A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3050
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:47 am

PostMon Jun 16, 2014 4:45 am » by Opalserpent


Cia212 wrote:
DarkHeart wrote:I watched this today; http://www.richplanet.net/starship.php

Four men who have done a lot of research into this & what they come up with makes the most sense to me, even if it seems far fetched, the other options don't fit with the laws of physics.

In 2012 Richard carried out analysis of 9/11 radar and video evidence of flight 175 as it appeared to impact on the world trade centres South Tower. Video and radar data shows that the object was travelling at around 580 miles per hour. Most pilots agree that 580 miles per hour is an impossible speed for a 767 travelling near sea level. Not only that, close up videos showing the alleged plane impacting on the side of the tower show completely impossible impact dynamics. So with two major impossibilities the question arises, what was actually used? By studying the video evidence closely it suggests that some kind of illusion was being generated to trick observers of the existence of a 767 aircraft. It is possible that a solid object was cloaked inside the illusion. John Lear explains just how impossible the speed was, which is a piece of glaring evidence that is not going to go away.

All of this has been debunked multiple times. And the speed is not impossible, the plane was in a power dive - here are a few others to exceed the "impossible" speed:

From Randi's forum:

First, China Airlines 006, a Boeing 747, is thought to have exceeded Mach 1 by accident... with one of its four engines flamed out, and the other three at ordinary power. It exceeded 650 MPH, well above its "rated" speed.

Second, Egpyt Air 990 nearly reached Mach 1 at sea level as it dived to its destruction. And this was even a fellow Boeing 767, similar to Flight 175. Its final speed was nearly 750 miles per hour. At sea level.

The speeds NIST cites are entirely credible for a 767 in a power dive. Flight 175 was at full power and diving from 28,000 feet at over 10,000 feet per minute when it struck WTC 2.



Good arguments. Was the radar showing that the planes made a steep descent before impact
to gain enough speed to reach those speeds showed by radar or did they acheive
those speeds at ground level? That would raise more questions.
Either way those planes could have been remote controlled and modified for the job
at hand.

Image

The official footage does seem unnatural, how the wings are not severed off to
fall down and the entire plane seems to go into the building easily like butter.
The Twin towers were specially built and incredibly strong.


Image
It should have been like a fly hitting a fly screen.

Please humour me, even if the plane is accelerating at high speed towards the buildings
increasing it's mass inertially before it hits, it still won't compare to a building that weighs 200 times
more then the plane, it will just be swatted like a car wreck on a barrier.

The war on terror needed a pearl harbor, we all know.
Live by the Terror, Die by the Terror.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:39 am

PostMon Jun 16, 2014 5:39 am » by TorJohnson


*WillEase* wrote:
DmoniX_The_Destroyer wrote:"A fake plane was added for south tower explosion" and a fake brain has been implanted in all you who believe that absolute nonsense...
:vomit:


:flop:

Noentry wrote:7forever I have watched you over a couple of years and have come to the conclusion you are a disinfo agent trying to discredit the 911 truth movement and the JFK assassination.
You have only really posted on two subjects on this forum. JFK assassination and fake planes hit the towers.
I find this strange to say the least!

There are many videos clearly showing airplanes hit the towers. I know someone personally who witnessed a plane hit the 2nd tower.
So I can safely say you are breeding shit and trying to make a mockery of the truth.


:flop:

My question is, why has this :bullshit: thread (or the Jackie killed John thread) not been locked?
It is a slap in the mouth to anyone pursuing truth that I for one find offensive.
DTV is too good for this crap or 7forever... :top:


I agree. Why haven't these threads been locked? They are nothing but disinfo that muddy the waters and discredit the truth. Anyone who does that knowingly should likewise be banned from this forum.
"As it was in the days of Noah, so too shall it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37


Upload to Disclose.tv


Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:30 am

PostMon Jun 16, 2014 7:51 pm » by Mattler906


I don't know if locking the thread is the best way to allow the competition of ideas to unfold. Only the truth can survive under such competition, and it's not up to any one person to decide what that truth is.

I'd also like to address cia212's point that there are examples of aircraft flying at such speeds. This poster's point is that aircraft have done these speeds before, therefore it must be possible, if not easy, for them to do again in a "power dive".

This is absolutely not the case. From an aerodynamic perspective, this logic does not stand up to reason. That is because, while aircraft are capable of reaching those speeds in a "power dive", they would be difficult, if not impossible, to control, and in the specific case of the 767, the aircraft likely wouldn't stay together.

First, the China Airlines 747SP did appear to go super sonic, however, this is an entirely different aircraft than the 767, with an entirely different wing. The 747SP's maximum mach speed is m.92, and it is quite happy cruising along at mach .87-88, whereas the 767 is considered to be screaming along when it's doing m.83. Therefore, the 747 wing is not only engineered and shaped differently than those of the 767, but they are capable of much higher speeds.

Secondly, the Egypt Air 767 broke up just as it approached Mach 1, so it disproves cia212's theory. This is because it reached the maximum airspeed (or dynamic pressure) that the wings were capable of withstanding before sheering off. Mach 1 is interesting here, because the altitude at which the Egypt Air 767 broke up was approximately 16,000'. So as a frame of reference, if you were to extrapolate to 16,000', the exact speed that Flight 175 was doing when it hit the towers, after accounting for how the speed of sound changes with altitude, you would get M1.2. Thus, if we assume that the fact that Egypt Air's 767 broke up at Mach 1 demonstrated a physical limitation of the unmodified 767 wings, we can also assume that it would be impossible for Flight 175 to do these speeds without being heavily modified first.

My last point, is even if you could get an unmodified 767 to stay together at those speeds, you wouldn't be able to control it. Right off the bat, it would be buffeting so badly from the turbulent flow over the top side of the wings. The outboard ailerons would be locked out, the roll spoilers would be locked out, all you would have to roll the plane would be your inboard ailerons (and maybe asymmetric thrust, but you would need a prodigious pilot for any of this - somewhere in the region of Mozart meets Da Vinci). So all of this, and especially the abrupt roll to the left that Flight 175 makes a couple seconds before impact, would be impossible in an unmodified 767.

When one analyzes the dynamics of the explosion that results from both impacts, it's clear something hit the buildings. The debate is, was it an aircraft, or a cruise missile cloaked as one? This is a good debate, however I'm firmly in the camp that this was a heavily modified aircraft. The capability to modify an aircraft in such a way exists, and would have been relatively inexpensive. The aircraft is already equipped with sufficiently sensitive navigation sensors, all it would have taken was an upgraded military GPS, and you would have had the equivalent of a cruise missile in the general shape of a 767.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:39 am

PostTue Jun 17, 2014 1:59 am » by TorJohnson


Mattler906 wrote:I don't know if locking the thread is the best way to allow the competition of ideas to unfold. Only the truth can survive under such competition, and it's not up to any one person to decide what that truth is.


I see what you mean, but some things can be debunked and then should never be brought up again.

Example disinfo conspiracy:
The driver shot JFK!


Evidence to debunk claim:


Upload to Disclose.tv


Image
Image
Image

Conclusion:
We should never have to entertain this theory again.

Same goes with the no plane thing.
"As it was in the days of Noah, so too shall it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37


Upload to Disclose.tv


Conspirator
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:23 pm

PostTue Jun 17, 2014 11:10 pm » by Rich316


I honestly don't know what's wrong with you people. This is a theory and he has every right to post it on here. You have your own theories or believe the MSM story, that's fine too. There's plenty of evidence that suggests something very suss went on that day. see http://septemberclues.info/ and spend the time on their forum and have a look around, you might be surprised at what you see.

Yeah I know there's a video called sept clues debunked.. it's hasn't been debunked at all, someone just could not bring themselves to agree with the idea that someone else, not them, worked shit out. It has all the trademarks of layers and cgi. Anyway, why do we still care that much? It's been what 13 years now? I don't lose sleep over it but I find it amusing the experts on here can't be open minded enough to entertain the idea that something far more incredible took place.

Conspirator
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:23 pm

PostTue Jun 17, 2014 11:12 pm » by Rich316


TorJohnson wrote:
Mattler906 wrote:I don't know if locking the thread is the best way to allow the competition of ideas to unfold. Only the truth can survive under such competition, and it's not up to any one person to decide what that truth is.


I see what you mean, but some things can be debunked and then should never be brought up again.

Example disinfo conspiracy:
The driver shot JFK!


Same goes with the no plane thing.


We're not comparing apples with apples here.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2858
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:51 pm
Location: Questioning Building 7,.......... Stop HAARP ..........Stop HydroFracking

PostTue Jun 17, 2014 11:18 pm » by Hurtswhenipee


Rich316 wrote:spend the time on their forum and have a look around, you might be surprised at what you see.
:flop:
Image
Image

Initiate
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:19 am

PostTue Mar 03, 2015 4:57 pm » by 7forever


DmoniX_The_Destroyer wrote:
7forever wrote:This is so simple it's stupid. :look: The plane does not pass through the open skyline before it comes into view which proves a fake plane was added.
Image

Advance this clip to 4:00 or before and see the plane created out of thin air from behind the building just right of the open and unobstructed skyline.
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddGXuy0ep7g"]Unseen 911 Footage Finally Released By FBI, DOJ - YouTube[/url]

Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 The FBI and the Department of Justice have released ten new videos relating to the events of 9/11, three years after a freedom of information act request for the footage was submitted.

And a fake brain was added to those who believe this nonsensical dribble :hell:


I believe radar over fake witnesses and fake planes. The truth for you is a foreign language. The ball came from southeast of the towers went into Jersey and circled back. Did you forget that it was captured on radar coming over the Verrazano bridge?

Since you won't address what they said came over the bridge, you're conceding THE ATC'S were correct, that something, NOT FLIGHT 175 was spotted on radar coming from southeast of the towers..

Varcadapane: He says to me, “As a matter of fact, do you see that target coming over the Verrazano Bridge.” I went over to the radar and looked at the radar. The Verrazano Bridge is depicted on the radar. And I looked over there and I saw the aircraft descending out of 4700 feet, 3600 feet, 2700 feet."

Greg Callahan: And I could hear him calling on altitudes. “I have a target in sight, he’s descending rapidly.” And he said—“Look out to the southeast,” and the gentleman working ground control said, “Hey, who’s that by the Verrazano Bridge?” "And here comes a very large target descending rapidly, very fast." The skies over America - Dateline NBC | NBC News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMlls8-X5pk

Image
Image
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:39 am

PostTue Mar 03, 2015 6:07 pm » by TorJohnson


I take back what I said in this thread about this fake plane stuff being disinfo, and apologize to anyone I may have offended.

In the intervening several months, I've learned a lot more about exotic weapons like Blue Beam, and have actually listened to several hours of Judy Wood interviews, watched dozens of videos explaining the theory from all angles, and have come to the conclusion that an aluminum plane is not going to make a Wile E. Coyote style cartoon hole in a steel-reinforced concrete building.



Upload to Disclose.tv




This is a constant learning experience for all of us, and I feel like such a mainstream faggot for blindly dismissing this theory before without looking into it first.

:cheers:
"As it was in the days of Noah, so too shall it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37


Upload to Disclose.tv


Conspirator
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:18 pm

PostTue Mar 03, 2015 6:34 pm » by Doogle


Welcome to a even bigger nuthouse than the one you thought you were in, at least you're big enough to admit it.

Dimitri Khalezov really opened my eyes. I'm not saying I think there were no planes at all, or that there were definitely planes, but I am convinced that if any planes did hit the WTC, that it wasn't the ones that are claimed - something else happened to those....


Check out Elias Davidsson' s Hijacking America's Mind on 9/11, it shows the shocking discrepancies in the accounts of the phone calls and the official logs.
And talk about hijackers turning up alive, there were passengers presented as victims that also turn up alive.


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook