Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't doubt the witnesses, but like you said "if the camera isn't in your hands, you'll miss the shot." If the airplane was flying too fast to get a good look at it, how can we know for sure what the witnesses saw?
I can certainly look much faster than I can break out a camera and frame a shot.
When you listen to what the witnesses said, it was rarely "A 757 in American Airlines livery", it was "a big plane" or "a passenger plane", or simply "a jet plane". It's just that if you add up what was said, it's consistent with AA77. And as it happens, AA77 (and what was left of AA77s passengers) was found in the debris.
Quote:
If we had video footage we could replay it in slow motion for a better look.
We don't.
Quote:
And what about many witnesses who have commented on the lack of airplane debris after the plane hit?
What about them? I suspect that for most, this would be the first time they encountered the wreckage of an aircraft that was flown into terrain.
Quote:
Others have suggested the aircraft flew over the Pentagon at low altitude, at the moment the explosion took place to make it appear as if it struck the Pentagon, but didn't actually hit it.
Independent aviation experts have come out and stated that the maneuvers that the govt claims this plane made in order to strike the pentagon in the manner in which the govt claims it did are impossible!
Type-rated pilots have flown the profile in simulators, even commenting on how roughly the terrorists handled the aircraft. Of course Google gives me 10,000 Troofers quoting each other when I search for the article.
There was lot of parts but those are going to be things that are hard to destroy, engines, landing gear etc. A plane by design is pretty flimsy.
When you double the speed of something you quadruple the energy e.g. a car traveling at 100 miles an hour has 4 times the energy of one traveling at 50. A car traveling at 200 miles an hour has 16 times the energy of one traveling at 50.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
I can certainly look much faster than I can break out a camera and frame a shot.
When you listen to what the witnesses said, it was rarely "A 757 in American Airlines livery", it was "a big plane" or "a passenger plane", or simply "a jet plane". It's just that if you add up what was said, it's consistent with AA77. And as it happens, AA77 (and what was left of AA77s passengers) was found in the debris.
Fine, assuming it was a commercial airliner that struck the Pentagon. And it probably was.
There are still many questions too many to list but here are a few.
- Why was the plane going at such extreme speed when it hit the Pentagon? 520mph is normal cruising speed at 35,000 feet, for a large airliner where the air is very thin, but not at ground level. Pilots have commented it is not possible to fly an airliner above a certain speed at low altitude without losing control or the aircraft breaking apart due to the extreme turbulence.
- Some say it would be possible for a 757 to go 500mph at low altitude without losing control, if it were being remotely controlled or piloted. Robotic controls are much stronger than human hands.
Air traffic controllers on the ground couldn't believe what they were witnessing:
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
- Why were there so few passengers on the plane? There were only 64 people on-board Flight 77 including the crew. That is a third of the plane's capacity. All the other 9/11 planes had unusually low number of passengers as well. Airplanes don't normally fly with so few passengers because they lose money. Maybe one airplane wouldn't be such an anomaly, but all four? Another amazing coincidence and stroke of luck for the hijackers having so few passengers to deal with.
- Why were none of the 9/11 airliners ever intercepted? Intercepting doesn't mean shoot down. When commercial aircraft go off course and/or lose communication it is normal procedure to send up jet fighters towards them to see what the problem is. Were they ordered to stand down until it was too late?
- Why was the plane going at such extreme speed when it hit the Pentagon? 520mph is normal cruising speed at 35,000 feet, for a large airliner where the air is very thin, but not at ground level.
520 mph is well within a 757-200's spped range. It has a VNE (Velocity Never Exceed) of Mach .86, about 640 mph at ground speed. It's true that airlines don't fly it like that, because the passengers would spill their drinks and (more importantly) the cockpit windows would shatter from a birdstrike, but aerodynamically, there's no problem. Twin-engine passenger jets have tremendous power reserves - each engine has enough oomph to complete a take-off, after all.
Quote:
Pilots have commented it is not possible to fly an airliner above a certain speed at low altitude without losing control or the aircraft breaking apart due to the extreme turbulence.
Why would there be extreme turbulence at low altitude?
Quote:
- Some say it would be possible for a 757 to go 500mph at low altitude without losing control, if it were being remotely controlled or piloted. Robotic controls are much stronger than human hands.
Ehm - the control surfaces are hydraulically activated. Human strength have nothing to do with it.
Quote:
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Rookies handled the plane roughly.
Quote:
- Why were there so few passengers on the plane? There were only 64 people on-board Flight 77 including the crew. That is a third of the plane's capacity. All the other 9/11 planes had unusually low number of passengers as well. Airplanes don't normally fly with so few passengers because they lose money. Maybe one airplane wouldn't be such an anomaly, but all four? Another amazing coincidence and stroke of luck for the hijackers having so few passengers to deal with.
This is just post-fact reasoning - if the plane had been packed, the question would have been how the hijackers know to pick a plane with so many passengers. Be that as it may, I've flown on commercial aircraft with less passengers than that.
Quote:
Why were none of the 9/11 airliners ever intercepted? Intercepting doesn't mean shoot down. When commercial aircraft go off course and/or lose communication it is normal procedure to send up jet fighters towards them to see what the problem is.
It is normal procedure now.
Pre-9/11, if a commercial aircraft stopped transmitting transponder signals, it was SOP to try to reach it by radio and to start thinking "electrical problem, possible crash". Also keep in mind that primary radar was pointing outwards, not inwards. Once transponder contact is lost, there's no knowing where a plane is until it gets close to a major airport or airbase.
500 MPH is fast. Flight 77 turned off its transponder at 08:56. The regional flight traffic center noticed at 09:00, and got the word out to other flight traffic centers that a plane might be missing, possibly crashed. At 09:20, the traffic controllers learned of other hijacked aircraft. At that time, the military was brought in. At 09:32, Dulles saw a primary radar contact - as in, no transponder, so unknown aircraft. And at 09:37, Flight 77 impacted.
There were fighter aircraft up, looking for AA 11, and they were hundreds of miles away. The USAF are good, but 17 minutes and no useful location data.
Quote:
Were they ordered to stand down until it was too late?
No evidence of that, and I don't see the USAF officer corps keeping quiet about that. USAF (and US ANG) forces broke rules seven ways to Sunday to get planes in the air.
520 mph is well within a 757-200's spped range. It has a VNE (Velocity Never Exceed) of Mach .86, about 640 mph at ground speed. It's true that airlines don't fly it like that, because the passengers would spill their drinks and (more importantly) the cockpit windows would shatter from a birdstrike, but aerodynamically, there's no problem. Twin-engine passenger jets have tremendous power reserves - each engine has enough oomph to complete a take-off, after all.
Huh? Top speed of a 757 is 610 mph at cruising altitude. You're saying it can go faster at ground level than at 35,000 feet? That's some nice cartoon physics you got there. But then again the official story is rather cartoony isn't it.
Vmo or max safe speed for 757 below 10,000 ft is 360mph, because air pressure is three times greater at ground level. Much above that speed the airplane is virtually impossible to maintain control with any precision, certainly not for an amateur pilot with no flying time outside of a flight simulator, to aim it precisely at something like a building on the ground at such abnormal crazy speeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Why would there be extreme turbulence at low altitude?
Come on, basic physics. Air pressure near the ground is three times higher than cruising altitude. The higher you go the lower the air pressure. Which explains, for example why satellites whip around the earth at 40,000 MPH in low orbit, because there is no air up there. That is not possible at ground level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Ehm - the control surfaces are hydraulically activated. Human strength have nothing to do with it.
Yes it does. Hydraulics helps you when flying within the safe parameters of the aircraft. When you exceed those parameters you lose control. The power braking and power steering on a car, for example operates by hydraulics - but when you exceed safe operating limits, you lose control of the car and crash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Rookies handled the plane roughly.
That's not what the air traffic controllers said. They said he was flying the plane with the precision of a military pilot, not that he was out of control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
This is just post-fact reasoning - if the plane had been packed, the question would have been how the hijackers know to pick a plane with so many passengers. Be that as it may, I've flown on commercial aircraft with less passengers than that.
Huh? The hijackers have no way of knowing how full the planes would before buying their tickets and boarding them.
If you really want to know, the conspiracy 'theories' are happening right under our noses every day.
Here's a talk based on notes a guy took in 1968. (Everyone at the speech was asked to not take notes, but one guy did anyway. He made a tape of his notes almost 20 years later, in the late 1980s).
The existence of Area 51.
The existence of a secret federal agency denied by the Feds ( the NSA)
The govt fed radioactive milk to children in a state home to study the results
The govt intentionally infected black males with syphilis to study the disease progression.
Oh, and the government's MK Ultra Mind Control program...which actually goes on right under our noses. Many people in the entertainment industry are under some form of trauma based mind control.
I agree except for the bolded part. I don't think the 9/11 conspiracy theories hold much weight. However, Bush did use the crisis and his political capital it gave him to get a war in Iraq started that he wanted from the beginning. The WMD case always seemed weak, even in 2003 when it was the most supported.
If 9/11 wasn't a pre-planned false flag by our government, why were there so many movies & TV shows and with 9/11 like events and/or subliminal clues about 9/11 taking place?--Often years before the event happened (also known as "predictive programming":
And did you ever notice they only talk about the twin towers falling, but never Building 7? The planes never hit Building 7 yet, it came down in the same fashion as the twin towers. Hmmmm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
