at 10,000 ft a minute decent and pull off a horizontal impact.? it doent the plane would collapse and only a nasa pilot could handle the flight. let alone find a building without airtraffic control. watch 9-11 explained in about a minute
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 3 years ago
Some kind of 767 lookalike did this, otherwise thousands of eyewitnesses would not have seen it, and it would not have been captured on about 40 videos. Explain that!
alawson911 3 years ago
you just did...
watch u tube vid "911 In One Minute (and more)" and
watch google video , "911 the criminal enterprise and its pattern"
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 3 years ago
Yes, I have been in direct touch with "Captain Sherlock" Field McConnell. If you look at "About This Video" you will see that I refer to his expertise. I e-mailed this formally-phrased question to him: Could a Boeing 767-200 have dived from, say 30,000 feet, then levelled off to hit the South Tower moving at 586 mph (509 K)? His answer was: "Yes."
In fact Field believes that radio-controlled military lookalikes were used, which does not change the fact that a 767 could have done it.
alawson911 3 years ago
NINEELEVENNEWS: Your post has been removed, because of your obscene language, not your foolish opinions, which you are fully entitled to express. If you want to, re-post them, without swearing.
alawson911 3 years ago
The laws of physics for idiots -
1) aluminum and compressed air cannot fully pennetrate concrete and steel ay ANY speed
2) max speed for a 767 at 700 feet altitude is 250 mph, not 550 (call boeing yourself)
3) the fake "planes" melt into the WTC and explode on the opposite side (no deceleration and no sound of impact)
4)16 different aircraft and 9 different approach paths in 24 seperate videos
If you believe this stupid story, you are no better than the ones who did this.
NINEELEVENNEWS 3 years ago
planes or no planes. to be or not to be. busted or not! Lets put that aside. What is your explanation for the collapse of the 3 buildings!
Be as technical as you may wish! (seismic data, thermal imaging, gravity, resistance, structural integrity etc...). To many theories about twin towers are out there. What about the forth plane. I really cant see one. Just find it weird!And why do you think they dont show the pentagon videos and put all this to rest. Must have been caught on dozens of cameras.
neptunius007 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please see my message reply.
alawson911 3 years ago
odetoinsolence: Simon Shack is not blocked on my videos. You have obviously looked at quite a few of my responses. Do they look as though I am trying to avoid answering reasonable queries or requests for explanations? There have been 304 posts on this one; about 221 of those are mine, into which I've put a lot of thought and effort, but if some people cannot move beyond what has already been implanted in their minds, that is their problem, not mine. There are other forums.
alawson911 3 years ago
Big deal. Only jackasses believe there were no planes. Debunk something worth debunking.
eversincealways 3 years ago
Unfortunately, there are a lot of jackasses about, take a look at the way they fawn all over the presidential hopefulls. Besides, it doesn't take long to expose barefaced misinformation. It needs to be done.
alawson911 3 years ago
> Do you mean "understand" or "believe"?
The prevalence of this confusion explains all this effort is spent defending against red-herring arguments that NO ONE takes seriously.
No planes?!
If the administration knew details of the proposed attack (which it is very well documented that they did) and didn't act to stop them... well, that's treason, pure and simple, and it DOESN'T MATTER who, if anyone, was FLYING the planes. The treason committed by whoever FLEW them is another matter.
msbfd 3 years ago
Alawson911 were you able to veiw those videos yet?
IrreversibleCurse 3 years ago
No, but our service provider is on the case. I have almost certainly got copies of the videos, in my files, so if you could take some key screen shots, or stills, from each video, and attach them as JPEGs to an e-mail, I will find the relevant clips and comment on them. However, I doubt that I will find anything startling or suspicious, because I have already studied every available video of the approach and impact, very carefully. Perhaps you could tell me what I should be looking for.
alawson911 3 years ago
I don't understand. You can go on YouTube and post comments but you can't watch videos?
IrreversibleCurse 3 years ago
Do you mean "understand" or "believe"?
But let me spell it out: I can reach the appropriate page, and, obviously, post comments, but the little dots in the middle of the video frame keep running around in circles, and the video doesn't run; play; or show up, either sound or picture. I can't believe that this has never happened to you on a web page. If you are interested in my comments, do as I ask, or wait until I CAN view videos again on YouTube. Your choice.
alawson911 3 years ago
merged, I've had enough of you. I try to explain what you are unable to understand. You are free to believe what you want. Now, I am removing your latest post, because I do not like your language, and blocking any future ones. You can make your own videos, if you chose to, to make any further points. Over and OUT!
alawson911 3 years ago
at 7.35 compare "the airplane" with the next clip....I can't believe you don't see the difference.................
merged 3 years ago
There is an apparent difference. In the first shot, the plane is traversing the screen, from right to left, on a fairly wide angle lens with the camera tilted up, slightly. In the second shot, it is approaching the camera, diagonally, at approx. 60 degrees, on a long lens, with the camera fairly level. The same thing occurs with action replays, during football broadcasts: different camera positions and lens settings produce different-looking shots, from exactly the same on-field action.
alawson911 3 years ago
PYTHAGORAS101, I wrote, edited and narrated the video. No one else was involved, except the people I've credited for their support and prior research.
alawson911 3 years ago
Ha! Such a silly parody I laughed my ass off. I still don't see no grapes yet (annoyed). You do that an' I'll give you 1*. Better yet, show us a beer can with wings pass through a shopping cart with nose intact. That would be great, lets see it.
GnosticNinja 3 years ago
A beer can, it should be at least half-full, travelling at 840 ft per second would probably do some substantial damage to a shopping cart. Have you tried it?
But you're talking nonsense about the nose being intact, that was almost certainly an extrusion of drywall dust being pushed out by the air in the plane, and the explosion.
alawson911 3 years ago
SHILL ALERT !!!!!!
PYTHAGORAS101 3 years ago
Idiot alert! Why would a shill make "WTC7 - This is an Orange" ? Either you are a shill, yourself, or you didn't get enough practice with join-up-the-dots books, when you were young. And to pick such a lofty pseudonym. What a phony!
alawson911 3 years ago
The list goes on and on for those who forget the eyewitnesses, and the fact that upwards of 35 non-TV station videos showed a plane hitting the building. If you ignore those factors, then you have a reality problem. The plane didn't come from different angles, the cameras were in different places. The apparent different shapes, etc, were caused by incorrect original exposures or poor NTSC, PAL transfers. The list only goes on and on for someone who is ignorant about photography and lenses.
alawson911 3 years ago
"The plane didn't come from different angles, the cameras were in different places."
watch?v=rh7cKDXnS_s
This video not only show the plane come in from two different angels but also has the infamous invisible plane all . I would love to see you dance around this one.
As far as the eyewitnesses go you can find just as many people saying tehy didn't see a plane and the majority of people interviewed first either worked for the media or had connections to the media.
IrreversibleCurse 3 years ago
Sorry alawson911 but there is way too much edvendince that there was no planes. The fact that NBC live footage showed no plane, other stations had the plane coming in from completely different angels, the perspectives on buildings were impossible, the plane had a different shape and wingspan in different footage. The list goes on and on.
IrreversibleCurse 3 years ago
So NBC missed the shot. That proves what? Maybe it proves that they didn't know a plane was about to hit the South Tower. My e-mail address is at the end of the video. You send me the video clips you allege show the plane coming from completely different angles (not angels) and the impossible perspectives, and I'll explain it all to you. You've got a week, otherwise I'll delete your posts as being irrelevant.
alawson911 3 years ago
here's some information about the passengers
of the 4 flights............
philjayhanDOTwordpressDOTcom/category/flight-175/
merged 3 years ago
There is no evidence to support the official story that the planes which hit the Towers were the planes which were allegedly hijacked. ID transponders were switched off, and radar tracks crossed. The passenger lists, therefore, are irrelevant to any investigation regarding what kind of planes hit the towers, and their take-off points.
alawson911 3 years ago
well, mr. lawson may be those "drones" were shown with diff. colors and coming from diff. directions.????
ps: no drones eihter.
merged 3 years ago
Many videos of the 2nd plane have a bright sky background, and show a normal range of colour and auto-exposure variations. If you doubt me, take a medium-priced video camera to an airport, make sure the sky background is bright, and you'll find out for yourself. The plane only appears to be coming from different directions--to someone like you, who appears to know nothing about photography--because the cameras were in different places. There are no directional or altitude discrepancies.
alawson911 3 years ago
merged, Now I get it. You think because I believe that planes hit the Twin Towers, I do NOT believe it was an inside job, so you direct me to a BBC item about an alleged 9/11 hijacker being alive.
Your thinking: hijacker alive, therefore no hijackings. Conclusion: no-planes.
What about this. No hijackings, instead: Radio-controlled planes. Explains the professional-pilot-style manoeuvres; explains the eyewitnesses, the videos, the plane wreckage, the engine in Murray St., etc. Some IQ!
alawson911 3 years ago
how stupid you are here's some information...
newsDOTbbcDOTcoDOTuk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
merged 3 years ago
how stupid you ARE ???
have you done some research??
merged 3 years ago
This question adressed to Merged,of course !
gabilou 3 years ago
I didn't ask the question, merged asked it, I only responded. But merged isn't terribly bright; in fact I'm surprised that he knows what IQ stands for.
alawson911 3 years ago
yes sir!., what's your IQ?
merged 3 years ago
High enough to know that it is not worth arguing with fools.
alawson911 3 years ago
ha! ha! .... because there's was NO AIRPLANES involved in the MURDERS on 9/11/2001.:)
merged 3 years ago
Is that right?
alawson911 3 years ago
How stupid can you get ?
gabilou 3 years ago
Simon Shack,
If you are so sure you are right, why do you block me from commenting on your absurd "SC Part 9"? Is it because you don't want me to expose your utter ignorance regarding the basics of motion parallax and variable focal-length lens photography?
alawson911 3 years ago
[Simon Shack,
If you are so sure you are right, why do you block me from commenting]
alawson911:
"I am removing your latest post, because I do not like your language, and blocking any future ones."
" You've got a week, otherwise I'll delete your posts as being irrelevant."
"High enough to know that it is not worth arguing with fools."
"You are an unmitigated pest. I am going to block you from wasting any more space, here."
"Prove that the videos are all fake, or be blocked."
odetoinsolence 3 years ago
I'm no "OCT," "Truther," nor am I a, "no-planer." I do believe 911 was brought about by a rogue American government. I am trying to discover as much of what is real in regards to the occurrences on 911, and disseminate it to all the people I know.
I think it is reprehensible behavior from the people on all sides posting these videos to be blocking the volume of people that you are. I'm trying to learn here, and you've deleted some peoples' comments I would like to have read.
odetoinsolence 3 years ago
Right now I believe there were planes; but for a long time now the video of that plane flying straight through the face of the building like that has rankled. There is news coverage of witnesses who say that there was no plane - the FOX footage of the dust-covered guy with the heavy accent saying, "no second plane, it was BOMB! Who say second plane?!" A cannot see my way to calling people who believe there may not have been planes - or maybe there were not FOUR planes - "stupid."
odetoinsolence 3 years ago
I hope you guys realize that so many people are coming out with so many different user names, BECAUSE YOU KEEP BLOCKING THEM. I just want everybody to realize that. This stuff is ridiculous. I have this ONE screen name I use, and I can go post on a video for the first time, get into a conversation with someone I've never spoken to, and then they're accusing me of being Jackmove26, Woozles, YorkshireTERRIER and a hundred other different names. This, is ANNOYING.
odetoinsolence 3 years ago
I had good reasons for my actions. I don't like people swearing, or calling me names, that's not debating, that's bar-room brawling. The week was given to someone who accused me of being a paid agent. Why shouldn't I ask that he or she make good on the accusation? There are limits to arguing with people who go over the same thing, endlessly. Pests exist; you've got to look at the context. Why shouldn't one ask for proof of statements and get rid of the person if the proof is not produced?
alawson911 3 years ago
Well man, my point is that if you're going to be doing stuff like that, then it is more than a little hypocritical of you to complain when someone else has done the same to you. You do always have the choice of just ignoring irksome people though. There's usually someone willing to debate/argue with them, and it draws more traffic and attention to your videos. And as a plus, if they are REALLY ignorant and petty, then it cripples the credibility of their agenda.
odetoinsolence 3 years ago
mr. lawson.... can you tell us why the FBI and FAA refuse to give information (ID "parts" ) of the "airplanes" involved in the "attacks" on 9/11/2001?
merged 3 years ago
No. Ask them.
alawson911 3 years ago
Mr.Lawson : it seems your relentless attack on the Tv Fakery/No Plane research has failed. A quick look at your Youtube videos reveals a dismal level of popular consensus :
"September Clues - Busted!" : 2 STARS
"Impossible Speed & Impact Busted!" : 2 STARS
"The Great Nose In-Nose Out Hoax" : 2 STARS
"Fade to Black Lie-Busted!" : 2 STARS
Will you now concoct a video to 'debunk' the relevance of popular consensus ?
simonshack 3 years ago 2
what thousands of people?
those whom were inteviewed by the MSM, some say that they saw AN EXPLOSION then, they saw an airplane, besides some telling that it was a small airplane others a BIG airplane.
PEOPLE WHO PUT ATTENTION AND ANALIZE THE VIDEOS SHOWN BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WILL REALIZE THAT THOSE VIDEOS ARE FAKE, AND YOU WILL NOT CHANGE THAT FACT.
merged 3 years ago
you are a dumb and a moron.... we r not like you.............
Idiot you try to make people see different to what the MSM media showed on tv.
merged 3 years ago
People who are not able to express themselves very well, often resort to insults, as you have just done. Mostly, I DO show what the mainstream media showed, with some explanations as to why the speed and the manner of the plane's impact were possible.
Now you explain why thousands of eyewitnesses saw a plane hit the South Tower, and how it was captured on so many videos if it had not been physically there, at that moment in time: New York, 9:02 am, September 11, 2001.
alawson911 3 years ago
troofers: dumbest group of crackpots on the planet.
Huydini 3 years ago
Dumber than those who believe everything they are told?
alawson911 3 years ago
its rocket science for most americans to think that CIA and MOSSAD(israeli) did 911. they canT show u ONE single picture/movie on an airplane strike on pentagon, no proof that an airplane hit pentagon. They cant explane but still believes that wtc 7 collapse in a few secounds. they cant show you ONE single picture of pieces of an airplane in FLIGHT 93. all they know is that 2 planes hit twintowers, if the media(hollywood) showed them that ALIEN SPACESHIFT hit those they surley would believe it
Mahdiarmy 3 years ago
yes, the videos are FAKE...........
Why the FBI and FAA say that the "debris" gathered from "the airplanes" involved in the attacks have NO serial numbers.....
give me another INSANE answer.
merged 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are the one with the insane comments. If you can be bothered to do some thinking, go to this link:
/ / forums(dot)randi(dot)org / showthread(dot)php?t=101128
(close the gaps and replace the (dot)s.)
Now tell me that the thousands of people who saw a plane hit the South Tower were lying, or media stooges. That is what you imply when you claim that the videos are fake.
alawson911 3 years ago
Machfron, Do not call people like Eric Salter "a crook." He has more integrity in his little finger than you appear to have in your whole body. His detailed analyses of the ridiculous claims made by those who, without any firm evidence, insist that no planes hit the Twin Towers, are unbiased and closely match my own findings. He was an editor and graphics designer for 12 years and I have worked with moving film and video images for well over 40 years, as a cameraman/director and editor.
alawson911 3 years ago
UA 175 would need an average decelleration of 48g.What does Salter estimate the decelleration while the aircraft was visible ?
machfron 3 years ago
I've told you how to find Eric Salter's work on this. LOOK IT UP YOURSELF, then go and ask some of the thousands of people who saw the plane hit the South Tower if they noticed it slow down a little bit.
You are an unmitigated pest. I am going to block you from wasting any more space, here. If you want to keep airing your lack of common sense, e-mail me or send me a YouTube message.
alawson911 3 years ago
Eric Salter is a crook.Rick Ratjer shows there was no decelleration,and he is an engineer.Hezarkhani refuses to say where he took the video from.Carmen Taylor doesn't say she saw him.And a building,19 Rector Street is missing.
machfron 3 years ago
You show yourself up as a fool, with more unsupported claims. 19 Rector Street is the reddish building, with an arch on top, directly to the left of the Towers in the wide-angled lens section of the Herzakhani video. Even the most rabid no-planers, such as Ace Backer, have admitted that this claim was ridiculous, shortly after it was propagated. And Carmen Taylor's still shot matches a frame from the Herzakhani video. They must have been close, otherwise the frames would not match. cont/
alawson911 3 years ago
(cont.) You believe only what want to believe, but do no research to prove that it is accurate. You have made so many claims to superior theoretical knowledge, but when faced with a clear opportunity to check something which is, to say the least, improbable: a huge building being missed out of an alleged fake video, you can't even take the trouble to do that; not even with the vast resources of the Internet at your fingertips. But please keep making yourself look stupid, it only helps my case.
alawson911 3 years ago
19 Rector Street is actually a greyish building on the right of the towers.The building you refer to is the Whitehall Building.
machfron 3 years ago
The Hezarkhani video was not taken from North
of Castle Clinton in Battery park as NIST claimed.Busted !!I hope I've made it and won't be blocked.
machfron 3 years ago
What NIST claims is not proof that the Herzarkhani video was faked. It was taken from a ferry, moored at a jetty in Battery Park, it matches the position of Carmen Taylor's location to within a few yards. You've not proved anything about the videos. 40 still to go.
alawson911 3 years ago
Aircraft manufacturers do not build huge margins into their aircraft.They wouldn't fly if they did.The B777 was tested and the wings failed at 1.5 times the design load.
machfron 3 years ago
There were no planes.The lack of decelleration and damage to the aircraft are proof the videos are fake since they are violations of the second and third laws of motion respectively.The formula for thin shell buckling is additional proof.The aerodynamics is further proof.
machfron 3 years ago
The videos and eyewitnesses are proof that there WERE planes; you are working backwards. The videos show that you are misinterpreting the data. And there was deceleration. I've already told you to Google "eric salter" "deceleration", but you just don't want to learn, do you. And you can see parts of the plane falling out of the side of the building; one of its engines ended up in Murray Street. No damage!
This is your last chance. Prove that the videos are all fake, or be blocked.
alawson911 3 years ago
machfron,
What knowledge do you possess which says that the aircraft in question was the one which Russ Wittenberg flew? No one even knows how the aircraft was controlled. It was, however, seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses, and can still be seen in upwards of 40 videos crashing into the South Tower. You can theorise until Hell freezes over, but you've also got to explain away all of the videos, all of the photographs and all of the eyewitnesses. Get to it, or get blocked for being boring.
alawson911 3 years ago
The Buccaneer's engines were tuned for high speeds at low altitudes.This aircraft had a number of unique design features for low flying high speed flight.
machfron 3 years ago
The formula for thin shell buckling proves the fuselage would have crumpled on impact,at 127 tons.The formula requires the Young's Modulus and not the tensile strength.The modulus for alclad is 69000 mPa as against 190000 mPa for steel.
machfron 3 years ago
Russ Wittenberg flew both N612UA and N593UA,
UA 175 and UA 93 respectively according to legend.He said it would be impossible for the "hijackers" to have flown the aircraft the way we are told they did.
machfron 3 years ago
The Blackburn Buccaneer has a 0.64 to 1 bypass ratio.The B767 has a bypass ratio of 5.6 to 1.
machfron 3 years ago
thekingofithaki,
Samuel Johnson said: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." He might have added that verbosity is the last refuge of one who knows he is on shaky ground. You have not advanced your argument one bit; merely added a few irrelevancies. Although there is no way that your theory can be verified, your threatening tone indicates that you would be prepared to "put the noose around" others, in defence of it.
Your comments will be deleted, unless you can back up your claims.
alawson911 3 years ago
thekingofithaki,
Naudet Video NTSC copy: When the plane is first seen it has passed the red brick building on the right of frame. (F133) From this point until its shadow is fully on the Tower, virtually the moment of impact (F175), is 42 frames or 1.4 seconds. In stating it is 2 seconds, you have overestimated the period by about 40%. Whatever it is you are trying to prove, if your other calculations are similarly erroneous, I doubt that your case would stand up in a court of law.
alawson911 3 years ago
nothing about 911 will ever honestly be handled by any court anywhere. The only clean way to handle your concerns would be to use weather baloons for reference, otherwise there will always be someone playing with minor recalculations to try to confuse the crowd. A plane flying over manhattan and nobody talking about it?? The observation deck at the empire state building opens at 8 am. Have any of the people from that date spoken about seeing this strange idea of a plane flying over midtown???
thekingofithaki 3 years ago
don't want to get caught up in jfk type minutea, distracts from the issues. Lost in the noise is the actions of the boermag on 911 in south africa. Was Moussaoui the richard nagell of these events, getting caught on purpose only to find that no one bothers to look at his evidence. Although I am comfortable with my calculations, I'll accept the need to tighten up what I know to be true to insure that it can't be so easily discounted. Now is the time to put the noose around the pinkman brigade.
thekingofithaki 3 years ago
No question that some of the parties who step forward and make arguments that bend the physics are of limited value, but there are some real problems with both the naudet film and the image of the item that pokes out of wtc2 after impact. In naudet WTC is farther out than others photos from the same spot,also angle of approach is off in naudet it angles up about 100 ft before it clears building at right. 767 is in image too long from that angle. In wtc2 image, wings not bending on approach, why?
thekingofithaki 3 years ago
The Naudet video shows the plane which hit the North Tower; it is the only known video of that incident. You will find that many of the South Tower videos have been slowed down, while copying, which will give a false impression of how long the plane should be in any given frame. Many of the angles are deceptive, too, which is not to say that they are incorrect. You cannot analyse these videos in five minutes, it takes a lot of time and effort; testing for speed discrepancies, etc.
alawson911 3 years ago
you have spent plenty of time analyzing data, but naudet is not the only video of what happened with wtc1, the today show has a camera on top of rock center which always pointed beyond the empire state bldg to the wtc. they used it when they did the weather forcast. and has anyone taken a moment to do a sight line from where naudet was standing and where the plane would have come into view, seems there is a problem. 2 much space between bldgs and wtc1. It is fairly clear with LiveEarth
thekingofithaki 3 years ago
"...has anyone taken a moment to do a sight line from where naudet was standing and where the plane would have come into view...? You seem to have done, so why don't you publish your findings so that everyone can take a look at them. You are welcome to post them here. Using phrases like "there seems to be a problem" with no hard evidence to back it is not very helpful. Maybe you've found the real smoking gun which has eluded so many no-planers.
alawson911 3 years ago
don't live in new york anymore so I will work off of what we have been presented. The Staehle photo purports the plane at about 1200-1400' and about 1100' north of impact, placing the plane 800'south of j/n or 1100'sw of j/n. j/n is on the ne corner of church and Lispenard and needs to clear ATT bldg. camera clears at 10th floor. The clearing should bring us to between murray and barclay street. at best 750' from impact. How do we get two seconds of film from a plane moving at 650'/second ??
thekingofithaki 3 years ago
As to witnesses,can you produce one that doesn't have media or intelligence or defence or large corporation links ?
machfron 3 years ago
You are getting even more boring. Read the contemporary newspaper reports, and watch some of the TV interviews. People on the streets and in the surrounding buildings saw the plane. I can't "produce" these people, any more than you can. But I'm going to delete all of your future posts until you answer MY question about Gary Wetz.
alawson911 3 years ago
machron, I am not afraid of people who make broad statements, but who are unable to back them up with hard facts; they are simply time and space wasters. I have written that unless you make good on your claims, I will delete your posts. Now you have brought up Gary Wetz who allegedly said that he had seen the plane, but who in fact hadn't. Answer this: Does one recanted statement invalidate all of the other statements by people who said they saw the plane? Keep it simple: Yes or No? (cont.)
alawson911 3 years ago
On top of that, you call John Del Giorno an "evasive creep". Listen to his lying interrogator telling him that he is with a "Canadian independent." Neither Jeffrey Hill nor you has proof that Del Giorno did not video the South Tower plane, but you call him "evasive," when he almost certainly knew that Hill had just lied to him. Hill has tacitly accused him and others of being conspirators, with no proof whatsoever. You can join Hill's lynch mob, if you want to, but not on this comments page.
alawson911 3 years ago
People like you and Jeffrey Hill, Webfairy, Simon Shack, bsregistration and others are turning the maxim: "Innocent until proven guilty", on its head. If you had your collective way, it would be "Guilty until proven innocent", and that is how lynch mobs start. I'm being accused of all sorts of disgusting things, purely on the basis of my age and where I live. This reveals the miserable state of the gutter-like minds of the people who make up these accusations. They say nothing about me.
alawson911 3 years ago
You show a 767 at a British air show.How fast was it going and who is the certifying authority ?Choking in fluid mechanics terms has a definite meaning.A converging nozzle will choke at a particular pressure ratio.I will elaborate on this as we proceed,if you permit me to.
machfron 3 years ago
You can theorise all you like about anything you like. What you have to prove is that every 9/11 video was faked. The engines on THAT plane, quite obviously, did not choke at 575 mph, or so. An ex-F4 Phantom pilot, with years of experience flying big commercial jets, and a USAF maintenance officer confirm this, and that the plane could do what can be seen in the videos. Read "About This Video." Are you calling these people liars, on the basis of your theoretical calculations?
alawson911 3 years ago
Anthony,you are afraid of me and my scientific and engineering know how.You are determined to delete my posts even though I haven't been abusive in the least.
machfron 3 years ago
Do you count Gary Welz as one of the witnesseses ?And I find your defense of that evasive creep del Giorno (?)indefensible.
machfron 3 years ago
machron, Your arguments are quite absurd. I did not meet Adolph Hitler, or know anyone who did, but I have no doubt that he existed. If you reject all of the eyewitness accounts simply because you've never met an eyewitness, what are you doing bringing up Newton's laws? If you cannot prove that all of the major videos were faked, then I'm going to delete your future posts. No one has the right to take up the amount of space that you do, making statements which they refuse to back up with facts.
alawson911 3 years ago
migca, There is no need to apologise, I cannot answer your questions, because I do not have the data required, and to try to find it would require too much time. My past experience with moving pictures has convinced me that the majority of the videos are not fakes, and I believe the majority of the eyewitnesses. Notwithstanding someone else's interpretation of Newton's laws, I'll go with the video evidence until it is proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the major ones were ALL faked.
alawson911 3 years ago
I have never met an eyewitness to UA 175's impossible speed and impossible penetration of the tower.Neither has anyone I know.On the other hand I have read numerous first hand accounts that clearly indicate there was no plane.
machfron 3 years ago
The explosives could have been magnetically attached to the outside of the building like certain types of mines.The intelligence agencies and the military alone have 600 billion dollars in official budgets.There isn't much you can't arrange with that kind of budget.
machfron 3 years ago
The "aircraft" showed no decelleration.This violates Newton's second law.The very thin fuselage did not buckle.According to the third law the building applied the same force the plane exerted on the building.Given the far more rigid structure of the building,it was no contest.The plane should have shown massive visible damage.
machfron 3 years ago
All the videos showing "UA 175" melt into the towers are neccessarily fakes,since they show an impossible event.Impossible since the aircraft defies the laws of motion and the formula for thin shell buckling.
machfron 3 years ago
In what way did the aircraft defy the laws of motion? Did you take into account its velocity of about 840 feet per second and weight of over 320,000 pounds? Please explain how that mass with its relevant kinetic energy could suddenly come to a full stop, crumble and fall to the ground.
You either have to prove that possibility, or you have to prove that all the videos were faked and all the eyewitnesses were lying, including the firemen who witnessed a similar event, at the North Tower.
alawson911 3 years ago
machfron, You must also explain the plane-shaped holes in both buildings, the edges of which showed little evidence of having been caused by internal explosions. How do you rig walls to make those holes from the inside, and conceal the explosives and the work required to set them from the staff in so many offices over so many floors? How were the large amounts of whatever caused the fireballs concealed from the office workers? If the planes were not real, you've got a lot of explaining to do.
alawson911 3 years ago
machfron, If an aircraft did not hit the South Tower, how did Park Forman, among others, pan a camera over the New York skyline at exactly the correct speed and end up with the Tower framed at the exact moment it exploded? It is hard enough to pan a camera with someone passing behind a ten-foot wall, picking them up centre frame as they emerge, even after four or five rehearsals.
When you can explain all the videos and eyewitnesses, then your comments about the plane will become relevant.
alawson911 3 years ago
The maneuvering speed on a B727 is about 250 knots.Any comments ?
machfron 3 years ago
The design dive speed of 420 knots is merely one boundary of the flight envelope.What is more relevant is Vmo in knots (applicable below 24,000 ft or so) is about 360 knots for the B767.
machfron 3 years ago
I do feel extremely strongly about the way you slander real truth seekers such as the highly qualified and knowlegable Joseph Keith.
machfron 3 years ago
It is not slander to point out the truth. Joseph Keith's claims were outrageous. Turbofan engines do not "max out at 330 mph at 700 ft. altitude." Mr Keith was a software engineer, at Boeing, he was NOT an aeronautical engineer. Follow the links in About This Video and you will see why he was wrong about the engines and the airframe. He engaged me in a debate, by e-mail, the last time I heard from him he wrote: "I'm trying to get a complete report from FAA." That was on January 18, 2008.
alawson911 3 years ago
Keith and Hill have been stonewalled by Mike Pasion of FAA,who however admitted that 546 mph at 700 (and presumably 1000 ft) was probably impossible and had never been demonstrated.
machfron 3 years ago
machfron, I have removed your posts, because of the personal abuse you insist on using in place of valid arguments. If you read the "About This Video" section you will understand why I believe that the plane was a real one. The FAA and the experts I have quoted have not lied, as far as I know, and the plane obviously performed all of the manoeuvres which appear in all of the videos, which, despite many accusations, no one has been able to PROVE to have been faked. If you have proof, roll it out.
alawson911 3 years ago
alawson I think the real reason you removed my posts is because I have shown I know enough about aerodynamics,turbomachinery,aeroelasticity and flight mechanics to prove you wrong.
machfron 3 years ago