Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

reply to post by hellobruce


Destruction of the twin towers and building 7 for starters, as to the laws of physics, like the first and second law of motion. Other things like the piloting skills of Hani Hanjour for flight 77, this indestructible passport we've brought forward here, and are about to be taking a good look at, and many other aspects although they may not necessarily violate the laws of physics, just aren't believable.

But I don't need to put forward this information in this particular thread on a tit-for-tat basis relative to all your certain and expected objections. We know where you and your friends stand. This thread isn't really intended for you or the other fierce and steadfast supporters of the OS, including it would appear, SO. You're just not objective in the least nor open to any new information.

Goodbye hellobruce. I can't stop you from participating, but I'm going to proceed without allowing you to derail this thread, so forgive me as we move forward if your comments seem to be getting ignored.

"All truth passes through three phases:

First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is fiercely and violently opposed.
Third, it becomes self-evident."

— Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

I'm only assuming we can't be off topic in the hoax forum.
And would like to run this by those who are in opposition
to the truth I've stated as I know it to be.

Why is this so scary that anyone would fight tooth and nail
to deny the obvious?

And I'm no truther. I'm an Ironworker and a Glazier.

reply to post by randyvs


Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth
Laurie A. Manwell, M.Sc., June 2007
(pdf) www.journalof911studies.com...

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Why would Boeing build a prototype before 2001, when the first aircraft wasn't ordered until 2002? You don't build airplanes to test until you have a firm order in hand. You wind tunnel test until you have a firm order in place. Italy was the launch customer for the KC-767, and didn't award the contract until 2002.

It costs a lot to develop a new plane, even a "bolt on" package like the KC-767. You can't just slap a boom on it and call it a tanker. You have to repipe the fueling system, do wind tunnel testing for aircraft flying near it, to make sure it's not going to flip them or something... It's a lot of work, and it's expensive. So there's no way Boeing would have done it without an order in hand.

edit on 12/1/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

[/quote






Bologna ! Order contracts are only issued AFTER said prototypes are determines to meet the criteria set forth by the purchasing agency. Hundreds of millions are spent by Companies competing for a contract.
The loser simply absorbs the loss. It is a serious downside to the process. I assume you are a pilot or hope to be. This process is especially obvious when a branch of the Military opens bids for a new fighter. Two companies are selected, they BOTH invest huge amounts but one wins and the other sucks it up and moves on. Not the best example in this case, however the principal still applies . I normally agree with the majority of your posts, unfortunately this is not one of them.

reply to post by dazbog


Actually prototypes re usually developed on a contract to develop the prototypes - as was done with the YF17 and -18, the joint strike fighter - bith the YF32 and -35 had separate development prototype contracts.

However there is a bigger problem with this theory.

Aircraft spottingis an anorak activity - it is practiced by anally retentive types all around the world - people get arrested for doing it just to get a serial number!!

So every serial airliner hull ever made is known. somewhere on here I have a link to a site that lists them all - so any conversions must come from hulls listed there - but the search engine seems to be broken at the moment - I'll post it later.

the point is - where did these mystery hulls come from??

found it: Aircraft line numbers - search to your heart's content....

I think all footage released is faked. The towers were emptied in advance and
might both have been brought down in one piece (like elevators) and dismantled
below ground.
It is well known controlled demolition inc. were brought in to deal with the
aftermath. This is a ruse designed to add fuel to conspiracy fire and direct away
from what really transpired behind closed doors and away from prying eyes, safely
and securely, behind military grade smoke obscurants.

Laugh if you like. I would bet anything that this is close to truth!

Can scepticoverlord comment on the images i asked him to comment on, please?

OneFreeMan

Laugh if you like.

Thank you

Bwah ha hah hah hah hah ha ha ha!

Mysterious Boeing NOT the United Flight 175 Boeing 767.

ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft.

FLIGHT 175 STILL IN AIR AFTER SOUTH TOWER HIT AT 9:03

ACARS messages, provided through the Freedom Of Information Act, show that United Airlines flight 175 was still in the air after it had 'crashed'.

The aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York.

New information confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1323Z (9:23AM Eastern, 20 minutes after the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the PIT remote ground station (Pittsburgh International Airport).

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111323 108575 0574

The second time stamp on the bottom of the message, at United Airlines, is the "Technical Acknowledgement" from the airplane that the message has been received.

This evidence strengthens previous evidence uncovered by Pilots For 9/11 Truth that a standard 767 cannot remain in control, stable or hold together at the speeds reported by the NTSB for the South Tower aircraft.

So, if UA175 was somewhere out in Pennsylvania when an aircraft was observed to strike the south tower, and a standard 767 cannot perform at such excessive speeds as reported, then where did the airplane come from which was observed to strike the South Tower?

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.

These are the 'text' (ACARS) messages in question -

The format for these messages is pretty straight forward. To limit the technical details, we will explain the most important parts of the messages, however, for full Message Block Format Code standards, click here. The remote ground station (MDT in the message below) used to route the message to the aircraft, the time and date in which the message is sent (111259, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1259Z or 0859 Eastern), the flight number (UA175), and the tail number of the airplane in which the message is intended (N612UA), are all highlighted in red. The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane.

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton)..

pilotsfor911truth.org...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Keep it civil - you're lucky we're not in the 9/11 forum. Then again he did give you permission to laugh..

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Exactly - and I politely thanked him for that

NewAgeMan
Mysterious Boeing NOT the United Flight 175 Boeing 767.

....

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1323Z (9:23AM Eastern, 20 minutes after the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the PIT remote ground station (Pittsburgh International Airport).
.
.
.
.
This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton)..

pilotsfor911truth.org...

which sows such a ridiculous lack of understanding that it is breathtaking.

1/ The messages were sent TO the aircraft - that is they had the aircraft addresses on them. That does not actually require the aircraft to exist!! Seriously - just like you could get on a ham radio and send out a call for a non-existent station or similar.

2/ The location of the ground bases that are recorded as sending these has little or nothing to do with the location of the aircraft at the time - ACARS messages will be transmitted from ground stations on the presumed flightpath from the flight plan - not from any up-to-date info as to the aircraft's current position.

this "proof" is really just more proof of either the ignorance or dishonesty of the people claiming it!

Re: Speed

(for following video: minor foul language warning)

New York Times
February 23, 2002
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER CRASHES; First Tower to Fall Was Hit At Higher Speed, Study Finds

By ERIC LIPTON AND JAMES GLANZ
Researchers trying to explain why the World Trade Center's south tower fell first, though struck second, are focusing on new calculations showing that the passenger jet that hit the south tower had been flying as fast as 586 miles an hour, about 100 miles an hour faster than the other hijacked plane.
The speed of the two planes at impact has been painstakingly estimated using a mix of video, radar and even the recorded sounds of the planes passing overhead.
Two sets of estimates, by government and private scientists, have surfaced, but both show that the plane that hit the south tower at 9:02 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, approached the trade center at extremely high speed, much faster than American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m.
In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.

''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. ''It's off the chart.''

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot, over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Had previously flown the actual two United airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11.

Article: "'The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S." Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall."

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737s through 767s, it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.

Audio Interview, Capt.Russ Wittenberg, 9/16/04
M3U (download)
RAM (download)
MP3 (plays)

911underground.com...

Russel L. Wittenberg Credentials

Russ Wittenberg has numerous FAA certificates ranging from Airline Pilot and Flight Engineer to Ground Instructor and Aircraft Dispatcher. He is certified to fly an incredible range of aircraft including Boeing 707s, 727s, 747s, 757s, 767s and 777s. The supposed aircraft used on 9/11 were Boeing 757s and 767s.

Certificate: AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
Rating(s):
• AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
COMMERCIAL PRIVILEGES
• AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
• AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA
• GLIDER

Type Ratings (Note: these are aircraft types)

A/B-707 A/B-720 A/B-727 A/B-737 A/B-747 A/B-757 A/B-767 A/B-777 A/DC-8 A/L-1049 A/LR-JET
DOI : 07/25/1995

Certificate: FLIGHT ENGINEER
Rating: FLIGHT ENGINEER TURBOJET POWERED
DOI : 11/02/1978

Certificate: GROUND INSTRUCTOR
Rating(s):
• GROUND INSTRUCTOR ADVANCED
• INSTRUMENT
DOI : 11/02/1978

Certificate: AIRCRAFT DISPATCHER
DOI : 11/02/1978

Mr. Wittenberg's flying credentials may be confirmed by contacting:

United States Federal Aviation Administration Registry
Civil Aviation Registry
AFS-700
PO BOX 25082
Oklahoma City, OK 73125

NewAgeMan
9/11-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan
Veterens Today

www.veteranstoday.com...

Audio Interview
chemp3.com...

Boeing - Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard in this recording saying 500+ mph at 700 feet is impossible.

(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."

reply to post by OneFreeMan

Laugh if you like.

OFM surely knows this does sound laughable as he has evidenced that
obviously. I have learned not to laugh at anything, someone brings to
the table, considering the OS is laughable in the first place.

Re: Speed - Cont'd

9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed

Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" (pdf) in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.

Full detailed analysis, including analysis of a recent simulator experiment performed, and interviews with United and American Airlines 757/767 Pilots can be viewed in the new presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" available at pilotsfor911truth.org.... Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie. Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves. Update: Since our article on WTC Aircraft Speed Analysis was written, more evidence has been gathered to reflect the research provided by Pilots For 9/11 Truth and in the film "9/11: World Trade Center Attack". A more thorough understanding and explanation of why V speeds are established based on wind tunnel tests performed by the manufacturer is also available virtually making the need to gather documents from Boeing based on wind tunnel testing, moot. We already have their results of such tests in the form of the V Speeds they have established through wind tunnel testing required by definition as outlined in the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics and all other related text.

pilotsfor911truth.org...
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing (pdf)

randyvs
reply to post by OneFreeMan

 

Laugh if you like.

OFM surely knows this does sound laughable as he has evidenced that
obviously. I have learned not to laugh at anything, someone brings to
the table, considering the OS is laughable in the first place.

edit on 5-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

What is the safest and most efficient way you could imagine those towers
being brought down? I believe most of the floors were removed beforehand and
just the shell and core and a few floors remained by September 2001.
I don't see conventional demolition being viable considering the shear height
and real possibility of something going wrong with the detonation timing.
This method of removal explains the missing rubble pile. Could they have fashioned
vertical tunnels underneath the towers and allowed the structures down when the
time came in a completely controlled manner? Could this also account for the
anomalous from expected seismic readings?
This is also interesting when we consider what has 'replaced' the twin towers.
www.wtcsitememorial.org...

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Exactly - and I politely thanked him for that

And you are very welcome Aloysius. You most probably laugh loud
at everything I have to say. I take that as a good sign.

reply to post by OneFreeMan


Just call him "the Gaul".

Time for a little levity, even in spite of the horrific nature of the story being told in this thread (what else can ya do, still have to laugh)

Presenting: The official story conspiracy theory of 9/11 for your review and consideration.

wmd_2008

leostokes

NewAgeMan
reply to post by leostokes

 

Ah so you're a Judy Wood DEW (directed energy weapon) Theorist.

I don't see why conventional explosives, albeit probably military grade nano-thermite aka super-thermite, which could actually be painted on in some applications, although in other places direct cutting charges would need to be strategically placed in "bands" around critical core columns, would not be sufficient. In every demolition, in this case a unique, top-down CD, there is always plenty of dust. In fact, the ejecting debris wave including massive quantities of cement dust (and everything else) was actually employed as part of the simulated gravity collapse ruse, in the sense that they tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to hide the explosive ejections in a rapid sequencing all around and down the building, behind the descending debris wave (which is comprised of lots and lots of pulverized cement) as seen in the video.

edit on 4-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

Thanks for your reply and video.

I am not a DEW person. I am looking at evidence of steel turning to dust. How this happens I do not know. It is a new phenomenon.

I do not doubt that super-thermite was used in a controlled demolition at the WTC. The evidence in your video indicates use of explosives.

But there is more than that going on. You see it in your video. Falling girder assemblies trail dust before your eyes. What is the source of this dust?

Here is another example. Notice that much of the dust is rising or hanging in the air instead of falling. And the standing steel column disappears. Look at the dust spewing off the lower part of the column.

edit on 4-12-2013 by leostokes because: add spewing

LOW RES VIDEO on youtube

Low resolution, yes. But the resolution is high enough for many to see steel turn to dust.

Should the larger energy of the WTC "collapse" produce a larger seismic reading than the much smaller Kingdome controlled demolition?

For those readers who wish to know more about the real history of 9/11, you can find it here

www.historycommons.org...

Because the 9/11 truth movement (truthers) cared enough to preserve it, in perpetuity.

Other than that all we'd be left with would be the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Report, and that's all she wrote as far as the official story or "official" history goes.


Never forget.

In loving memory of Kevin Cosgrove, who was not ready to die that day, and neither were the firemen who were setting out to put out the fire on the 79th floor..



Think twice debunkers about what you're defending or trying to defend, and guard. You may hate me for saying that, but the time always come where a choice needs to be made.

This is not fun and games.

NAM