Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Newcomer Forum _ Speed Of Aircraft That Hit Twin Towers

Posted by: 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

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 22 2014, 07:58 PM

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.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 22 2014, 07:59 PM

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.

Posted by: UnitedMike Apr 22 2014, 09:04 PM

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

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 22 2014, 09:27 PM

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.php?s=&showtopic=22665&view=findpost&p=10812648

Posted by: SteveF Apr 22 2014, 09:40 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!

Posted by: 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?

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?item=a846changessignal

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 22 2014, 09:42 PM

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?item=a846changessignal



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....

Posted by: Docten Apr 23 2014, 12:22 AM

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.

Posted by: Scooby Apr 23 2014, 12:39 PM

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.

Posted by: NP1Mike Apr 23 2014, 11:12 PM

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

Posted by: MikeR Apr 24 2014, 04:05 AM

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

Posted by: Obwon Apr 24 2014, 11:03 AM

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.

Posted by: NP1Mike Apr 27 2014, 02:44 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. "

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?

Posted by: HailScience Apr 30 2014, 02:06 PM

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.

Posted by: HailScience Apr 30 2014, 02:08 PM

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.

Posted by: SteveF Apr 30 2014, 05:10 PM

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.


Posted by: Scooby May 9 2014, 01:11 PM

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.

Posted by: rob balsamo May 9 2014, 02:13 PM

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....




Posted by: R3ALMan Jun 4 2014, 04:16 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?

Posted by: Peterauty Jun 6 2014, 04:25 AM

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.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 9 2014, 09:47 AM

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

Posted by: Peterauty Jun 10 2014, 05:39 PM

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.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 10 2014, 06:16 PM

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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 13 2014, 06:04 AM

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

Posted by: Peterauty Jun 14 2014, 07:59 AM

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.

Posted by: MikeR Jun 15 2014, 10:59 PM

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....

Posted by: MikeR Jun 15 2014, 11:15 PM

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

Posted by: Peterauty Jun 16 2014, 04:51 PM

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. )

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)