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

carr4770
post Apr 22 2014, 07:50 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 9-October 09
Member No.: 4,648



When I mentioned the speed of the aircraft that hit the Twin Towers to my brother, who is also a pilot, he said that without the transponders activated how could anyone know the speed the airplanes were going? I didn't have an answer. Could someone respond to this? Thanks.
Mike Carr
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 22 2014, 07:58 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (carr4770 @ Apr 22 2014, 07:50 PM) *
When I mentioned the speed of the aircraft that hit the Twin Towers to my brother, who is also a pilot, he said that without the transponders activated how could anyone know the speed the airplanes were going? I didn't have an answer. Could someone respond to this? Thanks.
Mike Carr


Hi Mike....

You may want to tell your brother to do more research on 9/11, because "UA175" transponder was never shut off.... only the transponder code was changed. It was squawking Mode C the entire time.

With that said... if your brother truly was a pilot.. .he would know that a Transponder with Mode C is not required to calculate a speed. Speed can (and is) calculated from Primary returns (radar bouncing off the metal of the airplane).

Ask him if he thinks the USA is only capable of intercepting aircraft with a Mode C transponder. If he says "Yes"... either he is not a pilot.. or a very poor pilot and should be grounded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Apr 22 2014, 07:59 PM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (carr4770 @ Apr 22 2014, 12:50 PM) *
When I mentioned the speed of the aircraft that hit the Twin Towers to my brother, who is also a pilot, he said that without the transponders activated how could anyone know the speed the airplanes were going? I didn't have an answer. Could someone respond to this? Thanks.
Mike Carr

Transponders have nothing much with speed, at least the Mode-3 and C ones, not speaking that the "UA175" didn't switch its transponder off. The the speed of "AA11" from radars and the speed of the "UA175" was determined from videos and radars.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Apr 22 2014, 08:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
UnitedMike
post Apr 22 2014, 09:04 PM
Post #4





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 25-January 14
Member No.: 7,683



QUOTE (carr4770 @ Apr 22 2014, 06:50 PM) *
When I mentioned the speed of the aircraft that hit the Twin Towers to my brother, who is also a pilot, he said that without the transponders activated how could anyone know the speed the airplanes were going? I didn't have an answer. Could someone respond to this? Thanks.
Mike Carr


I'm a 757 pilot for a major airline and have discussed the speed of flight 175 and flight 77 with nearly every pilot I've flown a trip with. Nearly every one of them say (after they think about it) that flight 77 in to pentagon not possible with the decending maneuver at that speed. For you airline pilots out there that would be an Rnav RNP approach at Mach 1... in visual conditions (tougher). Nobody, I mean nobody can do that. Not even a professional pilot with a "fighter" background. Something else did that precision maneuver. I'm sure this topic has been beat to death.. I'm open minded to a legitimate debate with any airline pilots that thinks that's possible.
Mj
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 22 2014, 09:27 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (UnitedMike @ Apr 22 2014, 09:04 PM) *
I'm a 757 pilot for a major airline and have discussed the speed of flight 175 and flight 77 with nearly every pilot I've flown a trip with. Nearly every one of them say (after they think about it) that flight 77 in to pentagon not possible with the decending maneuver at that speed. For you airline pilots out there that would be an Rnav RNP approach at Mach 1... in visual conditions (tougher). Nobody, I mean nobody can do that. Not even a professional pilot with a "fighter" background. Something else did that precision maneuver. I'm sure this topic has been beat to death.. I'm open minded to a legitimate debate with any airline pilots that thinks that's possible.
Mj


Welcome to the forum Mike.

The only "pilots" who claim such maneuvers and speed were "possible" based on what we have been told by govt agencies... are either anonymous or those willing to sell their soul....

Read more here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10812648
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SteveF
post Apr 22 2014, 09:40 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 25-February 11
Member No.: 5,677



UnitedMike, speaking of flight 77, said:

"Something else did that precision maneuver"

Nothing did "that" maneuver.

All credible witnesses who were in a position to see the plane say that it was travelling slow; some say that it "lifted up" as it approached the Pentagon.

All the witnesses say that it was travelling North of the Citgo gas station(NoC).

The plane didn't make any of the maneuvers that the usurped "government" says it did.

"I'm sure this topic has been beat to death"

Yes, Citizen Investigation Team(CIT) has killed and cremated the official conspiracy theory.

If you are not familiar with CIT's work, watch the video:

"National Security Alert: 911 Pentagon Attack"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

and go to their website:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/praise.html

The plane flew over the Pentagon.....case closed!

This post has been edited by SteveF: Apr 22 2014, 09:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Apr 22 2014, 09:40 PM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



Not that I doubt the assertions above, but shouldn't someone helpfully post a link to credible evidence, which counters the oft reported 30 second deactivation claim?

QUOTE (History Commons)
8:46 a.m.-8:47 a.m. September 11, 2001: Flight 175 Changes Transponder Signal but Remains Easily Traceable

Flight 175 stops transmitting its transponder signal. It is currently flying near the New Jersey-Pennsylvania border. [Guardian, 10/17/2001; Newsday, 9/10/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] However, the transponder is turned off for only about 30 seconds, and then comes back on as a signal that is not designated for any plane on this day.

~ http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?...46changessignal
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 22 2014, 09:42 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (poppyburner @ Apr 22 2014, 09:40 PM) *
Not that I doubt the assertions above, but shouldn't someone helpfully post a link to credible evidence, which counters the oft reported 30 second deactivation claim?


~ http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?...46changessignal



Yes, thank you Poppy.. .good point. (and I suppose it is the reason I keep you around?) smile.gif

We address this in 9/11: Intercepted as well....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Docten
post Apr 23 2014, 12:22 AM
Post #9





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 12-November 12
Member No.: 7,096



QUOTE (carr4770 @ Apr 22 2014, 06:50 PM) *
When I mentioned the speed of the aircraft that hit the Twin Towers to my brother, who is also a pilot, he said that without the transponders activated how could anyone know the speed the airplanes were going? I didn't have an answer. Could someone respond to this? Thanks.
Mike Carr



As I understand it, the transponder only eliminates the altitude. The plane is still on radar and so the speed is still tracked.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Scooby
post Apr 23 2014, 12:39 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 82
Joined: 31-October 12
Member No.: 7,076



And the 9/11 Commission that agreed the speeds were that high. Its one of the few instances that the 9/11 Commission and truthers agree. The reported speed is not being denied by anyone that I am aware of.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Apr 23 2014, 11:12 PM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Scooby @ Apr 23 2014, 11:39 AM) *
And the 9/11 Commission that agreed the speeds were that high. Its one of the few instances that the 9/11 Commission and truthers agree. The reported speed is not being denied by anyone that I am aware of.


Oh there's at least one person at this site who I've been in discussion with in a thread, who denies the speed. thumbdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Apr 24 2014, 04:05 AM
Post #12





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



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Apr 24 2014, 03:12 PM) *
Oh there's at least one person at this site who I've been in discussion with in a thread, who denies the speed. thumbdown.gif



Far be it for me to claim credit where none is due,
but I am compelled to live 24/7/366 with a self
who not only denies the speed.... (220 knots
past self-destruct VNe)...but whose researches
(aka watching YT vids) prompts the old battler
to deny that any regular Boeing ever flew
on route UA175 into WTC2 on 9/11/2001

If a video shows a black lookalike moving
across the screen at a measurable 589 mph,
who in their right mind would believe any
official word that claimed it was a plane,
let alone another word that said the ensuing fireball
was caused by that same non-plane and not
by some nuclear-zionist special effects company?

I kinda guessed there'd be a whole bunch of
super-smart Pilots for UA175 Truth?

Surely? whistle.gif

MikeR

This post has been edited by MikeR: Apr 24 2014, 04:06 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Apr 24 2014, 11:03 AM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (MikeR @ Apr 24 2014, 03:05 AM) *
<snips>
If a video shows a black lookalike moving
across the screen at a measurable 589 mph,
who in their right mind would believe any
official word that claimed it was a plane,
let alone another word that said the ensuing fireball
was caused by that same non-plane and not
by some nuclear-zionist special effects company?

I kinda guessed there'd be a whole bunch of
super-smart Pilots for UA175 Truth?

Surely? whistle.gif

MikeR


Is it me? Or has the south tower hit video been changed?

I remember (because it was burned into my memory by being played and replayed for several days). After I had returned from voting, I was told of a small aircraft having crashed into the north tower, then it became a commuter jet, no one news outlet seemed to be sure.

So we turned on the TV and there was the image of the north tower smoking away with shots of the gaping hole in it. Suddenly the camera switched away to show the south tower being hit.
That film strip was played over and over again.

Here's what I saw: A fireball emerged from the east face of the south tower, very near the southern corner. I watched that video carefully because I was certain that there would be debris, like desks, chairs and/or plane parts, that being heavier than air, would quickly fall through the fireball trailing wake vortexes behind them. Nothing at all, other than fire and
a thread of burning fuel came through. Of course, I didn't see the thread of burning fuel, until I saw the same video clips being played on YouTube.

It was later explained that the thread of burning fuel hit some unfortunate woman who was standing in the wrong place at the wrong time and she was immolated.

Fast forward to today and I now see videos of that same hit, running a line of fire transecting the entire east wall, south to north, with a couple of solid objects, trailing wake vortexes, emerging from the north side of the south tower, presumably one of which was the engine spindle that supposedly landed on Murry Street. The very same spindle that, after closer examination, the NTSB says did not come from either jet. Nor was the wheel assembly found on Church street claimed to have come from either jet by the official investigators.

Which prompts the obvious question, what where these pieces doing there?

Why does the video of the South Tower strike change?

Questions, always more questions, never any answers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Apr 27 2014, 02:44 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



"Oh there's at least one person at this site who I've been in discussion with in a thread, who denies the speed. "

QUOTE (MikeR @ Apr 24 2014, 03:05 AM) *
Far be it for me to claim credit where none is due,
but I am compelled to live 24/7/366 with a self
who not only denies the speed.... (220 knots
past self-destruct VNe)...but whose researches
(aka watching YT vids) prompts the old battler
to deny that any regular Boeing ever flew
on route UA175 into WTC2 on 9/11/2001


Guess who I was referring to? smile.gif

I see MikeR you have started to hedge your bets, even if just by the smallest of margins.
Now it is "any regular Boeing"

It's good to see we are at least making some progress with you. smile.gif

BTW, did you check out the vids that I referred to that completely debunk Ace Baker?

This post has been edited by NP1Mike: Apr 27 2014, 02:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HailScience
post Apr 30 2014, 02:06 PM
Post #15





Group: Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 21-April 14
Member No.: 7,782



QUOTE (Obwon @ Apr 24 2014, 08:03 AM) *
Is it me? Or has the south tower hit video been changed?

I remember (because it was burned into my memory by being played and replayed for several days). After I had returned from voting, I was told of a small aircraft having crashed into the north tower, then it became a commuter jet, no one news outlet seemed to be sure.

So we turned on the TV and there was the image of the north tower smoking away with shots of the gaping hole in it. Suddenly the camera switched away to show the south tower being hit.
That film strip was played over and over again.

Here's what I saw: A fireball emerged from the east face of the south tower, very near the southern corner. I watched that video carefully because I was certain that there would be debris, like desks, chairs and/or plane parts, that being heavier than air, would quickly fall through the fireball trailing wake vortexes behind them. Nothing at all, other than fire and
a thread of burning fuel came through. Of course, I didn't see the thread of burning fuel, until I saw the same video clips being played on YouTube.

It was later explained that the thread of burning fuel hit some unfortunate woman who was standing in the wrong place at the wrong time and she was immolated.

Fast forward to today and I now see videos of that same hit, running a line of fire transecting the entire east wall, south to north, with a couple of solid objects, trailing wake vortexes, emerging from the north side of the south tower, presumably one of which was the engine spindle that supposedly landed on Murry Street. The very same spindle that, after closer examination, the NTSB says did not come from either jet. Nor was the wheel assembly found on Church street claimed to have come from either jet by the official investigators.

Which prompts the obvious question, what where these pieces doing there?

Why does the video of the South Tower strike change?

Questions, always more questions, never any answers.


In court, witnesses usually give contradictory testimony. & some videos are at closer angles than others. In Some you can certainly see debris. & the 6th sentence of your post.... I simply do not believe you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HailScience
post Apr 30 2014, 02:08 PM
Post #16





Group: Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 21-April 14
Member No.: 7,782



QUOTE (SteveF @ Apr 22 2014, 06:40 PM) *
UnitedMike, speaking of flight 77, said:

"Something else did that precision maneuver"

Nothing did "that" maneuver.

All credible witnesses who were in a position to see the plane say that it was travelling slow; some say that it "lifted up" as it approached the Pentagon.

All the witnesses say that it was travelling North of the Citgo gas station(NoC).

The plane didn't make any of the maneuvers that the usurped "government" says it did.

"I'm sure this topic has been beat to death"

Yes, Citizen Investigation Team(CIT) has killed and cremated the official conspiracy theory.

If you are not familiar with CIT's work, watch the video:

"National Security Alert: 911 Pentagon Attack"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

and go to their website:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/praise.html

The plane flew over the Pentagon.....case closed!


ALL witnesses report either seeing the explosion or actual impact. 0 report the plane missing the southwest wall.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SteveF
post Apr 30 2014, 05:10 PM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 25-February 11
Member No.: 5,677



QUOTE (HailScience @ Apr 30 2014, 10:08 AM) *
ALL witnesses report either seeing the explosion or actual impact. 0 report the plane missing the southwest wall.



The fact that the plane flew over the Pentagon is deduced by pure logic; i.e.:

Thirteen eyewitnesses, two of whom were Pentagon police officers who are professionals at observing and reporting, could not have shared a collective mass hallucination; such a thought is too idiotic to contemplate.

Ergo:

The plane flew North of the Citgo gas station.

It is a physical impossibility for an airplane flying North of the Citgo to knock down the light-poles and do the directional damage to the Pentagon.

Therefore the plane flew over the Pentagon.

I guess you're not familiar with Citizen Investigation Team's work.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Scooby
post May 9 2014, 01:11 PM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 82
Joined: 31-October 12
Member No.: 7,076



To stay on topic a bit.
I have been pursuing the speed item through calls and questioning pilots at every chance. Over time more and more confirmations that the speed was impossible for a passenger 757. Even the Smithsonian Channel cites it. There is no doubt in my mind the speed the planes were flying is the smoking gun proving we were lied to about 9/11. Even more than building 7 because it is something that can now all but be proven.

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 9 2014, 02:13 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Scooby @ May 9 2014, 01:11 PM) *
There is no doubt in my mind the speed the planes were flying is the smoking gun proving we were lied to about 9/11.



Agreed....



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
R3ALMan
post Jun 4 2014, 04:16 PM
Post #20





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 15-September 12
Member No.: 7,020



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th October 2019 - 06:13 PM