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

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

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Damage To Building Caused By Wings

Rocker65
post Oct 27 2015, 08:06 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 8-January 14
Member No.: 7,655



I have been in the WTC buildings in the late 90's. The outside columns are HUGE, let alone the metal on the inside. Aircraft wings (aside from engines) are aluminum. I know the aircraft were flying fast, but how can a wing made of aluminum cut through steel, and hardened steel at that. I can understand the fuselage and engines plowing through. But from engines onward I would assume the wings would fold and collapse, but... no.

THere are images of the side of the north tower, and you can actually see the outline of an aircraft. Are those wings just that strong? Is this odd?

Maybe I'm over thinking this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Oct 27 2015, 09:07 PM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 610
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (Rocker65 @ Oct 27 2015, 08:06 PM) *
I have been in the WTC buildings in the late 90's. The outside columns are HUGE, let alone the metal on the inside. Aircraft wings (aside from engines) are aluminum. I know the aircraft were flying fast, but how can a wing made of aluminum cut through steel, and hardened steel at that. I can understand the fuselage and engines plowing through. But from engines onward I would assume the wings would fold and collapse, but... no.

THere are images of the side of the north tower, and you can actually see the outline of an aircraft. Are those wings just that strong? Is this odd?

Maybe I'm over thinking this.


I've been over blogs, sites and read many expert opinions over the years, you are not over thinking this!

Wings have their greatest strength in the vertical plane, so as to carry the mass of the aircraft, but at the expense of having much strength in the horizontal plane. As such the engineers and physics professionals say the wings should have separated from the fuselage when the nose of the aircraft made contact with the building. Nor should the fuselages have entered the buildings intact, they should have been shredded. The physicist say that there was only enough energy present to vaporize 2% of the aircraft and if that had happened the entire play would have been dead stopped outside the building. Thus, the cartoon like impression left on the building is the work of explosives designed to create that image, so that people not versed in science would think "yeah it sure looks like a plane hit the building".

In the first news reports I remember hearing on the radio, a woman who happened to be watching the towers at the time, and would have been unlikely to miss or fail to identify a commercial aircraft coming in, said she thought she saw a twin engine private aircraft hit the building.

I've been on city streets over the last several decades and had opportunities to be on the street when low flying commercial aircraft come over Manhattan. Believe me, there is absolutely no way you can either miss or confuse what you are hearing or seeing, it is so unlike anything you are likely to see or hear that, I know for a fact that if there were a commercial jet aircraft heading for those towers, a tremendous number of 911 calls would have been made immediately, long before they hit. Remember Capt Schully? He had bird strikes disable both of this engines and he glided to land safely on the Hudson river. While he was still in the air with his engines silent, the people on Riverside Drive were making 911 calls even before he touched down. Now, try to imagine how many more calls would have been made if he'd had both engines going full bore. In short, there should not be any questions at all if a commercial aircraft hit the towers, all reports would be in agreement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Oct 27 2015, 09:25 PM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 667
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Rocker65 @ Oct 27 2015, 08:06 PM) *
I have been in the WTC buildings in the late 90's. The outside columns are HUGE, let alone the metal on the inside. Aircraft wings (aside from engines) are aluminum. I know the aircraft were flying fast, but how can a wing made of aluminum cut through steel, and hardened steel at that. I can understand the fuselage and engines plowing through. But from engines onward I would assume the wings would fold and collapse, but... no.

THere are images of the side of the north tower, and you can actually see the outline of an aircraft. Are those wings just that strong? Is this odd?

Maybe I'm over thinking this.


I used to share the same thinking as Obwon back in the day.
That was before I did some serious 9/11 research.

The wings did not have to cut the steel to enter the building.
They simply had to push the steel columns (intact) back into the building.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whole2th
post Oct 27 2015, 09:26 PM
Post #4





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 26-February 12
Member No.: 6,697



QUOTE (Rocker65 @ Oct 27 2015, 07:06 PM) *
I have been in the WTC buildings in the late 90's. The outside columns are HUGE, let alone the metal on the inside. Aircraft wings (aside from engines) are aluminum. I know the aircraft were flying fast, but how can a wing made of aluminum cut through steel, and hardened steel at that. I can understand the fuselage and engines plowing through. But from engines onward I would assume the wings would fold and collapse, but... no.

THere are images of the side of the north tower, and you can actually see the outline of an aircraft. Are those wings just that strong? Is this odd?

Maybe I'm over thinking this.


With $2.3 plus $1.1 trillion dollars, do you think that the drones may have been specially built for penetration ... hardening the leading edges?

Who says these were stock passenger planes?

Dov Zakheim, Systems Planning Corporation contracts with Boeing. The skill set was available to specially design the drones for their mission.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Oct 27 2015, 10:00 PM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 511
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (Rocker65 @ Oct 27 2015, 08:06 PM) *
I have been in the WTC buildings in the late 90's. The outside columns are HUGE, let alone the metal on the inside. Aircraft wings (aside from engines) are aluminum. I know the aircraft were flying fast, but how can a wing made of aluminum cut through steel, and hardened steel at that. I can understand the fuselage and engines plowing through. But from engines onward I would assume the wings would fold and collapse, but... no.

THere are images of the side of the north tower, and you can actually see the outline of an aircraft. Are those wings just that strong? Is this odd?

Maybe I'm over thinking this.


You may be reading too much into the photos.

If you study the facade damage maps in NIST NCSTAR 1-2, on PDF Page 295, you'll see that the AA11 outer wing tips only damaged the aluminum skin. They did not cut the columns. In most cases the columns were defeated at their bolted butt connections, or spandrel splices.

The WTC2 facade map is on PDF page 340.

A lot has been made of the planes "disappearing" into the buildings, but what I think is actually happening is the sliced plane is entering through the glazing openings. The facade was mostly glass. 14" of steel, 18" glass, 14" steel, 18" glass..... The planes were essentially sliced and diced where ever the columns were not defeated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hanky
post Oct 27 2015, 11:36 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 24
Joined: 17-July 11
Member No.: 6,076



QUOTE (Rocker65 @ Oct 27 2015, 07:06 PM) *
I have been in the WTC buildings in the late 90's. The outside columns are HUGE, let alone the metal on the inside. Aircraft wings (aside from engines) are aluminum. I know the aircraft were flying fast, but how can a wing made of aluminum cut through steel, and hardened steel at that. I can understand the fuselage and engines plowing through. But from engines onward I would assume the wings would fold and collapse, but... no.

THere are images of the side of the north tower, and you can actually see the outline of an aircraft. Are those wings just that strong? Is this odd?

Maybe I'm over thinking this.


Yes, you are over-thinking this. If you are a good citizen you do not think about anything important. You must analyze, in detail, the playoff games, and speculate on how you could have coached better, and on how you would strategize the next game. If pro sports is not your bag, you have American Idol to invest your emotions in, which is also a much more fruitful use of your energy.

Oh well, if you insist on thinking, how about this 'thought experiment?' Does basic physics insist that the resultant relative acceleration and velocity vectors of the plane parts and building parts would be the same if the building was moving at 600 mph and crashed into a jet hanging in the air? In other words, should we see lightweight airplane parts bouncing back, like a bunted baseball? Also, can the celebrated jet fuel burn itself up in a massive fireball, and still go on to melt the building like that? Have you seen Richard Gage's slow-motion close ups of one tower beginning to collapse only after the top section has demolished itself? Have you seen the top of the other building twisting off and disintegrating rather than 'piledriving' the lower floors?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clayton
post Oct 28 2015, 06:01 AM
Post #7





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 13-April 11
Member No.: 5,812



There were no planes so you can rest easy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rocker65
post Oct 28 2015, 06:53 AM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 8-January 14
Member No.: 7,655



QUOTE (Obwon @ Oct 27 2015, 09:07 PM) *
I've been over blogs, sites and read many expert opinions over the years, you are not over thinking this!

Wings have their greatest strength in the vertical plane, so as to carry the mass of the aircraft, but at the expense of having much strength in the horizontal plane. As such the engineers and physics professionals say the wings should have separated from the fuselage when the nose of the aircraft made contact with the building. Nor should the fuselages have entered the buildings intact, they should have been shredded. The physicist say that there was only enough energy present to vaporize 2% of the aircraft and if that had happened the entire play would have been dead stopped outside the building. Thus, the cartoon like impression left on the building is the work of explosives designed to create that image, so that people not versed in science would think "yeah it sure looks like a plane hit the building".


As horrific as this is, I can see the plane getting shredded to pass through. But to me, in some of the photo's it sure looks like it cut or "broke" through as opposed to just pushed through. Mind you the resolution isn't that good. Thanks for your thoughts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rocker65
post Oct 28 2015, 06:56 AM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 8-January 14
Member No.: 7,655



QUOTE (hanky @ Oct 27 2015, 11:36 PM) *
Yes, you are over-thinking this. If you are a good citizen you do not think about anything important. You must analyze, in detail, the playoff games, and speculate on how you could have coached better, and on how you would strategize the next game. If pro sports is not your bag, you have American Idol to invest your emotions in, which is also a much more fruitful use of your energy.

Oh well, if you insist on thinking, how about this 'thought experiment?' Does basic physics insist that the resultant relative acceleration and velocity vectors of the plane parts and building parts would be the same if the building was moving at 600 mph and crashed into a jet hanging in the air? In other words, should we see lightweight airplane parts bouncing back, like a bunted baseball? Also, can the celebrated jet fuel burn itself up in a massive fireball, and still go on to melt the building like that? Have you seen Richard Gage's slow-motion close ups of one tower beginning to collapse only after the top section has demolished itself? Have you seen the top of the other building twisting off and disintegrating rather than 'piledriving' the lower floors?


I've even met Richard Gage at one of his presentations. There's no doubt enough bizarre stuff going on to make this event the largest mystery ever. Never seen so much weird stuff go unsolved. Not only unsolved, but purposely unsolved by the powers that be.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Oct 28 2015, 06:59 AM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 511
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (Clayton @ Oct 28 2015, 06:01 AM) *
There were no planes so you can rest easy.


Admin, please remove this newbie.

If he/she can't understand that there were planes, then he/she won't be able to offer anything substantive here.

Thousands of people in NYC and New Jersey saw planes arriving, from all different locations and elevations. There are recordings where you can hear them arrive. People in the WTC saw them coming, felt them impact, felt the tower sway, saw the debris raining down.

Of course there were planes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthissweet
post Oct 28 2015, 08:54 AM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 556
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Falseflagville, PA
Member No.: 7,913



Something hit. Whatever was shown to the public on TV hitting the second tower was shown over and over and over to drill into the minds 175 hit. What actually hit we may never know. A complete moron knows a plane can not melt into a building.

To say no planes is wrong. Something did hit. Ask the Naudet brothers what hit the first tower. Ask the person(s), who placed a CGI object over what hit the second tower, what really hit. If only HDtv was available then.

I am of the thinking very few people were in the tower. You can't trust crisis actor witnesses saying what they saw that morning. Ask yourself this question, why were the towers even built? 9/11 seems a logical answer. I am a non-commercial jet and non-military jet hitting the towers. Some type of hybrid plane.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Oct 28 2015, 12:04 PM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 610
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (kawika @ Oct 28 2015, 06:59 AM) *
Admin, please remove this newbie.

If he/she can't understand that there were planes, then he/she won't be able to offer anything substantive here.

Thousands of people in NYC and New Jersey saw planes arriving, from all different locations and elevations. There are recordings where you can hear them arrive. People in the WTC saw them coming, felt them impact, felt the tower sway, saw the debris raining down.

Of course there were planes.


Forget about the so called "eyewitnesses", if planes actually hit the building, they had to materialize out of thin air, moments before impact. Funny how people can hear Air Force One circling over Staten Island, the Kill and New Jersey, but they can't hear an aircraft, with it's engines open full bore, racing down the river. Even Cpt. Sully was heard, and he had shut down his engines before gliding to a landing on the river. That gliding and landing caused hundreds of people on Riverside Drive to call 911.

Next up is the evidence itself. For the impressions you see on the building to be made, the aircraft should have hit the building, flying in perpendicular to the building. That's zero degrees of angle for the nose and the tail x,y Axis. While the photos and every other piece of evidence they present shows that the aircraft that hit the north tower was anything but perpendicular to the north wall. Meaning that, upon impact the aircraft should have rotated against the resistance. There was nothing but air holding it on course, so even a slightly deviated angle from the perpendicular, would have resulted in a very large rotation of the aircraft. It is impossible in the extreme for an aircraft to hit the building, nose down, tail up and to the side, and not instantly rotate on impact. Check with your favorite physics professor or other science professional.

The only way you can have any planes is to selectively choose which evidence you decide to look at. Yes, at first I thought there were planes, but the evidence against that idea kept growing. So that next I thought it was a controversial issue. There were people saying they saw planes, but there was no good evidence for it. Some of those who claimed to have seen planes, were discovered to have had no line of sight to see them. Between that and the sound of the aircraft, it's speed, direction and the Naudet video and what should have actually happened if there was an actual plane, I realized that the video was fake, the Fireman's scene was staged! They don't show the original full Fireman's video anymore because they know that it gives itself away.

Here, let me walk you through it from memory. The firemen are standing in the street looking down at a grill. Suddenly they look up, as if seeing an aircraft. If you know New York and know Lispenard street, from where they are standing they have only a very limited view of the sky because of the buildings. Okay, when I first saw the video, after the Firemen looked up, the camera began a slow turn and pan towards the north tower, then, as it circled to focus it zoomed in to capture the impact. So, I remembered what I learned here, about the air crafts supposed speed, then I went to google and used their measuring device to determine that the firemen were standing 1,700 feet from the north tower (give or take a dozen or so feet because the north tower is set back from the street by a few dozen feet).

The aircraft hit the building some 800 feet high, in a steep dive, although I haven't yet been able to determine the angle of decent, we know that the aircraft wasn't flying level, so just about any angle for a steep dive, puts the aircraft at 800 feet plus, whatever feet per second you pick for the dive. Thus, at 1,700 feet from the building, it is reasonable to assume a conservative 1,800 feet from the ground at Lispenard street. At the speed of sound, which this site has uncovered in the data for flight 11, the aircraft is 3 seconds from impact at this point. Now, if you can get the original Naudet video of the first impact, the one that shows the fireman turn to look up, and count off three seconds (if you can't use the 30 frames per second to do the counting for you). You will see that the looking up of the fireman consumes about 1 to 1.5 seconds, then the camera turns to the north tower, sweeps around as it spirals in on a target and then zooms in, all before the impact occurs.

Next you have to consider that at the speed the aircraft is supposedly moving, the fireman on the ground cannot even hear the plane until it is at least one second advanced from the position where it made that sound. It takes that long for the sound to reach ground level. Thus, impact should have occurred just as Naudet was swinging his camera south and not after he had focused and zoomed.

They needed the highest speed for the aircraft they could reasonably set, is why they've got the data showing the speed of sound. They had to explain why the plane went completely into the building and why it didn't break apart and send a shower of pieces to the ground.

Of course, even if the evidence says otherwise, people can believe whatever they choose to believe. This would not be the first time in world history, that people choose to believe that which was completely false, even in the face of evidence which proved otherwise. In fact, people have been put to death for insisting on believing the truth as revealed by hard evidence, and not the popular or official narratives.

Well, there, I've said my piece. I won't repeat this again. I know how much it bothers some people to think that there weren't any planes. I don't write to incite "riots" but to provoke thinking. Many people have lost interest in 911, now that it's 14+ years ago, so I thought that with the boards this quiet, it would be a reasonable time to liven things up a little.

I now return you to your regular theories. laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Oct 28 2015, 12:58 PM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 667
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Clayton @ Oct 28 2015, 06:01 AM) *
There were no planes so you can rest easy.



Clayton, you have the patience of Job to wait more than four years to make only your second post here and make
it with such conviction! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Oct 28 2015, 01:02 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 667
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Rocker65 @ Oct 28 2015, 06:56 AM) *
I've even met Richard Gage at one of his presentations. There's no doubt enough bizarre stuff going on to make this event the largest mystery ever. Never seen so much weird stuff go unsolved. Not only unsolved, but purposely unsolved by the powers that be.


The most important parts of the 9/11 'mystery' were solved a long time ago.
The problem is that the MSM hasn't reported this and so many people (like yourself) remain
in the dark about what happened. sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rocker65
post Oct 28 2015, 02:38 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 8-January 14
Member No.: 7,655



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Oct 28 2015, 01:02 PM) *
The most important parts of the 9/11 'mystery' were solved a long time ago.
The problem is that the MSM hasn't reported this and so many people (like yourself) remain
in the dark about what happened. sad.gif


My first thoughts on your response were, bull shiiiiit. But now that I think about it... dam your right. Except that I'm not completely in the dark, that part hurt!! dunno.gif I think I could read for another 6 months straight and still not fully understand everything. Flight 93 was as absurd as the pentagon "airplane crash". I believe there are only theories floating around which can explain that madness. Anyhow, this is off topic. NP1Mike, have a fantastic day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 28 2015, 03:08 PM
Post #16





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (whole2th @ Oct 27 2015, 10:26 PM) *
With $2.3 plus $1.1 trillion dollars, do you think that the drones may have been specially built for penetration ... hardening the leading edges?

Who says these were stock passenger planes?

Dov Zakheim, Systems Planning Corporation contracts with Boeing. The skill set was available to specially design the drones for their mission.



Welcome to the forum. Very good points about strengthened aircraft. Zakheim was in it up to his eyeballs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Oct 28 2015, 03:10 PM
Post #17





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,124
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



What can be quite sure is that a soft lead bullet, good to note much softer than an duralluminium, is able to penetrate steel.

The NTSB in its study claims the aircraft was flying 500-520 knots. Such speeds, more or less, were independently confirmed using 3D analysis of 18 available videos (which btw I've asked some years ago to be done by a 3D analysis expert from Germany) and the trajectory of the plane on them respectively (which btw matches same trajectory on all of the videos). The speeds of the aircraft during the last 12 seconds of the flight were determined to be 490-524 knots. The impact speed determined from the 3D analysis was >490 knots. The NTSB in their radar data study claims even 510 knots.

490-510 knots are surely speeds in the range comparable to a speed of a bullet.

However a speed of 490-524 knots is extremely likely a speed impossible for a civilian B767 at the given very low altitude, because it is 130-150 knots higher speed than the maximum operating speed of a civilian B767 and from the precedent of the Egyptair 990 case it was determined by the Pilots for 911 truth that such speeds would extremely likely result in generalized structural faillure and disintegration of the aircraft long before it would even have a chance to hit the WTC2, so it is quite likely that whatever hit the WTC2 wasn't a civilian B767.

There on the other hand are indices that the aircraft which hit the WTC2 in fact could have been a military version of the B767, possibly equiped with a remote control possibly provided by Systems Planning Corporation under the auspices of Dov S. Zakheim, the same person credited for the infamous quote about the "new Pearl Harbor" in the PNAC document Rebuilding America's Defenses.

The official version claims that the United airlines B767 tail number N612UA assigned on the flight 175 took off from the Boston Logan airport at 8:14. However the Official DOT on-time database BTS compiled using automated system list the wheels off time for this flight as 8:23. It is therefore likely that the aircraft which allegedly took off from the Boston Logan airport at 8:14 wasn't the N612UA but an other plane. And it therefore also implies that the plane with the passengers was swapped for a drone already on the ground.

And as it looks from the FDR data study and the Lat/Lon positions of the plane respectively when still at the airport (a research I've contributed to some years ago) the same most likely happened also in the case of the American Airlines flight 77.

And as it looks from the woodybox's research the same is also very likely in the case of the American Airlines flight 11.

In the case of the United Airlines flight 93 there also conflicts the official version takeoff time 8:42 with the BTS-RITA record listing wheels off time for the N591UA aircraft as 8:23.

It is therefore in my opinion very possible all the 4 aircrafts used for the September 11 2001 attacks could have been drones swapped for the civilian passenger jets already on the ground.

There could be in my opinion possibly even a way how this reasonable suspicion could be confirmed:
All the 4 civilian aicrafts claimed to be used in the attacks were equipped with the Mode-S transponders (as mandated by a law since 1996 for the purpose of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System), the transponders which unlike the old Mode-3 transponders everybody talks about allow the unique identification of the planes using unique codes assigned by the FAA/ICAO to every major airline aircrafts being part of their tail number registration (and we positively know the Mode-S unique codes for all the 4 civilian aircrafts allegedly involved in the 911 attacks) and at least the Boston Logan Airport, being in fact the "proving ground" for the Mode-S system during its development at the MIT, and likely also both the Dulles International and Newark airports were equipped to read the Mode-S transponders. If we would have the Mode-S logs from this airports we could be most likely able to determine once for all whether the 4 passenger planes were used for the attacks or not as suspected.
Unfortunately I'm afraid that this most likely decisive pieces of evidence, which weirdly almost nobody ever talked about (although it was known from the very beginning the planes were Mode-S capable), is long time gone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rocker65
post Oct 28 2015, 03:27 PM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 8-January 14
Member No.: 7,655



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Oct 28 2015, 03:10 PM) *
What can be quite sure is that a soft lead bullet, good to note much softer than an duralluminium, is able to penetrate steel.

The NTSB in its study claims the aircraft was flying 500-520 knots. Such speeds, more or less, were independently confirmed using 3D analysis of 18 available videos (which btw I've asked some years ago to be done by a 3D analysis expert from Germany) and the trajectory of the plane on them respectively (which btw matches same trajectory on all of the videos). The speeds of the aircraft during the last 12 seconds of the flight were determined to be 490-524 knots. The impact speed determined from the 3D analysis was >490 knots. The NTSB in their radar data study claims even 510 knots.

490-510 knots are surely speeds in the range comparable to a speed of a bullet.

However a speed of 490-524 knots is extremely likely a speed impossible for a civilian B767 at the given very low altitude, because it is 130-150 knots higher speed than the maximum operating speed of a civilian B767 and from the precedent of the Egyptair 990 case it was determined by the Pilots for 911 truth that such speeds would extremely likely result in generalized structural faillure and disintegration of the aircraft long before it would even have a chance to hit the WTC2, so it is quite likely that whatever hit the WTC2 wasn't a civilian B767.

There on the other hand are indices that the aircraft which hit the WTC2 in fact could have been a military version of the B767, possibly equiped with a remote control possibly provided by Systems Planning Corporation under the auspices of Dov S. Zakheim, the same person credited for the infamous quote about the "new Pearl Harbor" in the PNAC document Rebuilding America's Defenses.

The official version claims that the United airlines B767 tail number N612UA assigned on the flight 175 took off from the Boston Logan airport at 8:14. However the Official DOT on-time database BTS compiled using automated system list the wheels off time for this flight as 8:23. It is therefore likely that the aircraft which allegedly took off from the Boston Logan airport at 8:14 wasn't the N612UA but an other plane. And it therefore also implies that the plane with the passengers was swapped for a drone already on the ground.

And as it looks from the FDR data study and the Lat/Lon positions of the plane respectively when still at the airport (a research I've contributed to some years ago) the same most likely happened also in the case of the American Airlines flight 77.

And as it looks from the woodybox's research the same is also very likely in the case of the American Airlines flight 11.

In the case of the United Airlines flight 93 there also conflicts the official version takeoff time 8:42 with the BTS-RITA record listing wheels off time for the N591UA aircraft as 8:23.

It is therefore in my opinion very possible all the 4 aircrafts used for the September 11 2001 attacks could have been drones swapped for the civilian passenger jets already on the ground.

There could be in my opinion possibly even a way how this reasonable suspicion could be confirmed:
All the 4 civilian aicrafts claimed to be used in the attacks were equipped with the Mode-S transponders (as mandated by a law since 1996 for the purpose of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System), the transponders which unlike the old Mode-3 transponders everybody talks about allow the unique identification of the planes using unique codes assigned by the FAA/ICAO to every major airline aircrafts being part of their tail number registration (and we positively know the Mode-S unique codes for all the 4 civilian aircrafts allegedly involved in the 911 attacks) and at least the Boston Logan Airport, being in fact the "proving ground" for the Mode-S system during its development at the MIT, and likely also both the Dulles International and Newark airports were equipped to read the Mode-S transponders. If we would have the Mode-S logs from this airports we could be most likely able to determine once for all whether the 4 passenger planes were used for the attacks or not as suspected.
Unfortunately I'm afraid that this most likely decisive pieces of evidence, which weirdly almost nobody ever talked about (although it was known from the very beginning the planes were Mode-S capable), is long time gone.


Alors, votre nom est Francais, alors je te dit merci pour ton reponse. Didn't know about the transponder logs, that is very interesting, and yes sad that they weren't consulted. But probably purposefully left out of the investigation. Why muddy a bad investigation with real useful information. No good deed goes unpunished.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Oct 28 2015, 03:32 PM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 667
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Rocker65 @ Oct 28 2015, 02:38 PM) *
My first thoughts on your response were, bull shiiiiit. But now that I think about it... dam your right. Except that I'm not completely in the dark, that part hurt!! dunno.gif I think I could read for another 6 months straight and still not fully understand everything. Flight 93 was as absurd as the pentagon "airplane crash". I believe there are only theories floating around which can explain that madness. Anyhow, this is off topic. NP1Mike, have a fantastic day.


Thanks Rocker65.

I meant no harm whatsoever with my comment.

I shoot right from my hip here at P4 9/11 Truth. My style of writing always goes right to the heart of the matter.

Sometimes it may seem a bit abrasive, but I never mean to put someone down on a personal level or be mean-spirited.

I also hope you have a great day! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Oct 28 2015, 03:46 PM
Post #20





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 667
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Obwon @ Oct 28 2015, 12:04 PM) *
Well, there, I've said my piece. I won't repeat this again. I know how much it bothers some people to think that there weren't any planes. I don't write to incite "riots" but to provoke thinking. Many people have lost interest in 911, now that it's 14+ years ago, so I thought that with the boards this quiet, it would be a reasonable time to liven things up a little.

I now return you to your regular theories. laughing1.gif


Obwon it's interesting that it was the 'sound of aircraft' that convinced you no planes hit the WTC towers.

In my case it was the sound in a video that convinced me that planes DID hit the WTC towers!

When I discovered an obscure Youtube video made by an amateur on 9/11 where you can hear the WTC2 being
struck, then three seconds later hear someone in the video yelling to his friends to duck, then four seconds later
hear a building being struck (landing gear?) then a few seconds later hear another building being struck and finally
a few seconds later hear a loud thud (as the engine hit the ground) I had all the evidence I needed to abandon any
no plane theory that had been giving me doubts.
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: 26th September 2017 - 11:11 AM