New Footage 9/11 Second Tower Explosion Incredibly Clear Video From Helicopter - Where Is The Plane?

reply to post by lunarasparagus


With all due respect, those videos are not the same as the OP.

They are compilation videos of different Media ...

And the one with Matt Lauer is damning as he says it was not
that large of a plane he saw.

reply to post by CFerguson


Hello Rob Balsamo.

"Promoting crap" is more up your alley, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by ProudBird
"Promoting crap" is more up your alley, wouldn't you say?

In other words, Frank Legge and Warren Stutt are not able to find one real pilot to endorse their work. Not even you.

Thanks for the clarification.

Anytime you wish to crawl out of your hole to debate real pilots, instead of begging ATS mods to be reinstated, let us know.

Again, during Zakheim's tenure as Pentagon controller from May 4, 2001, to March 10, 2004, over $3 trillion dollars were unaccounted for. Additionally, military Information was jeopardized and military contractors billed the US for Israeli items: $50 million dollar fighter jets were rated as surplus and the list rolls on. As the scandal of the missing trillion dollars surfaced and Zakheim resigned, Israel was handed the finest fighter jets in the US inventory while 15 percent of US jets were grounded for lack of parts. In whose best interest was this?

www.rense.com...

that kind of dough will buy you a lot of paid bloggers who will blog anything you might want them to blog...or bury

reply to post by CFerguson


Why do you ask a question about an RB211, and show this image:

The intact engine example is clearly labelled a Pratt & Whitney. (**)

What a deception, eh??

(**) Edit.....just so those not familiar can get up to speed.....a "JT8D" as labelled in the image example refers to a P&W engine. This one:

P & W JT8D

Now, the most puzzling thing here is.....there is NOT a Boeing 757 with a JT8D engine installed!

At all. The engine options for the B-757 were the RB-211 (various sub-models, depending on when) and the P&W options....there are three versions ( Pratt & Whitney PW2037, PW2040, or PW2043), all based on the very basic PW2000 series.

Hey, this is a lesson for the laypeople!!

A lot to learn, isn't there?

Originally posted by ProudBird
The intact engine example is clearly labelled a Pratt & Whitney.

What a deception, eh??

I agree, especially when you consider that the Pratt more closely matches the slotted disk allegedly photographed at the Pentagon.

Anonymous/unverified People like you have yet to match such a slotted disk to a Rolls RB211 engine (or part/serial numbers).

A deception indeed.

When are you going to endorse the Legge/Stutt Paper? They been looking for a pilot to endorse their crap for nearly 3 years?

Why do you evade this question?

reply to post by CFerguson


"Real" pilots???

Anytime you wish to crawl out of your hole to debate real pilots, instead of begging ATS mods to be reinstated, let us know.

Go on, head over to PPRuNe.....and have your butt handed to you, yet again.....

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by CFerguson

 

"Real" pilots???

Anytime you wish to crawl out of your hole to debate real pilots, instead of begging ATS mods to be reinstated, let us know.

Go on, head over to PPRuNe.....and have your butt handed to you, yet again.....

Translation - "I have no intention of crawling out of my hole to endorse anything that I claim.", Proudbird/Weedwhacker

Now, if you are going to cite PPRune, you may want to cite the relevant thread.

www.pprune.org...

It appears you think one member of PPRune, who has all of 3 posts, and clearly obsessed with Rob Balsamo, is considered "kicking ass".

Then again, you also feel Frank Legge (a Chemist) and a Computer Tech (Warren Stutt) are also more experienced and advanced than the NTSB and industry leading software created by CAE Flightscape.



It is no surprise why you had to beg to come back onto ATS after your weedwhacker scereename was ghost banned, and why you will never, EVER, confront a real pilot.



Yes, delete it. But it is well saved... and will be reposted to our forum.

reply to post by CFerguson


More hilarity, sorry t is just too funny (and a little sad....oh, I am crying a little), but here is a quote for posterity:

Now, if you are going to cite PPRune, you may want to cite the relevant thread.

www.pprune.org...

Yeah....that boondoggle has come back....like a zombie.

Oh, too, too funny.

Thanks, endlessly amusing, as always......

reply to post by ProudBird


Translation - "I have nothing to offer but nervous laughter as I have no intention of crawling out of my hole to endorse anything that I claim.", Proudbird/Weedwhacker

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

With all due respect, those videos are not the same as the OP.

How is it that you ignored this one? Same exact clip. Same exact length.
YouTube upload date - Oct 2, 2010 (watch in 480p quality):


Compare to the "New Incredibly Clear" OP vid.
YouTube upload date - Mar 12, 2012 (only available in 240p quality):


Notice the video clip is RAW chopper footage, not what was broadcast on 9/11 on WNBC. That's why you're getting only half the conversation between the reporter on board the chopper and the WNBC anchor (compare with original broadcast below). This raw clip was not released to the public until the Center for 9/11 Studies petitioned for the release of such footage by NIST via the Freedom of Information Act. The cumulus data-set was released in October 2010.

Obviously the clip in the OP was edited using the raw NIST cumulus version of the footage, which HAD THE PLANE IN FULL VIEW when it was released in 2010--meaning--the OP clip has to be fake. Not to mention that it's in a much lower quality format than what was released by NIST. Why? Likely to hide detail which might reveal the editing.

Here's the original WNBC broadcast. Notice you get to here both sides of the conversation between chopper and anchor:

Originally posted by ProudBird

NEXT image:
Yeah.....a 757.

Kewl thanks Now I have the correct scale

reply to post by CFerguson



cant confirm its from a rb211 but you get the idea, unless a LAME actually takes one apart and takes new photos of one its hard to get pictures of the guiding holes/bolt holes. Also im not saying this is the part, the one photographed at the pentagon is smaller and is probably one of the inner HP compressor discs or even a HP turbine disk.



from: www.airliners.net...

again the one found at pentagon is not this one as this is one of the low pressure compressors.




this is from a trent 900/1000 cant remember, but idea is the same.

Originally posted by choos
...cant confirm its from a rb211....

Does your assessment justify this?

It might be why this list is growing. These type of people require confirmation.

patriotsqueston911.com...

reply to post by zorgon


Happy to help....

...of course, there are a LOT of other sources to use too?

You may wish to read a bit, when starting here, for example.

Alternatively, you could do what I did, and learn to fly, and have a career and....oh, wait.....sorry.


Here is a photo of an RB-211 version engine in a stand, used to maneuver them (they are very heavy!) in between installations:



Sorry there is no Human in the image, for scale....


Oh, wait.....go here.....maybe some useful facts and specs.


Of course, there is always the "ever-present" and "handy-dandy" Wiki entry.....nothing to ignore, as it is ever so "right at the fingertips":

Rolls-Royce RB211

A veritable wealth of information.....once someone knows how to understand it, and vet it, Etc......

Cheers!!

(Nom, Nom......)

reply to post by ProudBird


Where is the slotted disk on the RB211, to match with the photograph allegedly taken at the Pentagon?




Where are the serial/part numbers to match with N644AA?

I suppose you trust your govt to tell you?

How do you feel about that when it pertains to UFO's?

Do you feel the NTSB industry leading software created and designed by CAE Flightscape has a "bug"? If so, what have you done about it as a pilot?

If you feel the Stutt analysis is correct, then there is a serious problem with flight safety, don't you agree?

deleted

reply to post by CFerguson


Oh, my!!!!

This image already addressed in this thread......and HERE is my post!!

Well....that is shown to be a crock....


What else?

Where are the serial/part numbers to match with N644AA?

Oh, dear. That old, old, old canard?

Someone needs to learn the reality of "serial/part numbers" on airliners. And, how the many various parts are actually tracked, and the records kept.


And, Huh??

Do you feel the NTSB industry leading software created and designed by CAE Flightscape has a "bug"? If so, what have you done about it as a pilot?

Well....that is certainly a bolt form nowhere. Gee, is this yet another pathetic attempt at impugning the NTSB? WoW!! (shock...yeah, is sarcasm...).

Just for shins and giggles, here is the CAE Flightscape website. Please, ATS members....don't overwhelm them!! ( )


and, huh???:

If you feel the Stutt analysis is correct, then there is a serious problem with flight safety, don't you agree?

Man, this just keeps getting better and better....a fascinating trip into the mystery of the Human mind, and the fantasies that can occur within.....I hate to use the "mental illness" card, but.....well....."quacks like a duck", and all of that.....

I have no idea what world of fantasy and paranoia some people reside in.....I prefer this real world, and the science and rationality that exists, here......(whew!!)

reply to post by ProudBird


Proudbird/Weedwhacker,

Has Warren Stutt decoded more data than the NTSB with respect to "AA77"?

If so, how did he do that? Does he have more expertise than the NTSB? Better software than the NTSB?

And if so, has the NTSB acknowledged such additional data decoded by Warren Stutt?

Why does Warren Stutt claim to have decoded more data than the NTSB?

Please try to answer my questions as you have avoided all my past questions. Thanks.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I see people discussing the missing trillions, however not in context. The announcement by Rumsfeld and the trillions missing was not in relation to Bush's administration. It goes all the way back to the early / mid 1970's spanning administrations of all politicla parties.

You want context? at 1:00

Fiscal Year 1999 2.3 trillion missing
Fiscal year 2000 1.1 trillion missing



Nice try though, but no star for YOU

She covers the exercises before 9/11 too