IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Speed Of Aircraft That Hit Twin Towers

Peterauty
post Jun 6 2014, 04:25 AM
Post #21





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 17-May 14
From: England
Member No.: 7,814



QUOTE (R3ALMan @ Jun 4 2014, 08:16 PM) *
I'm new here at these posting and answerings, so this is more a question based on my understanding of the thrust needed to travel at level flight at 500 mph at roughly 700 feet above sea level. If commercial aircraft like 757 and 767's are not designed to have the stability nor the thrust to do the things that happened to the WTC towers, then what clever things would have had to be done to make similar looking aircraft capable of flying level flight at 500 mph at roughly 700 feet above sea level?

I'm sorry I've no idea. But I would like to add another important question. Why would it be necessary for the perps, whether they be Muslim fundamentalists flying a normal passenger aircraft( I accept this as impossible) or your remote controllers flying a plane made to look like a passenger jet or holographers or whatever to fly at such a speed for over two minutes? If you are the hijacker, why make it so difficult and nigh on impossible for yourself? If you are an inside jobber, why make your fabricated terrorist look like he's doing the impossible for over two minutes? This is all too unfathomable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 9 2014, 09:47 AM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Peterauty @ Jun 6 2014, 04:25 AM) *
I'm sorry I've no idea. But I would like to add another important question. Why would it be necessary for the perps, whether they be Muslim fundamentalists flying a normal passenger aircraft( I accept this as impossible) or your remote controllers flying a plane made to look like a passenger jet or holographers or whatever to fly at such a speed for over two minutes? If you are the hijacker, why make it so difficult and nigh on impossible for yourself? If you are an inside jobber, why make your fabricated terrorist look like he's doing the impossible for over two minutes? This is all too unfathomable.



Hi Peter....

You have inspired me to make a new video.... just published it today.... click here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22738
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peterauty
post Jun 10 2014, 05:39 PM
Post #23





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 17-May 14
From: England
Member No.: 7,814



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 9 2014, 01:47 PM) *
Hi Peter....

You have inspired me to make a new video.... just published it today.... click here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22738

Thanks for that. One thing did strike me as a possible reason for these planes to need to fly so fast on their descent. That is to prevent the passengers from getting any genuine use of their cell phones because at near sea level the chances of gaining connectivity would rise, but would be decreased by the increased speed( I presume). Would that be a reason to modify the planes to such a degree? I know P4T don't like speculating but by testing such hypotheses we might be able to arrive at some truth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 10 2014, 06:16 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Peterauty @ Jun 10 2014, 05:39 PM) *
Thanks for that. One thing did strike me as a possible reason for these planes to need to fly so fast on their descent. That is to prevent the passengers from getting any genuine use of their cell phones because at near sea level the chances of gaining connectivity would rise, but would be decreased by the increased speed( I presume). Would that be a reason to modify the planes to such a degree? I know P4T don't like speculating but by testing such hypotheses we might be able to arrive at some truth.


Not sure regarding cell phone use as I have only flown at or below 250 knots below 10,000 feet.. smile.gif

With that said....

I know for a fact cell phones did not work before or after 9/11, at or below 250 knots... until below around 3000-1500 feet AGL... and this was in populated areas such as Southeast NY, Long Island, NJ, CT area. Sparsely populated and rural areas would get no coverage until you get on the ground, or not at all...

Example - sometimes I would forget to turn off my cell phone... and then i would get a message alert on final approach below 2000 feet into LGA or JFK, with nearly a dead battery.. due to the fact it was searching for a signal the whole flight. Once we were low enough, it picked up a signal and sent me the message alert. Ask any pilot, flight attendant, or frequent flyer regarding this... they'll tell you the same thing... happens all the time.

My opinion? I highly doubt the aircraft were modified for increased speed to prevent cell phone use... they just didn't work back then at any speed until below a certain altitude. And according to the data, the aircraft were below 3000 feet for only a few seconds. Hardly enough to make a phone call.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peterauty
post Jun 13 2014, 03:28 AM
Post #25





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 17-May 14
From: England
Member No.: 7,814



That's cleared that up then. I had read Ray Griffin on cell phone use on planes and wondered why he ever needed to quote Dewdney when he could have asked pilots or flight attendants for their anecdotal evidence on the matter, which although not scientific seems more persuasive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 13 2014, 06:04 AM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Peterauty @ Jun 13 2014, 03:28 AM) *
That's cleared that up then. I had read Ray Griffin on cell phone use on planes and wondered why he ever needed to quote Dewdney when he could have asked pilots or flight attendants for their anecdotal evidence on the matter, which although not scientific seems more persuasive.


David and I did an article on the phones back in 2007.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peterauty
post Jun 14 2014, 07:59 AM
Post #27





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 17-May 14
From: England
Member No.: 7,814



As ever, I am about seven years behind. Thanks for that too. The seat back phone issue although,as I have read, is almost irrelevant, could so easily be cleared up,like so many things, with full disclosure of the wreckage supposedly found at the Pentagon. That this is not disclosed, like the footage of 85 CCTV cameras, just adds credence to the claim of possibly the biggest cover up in history. I am, as you may have guessed, a relative newcomer to this issue and find that the more I delve into this topic, the more convinced I become of the inside job theory. However, when I talk to friends about it, I'm lucky if they have ever heard of Building 7. The blindness is overwhelming. I am a firm believer in the moon landings( ie that they happened) and only a short investigation into that convinced me. I tend not to believe in ET and I am firmly agnostic when it comes to JFK but this 'conspiracy' theory truly does stand up to scrutiny. Thank you for your tireless efforts in informing those that want to open their eyes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jun 15 2014, 10:59 PM
Post #28





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (Scooby @ May 10 2014, 05:11 AM) *
It was impossible for what we were told was flight 175 and flight 77 to have been commercial airplanes. To believe it is to pretend the impossible is possible. The speed these two planes were flying is hard evidence that can be proven. And should become common knowledge in the future. They cant cover up the plane specs forever.


Even after 12 years not everybody gets it, so at the risk of repeating the obvious:
presenting US on TV with a moving Boeing-lookalike image (aka "UA175") that dissolved
into a stationery image of WTC2 without visible damage to either image, and without
any airplane cut-out hole remaining in the building image after the virtual penetration,
was an obvious exercise in the impossible unavoidably pointing to blatant fraud.

Likewise, presenting US on TV with a moving image of the same "UA175"-lookalike, traveling
way beyond the level-flight speed of possibility, compounded the felony.

The decoy military transport plane impersonating "AA77" flying towards the Pentagon
was flying at a speed with zero relevance on account of the simple fact that on examining
the very clear sharp close-up photos of the Pentagon facade shot up to 53 minutes after
absolute-zero airplane damage was to be found on the Pentagon facade.
The military magician's planted structural explosive failed to gelignite as
the decoy airplane flew into the Hollywood-busting fireball and over the roof
in precise accordance with the classified captain's secret-ordered flight plan.

Who needs an inquiry that would never prove such top-ranking criminality?
Only point of any inquiry would be to determine how many and which
high-posted criminals will be swung from the yardarm of which brig
anchored in what bay.

Not sure if we have enough brigs....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jun 15 2014, 11:15 PM
Post #29





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (Peterauty @ Jun 14 2014, 11:59 PM) *
The blindness is overwhelming. I am a firm believer in the moon landings( ie that they happened) and only a short investigation into that convinced me.


Until just last month, I too was firm enough believer in the moon landing.

I've just spent many hours rechecking the lunar EVIDENCE.
I find NOTHING... a big fat zero... in the lunatic landing movies that could not
have been shot here on earth, and nothing that would not have been
IMPOSSIBLY more difficult to have been shot ON the moon. (Getting there is
easy: getting back is the impossible hurdle)

But you do have to look at all the details: all the fingerprints are very visible
to the naked eye. The impossible details are legion.

Maybe this isn't totally off-topic from one perspective which I can only guess at now:
ONE reason for the lunar landing fraud was to see how much they The Powers That Be
could play along public gullibility, while they were planning the 9/11 false flag.

To my undying shame it was over 40 years before I even began to take
seriously the heretical thought that the moon landing was in fact all the filmed
on-location and in-studio rehearsal footage edited into a blockbuster movie.

I discover even an more powerful denial in earthbound lunar landing, than
that 9/11 was a fracking fraud.... and that says rather too much for comfort

The denial is every bit as obvious as holocaust ditto.

But then, we all know the holocaust was a hoax. Don't we? rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by MikeR: Jun 15 2014, 11:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peterauty
post Jun 16 2014, 04:51 PM
Post #30





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 17-May 14
From: England
Member No.: 7,814



Whoops. Sorry I mentioned the lunar landings. Certainly a topic for another site. 911 just trumps them all with the volume and quality of evidence, whereas every argument against the lunar landings being genuine can be dismissed as bad science.( shadows, flag waving, photograph perspectives etc. )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 11th December 2019 - 09:47 PM