Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ United 175 _ Final Approach Of 175

Posted by: NightMage Feb 25 2007, 05:23 PM

pilotfly.gif First post!

Hello everyone. I did a quick search and read the topics in the 175 forum to see if anyone had mentioned this before and it didnt seem like it so here goes.

I'm not a pilot, nor do I know much about plane physics and flight dynamics beyond the average layman. However I have some issues with the approach flight 175 took to the south tower.

At first I had searched for a black box NTSB animation of the sort we have for the pentagon for flight 175, then I remembered that the black boxes of this flight were 'destroyed'.

On some videos and in particular this one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsnja4PPeU, it appears that flight 175 approaches the south tower at a certain height but continues/starts to drop in altitude and then levels off, but the manoeuvre causes the plane to drift and it has to roll before hitting the tower.

I'd be interested to hear what commercial pilots in this forum have to say about this approach. For a start does anyone know of a longer video of that clip? And preferably a higher quality version to see the plane coming from further away.

To me it appears as though the plane was on target to hit the top of the tower (similar to the north tower collision) but for whatever reason the pilot decided to drop and hit the tower half way. Does anyone else see it this way?

A question to pilots here, how difficult is it to drop that 300-400ft in a couple of seconds and still maintain your course? Is this something that a shaky cessna pilot would just have absolutely no hope doing?

I was trying to put my mind in the position of one of the supposed 'arab hijackers'. If you are flying to the towers, and you see the towers you have already accomplished many difficult tasks, for one you've successfully hijacked a plane and subdued your passengers into leaving you alone; you've dodged/tricked the US air force and successfully navigated your way to New York with no help from outside; and you've also found the towers in New York on your first go. You also find yourself flying towards the tower, and you're about to hit it bang on centre, maybe a little higher than planned, but it would be the same height as your buddy in the North Tower and would still achieve the effect of flying into a WTC tower for the world to see. Given that you are rubbish at flying a cessna, do you risk everything at this point and (im guessing here) drop the thurst/flaps to shed some altitude for a slightly better 'effect' given you probably dont have a degree in engineering and dont know if that would make any difference? Or do you stay on course and try and hit the tower in any which way you can?

Just as a side note, I personally don't think the 9/11 conspiracy theory community has to prove beyond doubt what happened at every stage of the plot. I think it's enough to find a single flaw in the official line in order to show there is foul play at work. If just one part doesn't add up (i.e. it couldn't have been the arabs flying the planes) then the government needs to be held to account for the story they are putting out.

Anyway, thoughts much appreciated.

NM

P.S. I don't believe in the ghost plane theories, I have no comment on the pod theory, and I am less and less convinced that a passenger Jet crashed in Pennsylvania.

Posted by: amazed! Feb 25 2007, 05:49 PM

NM

Welcome aboard! cheers.gif

I have had similar questions to yours since the beginning. I am a pilot, and I cannot understand why, assuming the planes were piloted, 175 had to make that hard bank at the last second. I was not aware of the downward trajectory you mention, and if true, that makes it all the more interesting.

Surely if one were lined up on the target at that speed there would be no need for such last second maneuvering.

Some theorize that the airplanes were drone, and thus controlled remotely. Others suggest some sort of laser targeting as what drove the homing "instinct", and others note that the floors hit might have contained some sort of precision homing device.

I have read that one of the men leasing office space on the floors hit was none other than Paul Bremer.

There are far more questions than answers.

Posted by: tit2 May 18 2007, 09:02 AM

See also:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/flt175_wtc2_video.html

"The above video footage shows Flight 175 followed a shallow descent path - the plane could easily have been flown into the lower floors of WTC 2, instead it hit the building at floor 78. From an engineering standpoint the towers were more likely to collapse the lower they were struck, so why aim high?

It appears that whoever piloted Flight 175 not only intended to hit the tower but also aimed for a specific level, probably where the collapse was due to initiate."


and:

Air traffic Controller Describes Flight 175 Anomalies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TXIW97e6kc


and especially the" wrong plane" :

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html

the proportions of the fuselage of the plane which hit the south tower do not appear correspondrent with those of a Boeing 767-222, as flight 175.

http://www.amics21.com/911/imags/plaindud.jpg

Boeings 767-222:

http://www.airfleets.net/show/?pic=6079

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0168079&size=M&width=1000&height=639&sok=&photo_nr=&prev_id=&next_id=

http://i7.tinypic.com/62xqwr8.jpg

Posted by: Beached May 18 2007, 11:32 AM

I had a few thoughts on the subject. The first concerns a latency in the remote controlled aircraft which is detailed here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=1529&st=30

This was written in response to the laughable "debunking" attempts of 911myths!

The other possibility is that both aircraft were flying under the FMC. Considering the towers were rigged with explosives, this would have kept the targeting error margin to within a few feet.

Interestingly, both aircraft flew directly into secure computer rooms in both buildings. Now, is that simply a coincidence or were the computer rooms equipped to play a role in the crime?

http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html

I personally believe that the impact zones had been carefully pre-planned prior to rigging the buildings with explosives. For the sake of precision, the most likely scenario is that both aircraft were flying under the FMC.

Posted by: amazed! May 19 2007, 05:45 PM

I am the Witness did his homework. And of course they have him caught up in the criminal justice system.

Excellent analysis, Beached! cheers.gif

Posted by: mycall May 19 2007, 08:26 PM

Not trying to be sarcastic, and, to be honest i do not know why C. Bollyn has been arrested, but on the first link found on the homepage of I am the Witness, i found that :


"To further make the situation for Zionists difficult, technology is allowing people around the world to closely analyze people and events. The 9/11 attack is being exposed as a Zionist false flag operation, and people are looking closely at the Oppenheimers, Bronfman's, Rothschilds, Larry Silverstein, Benjamin Netanyahu, the attack on the USS Liberty, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and many other suspicious events and people."


I wouldn't say that they did their homework. nonono.gif

Posted by: Beached May 19 2007, 08:56 PM

QUOTE (mycall @ May 20 2007, 12:26 AM)
Not trying to be sarcastic, and, to be honest i do not know why C. Bollyn has been arrested, but on the first link found on the homepage of I am the Witness, i found that :


"To further make the situation for Zionists difficult, technology is allowing people around the world to closely analyze people and events. The 9/11 attack is being exposed as a Zionist false flag operation, and people are looking closely at the Oppenheimers, Bronfman's, Rothschilds, Larry Silverstein, Benjamin Netanyahu, the attack on the USS Liberty, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and many other suspicious events and people."


I wouldn't say that they did their homework.   nonono.gif

Mycall, I don't want to cause trouble, but firstly I thought I should point out that Christopher Bollyn is neither the webmaster of iamthewitness.com, nor is he the author of that quote.

Secondly, why are you insinuating that the webmaster "hasn't done his homework"? I've been researching this for a long time and cannot see the evidence pointing to anyone other than the Zionists. If you believe that the Oppenheimers, Bronfman's, Rothschilds, Larry Silverstein, Benjamin Netanyahu were not key players, then please explain to me who controls the banking system, the media, and both the Republican and Democrat parties. Could you also explain exactly who the key players were in the 9/11 attack? Furthermore, why have you highlighted "the holocaust" and "many other suspicious events"?

Posted by: tit2 Aug 11 2007, 03:53 PM

Hi

I am French citizen and I does not understand very well the English language. Therefore I am sorry if I ask a stupid question.

In this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TXIW97e6kc

it seems to me that the air-traffic controller evokes a very fast movement of descent of flight 175 starting from 8h55 by saying in particular if I understand well what it says: “it is incredible that the passengers inside the plane can resist such a force in descent”

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175

Extract:

"Phone Calls

Three passengers, Pete Hanson, Brian David Sweeney, and Garnet Bailey made phone calls, all from GTE airphones, from United Airlines Flight 175. Flight attendant Robert Fangman also made phone calls.[4][5]

At 8:52 a.m., Pete Hanson called his father, Lee Hanson in Easton, Connecticut, telling him of the hijacking. Pete was travelling with his wife, Sue, and 2 1/2 year old daughter, Christine. Pete said that the hijackers had taken over the cockpit, that a flight attendant had been stabbed, and possibly someone else in the front of the aircraft had been killed. He also reported that the plane was flying erratically.[6]

Flight attendant Robert Fangman called a United Airlines office in San Francisco, and spoke with Marc Policastro. He reported the hijacking, and said that both pilots had been killed.[6] He also reported that a flight attendant was stabbed, and said that the hijackers were flying the plane.[6] The call was disconnected after a minute and 15 seconds.[4]

At 8:58 a.m., Brian David Sweeney tried calling his wife, Julie, and left her a message, telling her that the plane had been hijacked.[6] He then called his parents at 9:00 a.m., and spoke with his mother, Louise.[4][6] Sweeney told his mother about the hijacking, and mentioned that passengers were considering storming the cockpit and take control of the aircraft.[6]

Pete Hanson made a second phone call to his father at 9:00 a.m.

"It's getting bad, Dad. A stewardess was stabbed. They seem to have knives and Mace. They said they have a bomb. It's getting very bad on the plane. Passengers are throwing up and getting sick. The plane is making jerky movements. I don't think the pilot is flying the plane. I think we are going down. I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building. Don't worry, Dad. If it happens, it'll be very fast. My God, my God."

As the call abruptly ended, Pete's father could hear a woman screaming."

The calls of 8:58 and 9:00 do not seem to evoke this movement of very fast descent of flight 175. Why?

Posted by: tit2 Aug 16 2007, 04:15 PM

the author of this video precise:

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-614623194061654994&q=Dave+Bottiglia.&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

"Was this type of piloting possible for a hijacker who had trained (and was deemed poor) only on Cessnas? Can people really talk on their cell phones during an accelerated 10,000 ft. per minute descent toward the earth?

But wikipedia indicates:

"Three passengers, Pete Hanson, Brian David Sweeney, and Garnet Bailey made phone calls, all from GTE "airphones" , from United Airlines Flight 175." (not "cell phones")

The official report indicates that the phone call of Brian David Sweeney was performed at 8 h 59, not at 8 h 58.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

"At 8:58, the flight took a heading toward New York City."

"At 8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney tried to call his wife, Julie. He left a message on their home answering machine that the plane had been hijacked. He then called his mother, Louise Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to take control of the plane away from the hijackers."

Therefore, during an accelerated 10,000 ft. per minute descent toward the earth, this passenger does not signal any abnormal maneuver of the airplane.

At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter who says in particular:

"The plane is making jerky movements. I think we are going down"

But it does not signal the fastness of the descent of the plane.

Posted by: Ningen Sep 2 2007, 02:01 AM

Is there an official flight path for Flight 175? I'm curious about the trajectory which got the plane from 10,000 feet to 700 feet.

What is the fastest time a Boeing 767 could get from 10,000 feet to 700 feet?

The official speed of Flight 175 when it hit the South Tower was 500-550 mph, depending on the video.

Can a Boeing 767 fly that fast at 700-1000 feet on a horizontal trajectory?

If a dive can be used for higher speed, how fast do you have to dive and how far from the building do you have to pull out of the dive to hit it on a horizontal trajectory at 500 mph?

In reference to tit2's question, do we know where the plane was supposed to be at 9:00? How far from the South Tower and at what altitude?

Thanks for the video, tit2. The controller says the plane dived at a rate of 10,000 feet per minute. Is that possible? What about when the plane gets below 5 or 10 thousand feet?

The time of Hanson's call certainly doesn't match what the controller said would be happening to the passengers - he said it was in a nose dive.

Posted by: tit2 Sep 2 2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

"In reference to tit2's question, do we know where the plane was supposed to be at 9:00? How far from the South Tower and at what altitude?"

How far from the South Tower?

The 9/11 Commission Report specified that "The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found"

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/blackboxes.html

At the difference of passports of terrorists who were found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yxymPVfNLI

It is thus not easy to give correct estimates of speed and altitude for flight 175.

NIST estimates Flight 175 hit the South Tower at 540 mph. The official report precise:

At 9:03:11, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

An airplane travelling at a speed of 540 miles per hour course a 27 miles distance in a time of 3 minutes.

27 miles = 142560 feet

But it is probably not a valid answer to your question.

Posted by: tit2 Sep 3 2007, 03:52 AM

Last seconds of flight 175. Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucT4-Q2gd9A

Thus at 9 a.m. the airplane was always "in a nose dive", if the assertions of the Air-traffic Controller, Mr. Dave Bottiglia, are exact.

The presumed pilot of flight 175 was Marwan al Shehhi. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwan_al-Shehhi

See also: "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan"

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Sagadevan21Feb2006.html

A flight instructor would have said about Marwan al-Shehhi:

“He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”

Posted by: cbsiftcb Nov 8 2007, 08:07 AM

Just my two cents...

First of all here's my interpretation of 175's approach from the videos:

Rapid steep descent (more like a dive) .... some leveling off but still in shallow dive ... lined up off to the right of target ..... wings banked to the left ..... in final 3-4 seconds of approach pulls quite a lot of up elevator levels off and even climbs a little (remember very high airspeed) all while still banked, thus still turning, to left .... impact

It seems to me given the immense speed of the approach (a controversial topic in itself I know) some kind of guidance possibly with automated piloting was likely used.

However, f we assume a pilot flown approach, thinking about it ..... if I was flying the approach I would probably prefer to line up off to one side, let's say to the right (as seems the case in 175's approach) and aim a bit too low .... then for the final line up I would only be concerned with *fine tuning the amount* of left bank and up elevator ...... winding the turn in or letting it out so to speak ...

If however I was trying to fly S+L .. or to be more precise S+ in a dive (which is even worse!) I would have to constantly be correcting to the R and L .... this I would imagine would be harder due to a/c lag and secondary effects etc ....... I would probably end up chasing myself all over the shop at that speed....

I much prefer my first method. I wonder if an automated pilot (or rather the software programmer) would also prefer such an approach.

I better confess right now my main flying experience is in sailplanes spinhalo.gif so I will be thinking with 'sailplane logic' and could be way off the mark here ... or maybe a 767 compares well? - (apart from some obvious differences) .....

Anyway I still think I would stand by my instincts that aiming to one side and low and then adjusting a single progressive turn back into the target would be the smoothest, most controllable and accurate way to hit the target.

Am I making any sense at all?

I hope no one finds this post disrespectful - I do not like imagining flying into any building...

Please feel free to comment ... yes1.gif

Posted by: amazed! Nov 8 2007, 10:12 AM

cbs

Welcome to the forum.

Apparently the radar data supplied by NTSB indicates speeds near Mach 1 for this flight. There is another thread here about that.

As you say, it is controversial. I don't know what to believe, and wonder how much is information and how much is disinfo.

Something like 40 miles out he was at about 25000 feet. A very tough descent profile, impossible without exceeding the aircraft limitations. Maybe impossible altogether. We can only speculate.

My personal theory is that the aircraft was without humans onboard and remotely controlled. Just a theory and I have no proof. We know the technology exists, and they certainly had the airplanes.

We know from the pictures, assuming they are not fake, that the airplane was descending and banking when it hit.

There is alot of good stuff here at PFT.

Posted by: Factfinder General Nov 8 2007, 03:58 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 8 2007, 09:12 AM)
cbs

Welcome to the forum.

Apparently the radar data supplied by NTSB indicates speeds near Mach 1 for this flight.  There is another thread here about that.

As you say, it is controversial.  I don't know what to believe, and wonder how much is information and how much is disinfo.

Something like 40 miles out he was at about 25000 feet.  A very tough descent profile, impossible without exceeding the aircraft limitations.  Maybe impossible altogether.  We can only speculate.

My personal theory is that the aircraft was without humans onboard and remotely controlled.  Just a theory and I have no proof.  We know the technology exists, and they certainly had the airplanes.

We know from the pictures, assuming they are not fake, that the airplane was descending and banking when it hit.

There is alot of good stuff here at PFT.

Another related point we should consider: We also know from the photos and videos that the alleged airplane was recorded as being intact, though having completed airframe and powerplant damaging maneuvers according to radar return data http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9179. This is yet more confirmation of false evidence, IMO.

Posted by: WetBlanket Nov 14 2007, 03:37 AM

The final approach seems to differ on the various videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDRS9ht_OsY

Notice the position of the two buildings and the direction the smoke is blowing. The videos may be from different angles but not different enough to account for the plane's direction.

I'm thinking the videos played early on that day were legit but we saw faked videos later in the day.

Heres a better one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE3lPxadzNI

Posted by: Destinova Nov 22 2007, 04:39 PM

It's the first time I saw this video... and I don't know if it's a fake but it looks pretty real to me.
It's one of that videos that brings up that one question I ask myself many times: "Where are the many amateur videos of that day? I mean the first tower is on fire and I can imagine that in Germany everyone would take a shot of it with the handy or other cams and banish it on a film or memory card/stick. It's the city that never sleeps with millions of Manhattanite and thousand of tourists (!) It's not a small village in the sticks! Where are those videos?".

dunno.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88&feature=related

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Nov 23 2007, 10:18 AM

QUOTE (Destinova @ Nov 22 2007, 03:39 PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88&feature=related

The video you are linking to is almost surely a fake. see:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/resizeplane/

Posted by: guesswhotoo6 Dec 19 2007, 12:22 PM

Questions about the aircraft speed to the building in theories where the aircraft in question is empty or nearly so, need to consider that the maneuvering speed will decrease as the load decreases. This is always a trick question on the exams. Thus making tight multi G turns while being lightly loaded may exceed the max stresses for this airframe, making the apparent observations less than possible. The POH is available from Boeing. Just one of the hundreds of inconsistencies stemming from 9-11-2001. Has anyone looked at the POH in this regard?

Posted by: pinnacle Dec 19 2007, 03:47 PM

The RADES data of Flight 175 shows it dropping 6400 feet in the last minute
of radar coverage. The last 12 seconds it drops 2400 feet.
That seems awfully fast to me.
RADES data ends at 13.02.23 am so at this point some of the videos should show
a steep dive happening but most of the video I have seen only shows a shallow dive as it flies over the city. 2400 feet is ten fuselage lengths in 12 seconds so it ought to be visible in some of the footage.
Also the transponder was still on so the altitude data should be more accurate for
Flight 175 than for the other planes which had to be estimated.

Posted by: dMole Dec 19 2007, 06:48 PM

Hi pinnacle,

Briefly, using my lat/lon spherical solid angle RADES approximation method adjusted for 40.6N latitude, for the primary radar "height," I get -8.046157075 deg for the last min, pitching down to -15.5124315 deg for the last 12.025 seconds of UA175 data.

Using the RADES ModeC (transponder) data, I get -8.418034735 deg for the last minute, pitching down to -13.02340578 deg for the last 12 seconds.

The negative is angle below "horizontal" line of sight [actually tangent to a sphere at the UA175 altitude... ]. Of course, this does not include error analysis, uncertainty, and significant figures (a quick "ball park" analysis, and my calculator pastes that many digits by default). I can elaborate on the calculations later, but I'd rather not interfere with the independence of your research. wink.gif

d

Posted by: pinnacle Dec 19 2007, 07:42 PM

My real question is how hard would it be for an amateur pilot to fly a 767 at 500 miles per hour plus at sea level and dive over one hundred feet per second.
Could a 767 even take that kind of flying without breaking up or going out of control?

Posted by: CocaineImportAgency Jan 3 2008, 02:48 AM

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5050200730235217231&q=flight+175+turning+and+burning&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

...i`ve never seen this one before!

Posted by: SPreston Jan 8 2008, 11:27 AM

Faked Videos and Audios?


http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/hezarkhani/


http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/


http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/carrwtc2/

Posted by: SPreston Jan 8 2008, 11:36 AM

Popular Mechanics Fakery? Photo of a child's toy without flaps, ailerons, etc placed into image?


http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/howard/

Posted by: Brad Apr 4 2008, 10:53 AM

QUOTE (tit2 @ May 18 2007, 09:02 AM) *
See also:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/flt175_wtc2_video.html

"The above video footage shows Flight 175 followed a shallow descent path - the plane could easily have been flown into the lower floors of WTC 2, instead it hit the building at floor 78. From an engineering standpoint the towers were more likely to collapse the lower they were struck, so why aim high?

It appears that whoever piloted Flight 175 not only intended to hit the tower but also aimed for a specific level, probably where the collapse was due to initiate."


I like how that website portrays the core of the world trade centre... skinny little hollow thing. Unless I'm not understanding your point, you seem to be using this bogus website as a theory to why the planes aimed the way they did... correct me if I'm wrong or have misunderstood the point you're trying to make.

Posted by: pikeaero Oct 20 2008, 06:37 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 25 2007, 05:49 PM) *
NM

I have read that one of the men leasing office space on the floors hit was none other than Paul Bremer.

There are far more questions than answers.


In NIST NCSTAR 1, pp. 78-79 table 5-3 indicates Mash & McLennan (google finds Paul Bremer as CEO) occupied floor 93-100 WTC 1. I would tend to believe NIST to be accurate on this point, as it would be relatively easy to disprove if they where being deceptive, as they are clearly doing in other areas of the document.

According to the same document, WTC2 floors 77-85 occupied by:
77: Baseline
78: Baseline, Commercial Bank
79: Fuji Bank
80: Fuji Bank
81: Fuji Bank
82: Fuji Bank
83: Chuo Mitsu, IQ Finance
84: EuroBrokers
85: Harris Beach

--pikeaero

Posted by: keroseneaddict Oct 20 2008, 08:53 PM

Might have been said before, but my problem (among others) is that that constant of a bank and pitch angle is a major challenge for someone not used to jet aircraft.......

Posted by: amazed! Oct 21 2008, 10:41 AM

My opinion is that there was some sort of homing device located in each of the towers. One in Bremer's office and one in the Fuji bank's office. To me, that would possibly explain the bank at the last few seconds.

It appears that if it had NOT banked, it would have mostly missed.

Posted by: guillaumedock Mar 8 2009, 07:52 PM

Hello,

I'm new here so forgive me if this is not the correct thread for this.

I've been analyzing the CBS "divebomber" video (just type
CBS divebomber on Youtube)

and I extracted the vertical speed of the "craft" from the video.
(Vertical speed is easy to extract, I'm working on other components
as well.)



The vertical reference is arbitrary, and explosion becomes visible at
t=7.27s (but the plane is not visible for the last two seconds).

The least-squares fit -40.0150+24.3703*t-1.7230*t^2 is in red,
which basically shows a constant vertical deceleration of
3.44 m/s^2.

I know the major problem is with the total speed, but you might want
to cross-check this with FDR data, etc.

Edit: deceleration instead of acceleration.

Posted by: dMole Mar 9 2009, 02:48 AM

QUOTE (guillaumedock @ Mar 8 2009, 05:52 PM) *
I know the major problem is with the total speed, but you might want
to cross-check this with FDR data, etc.

Hi guillaumedock,

We have been told that no SSFDR or CVR were recovered for either AA11 or UA175 at WTC. After I have now said that, you may want to read this article about SSFDR and WTC:

"Black Box Survivability" post #5:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=6773&view=findpost&p=10765788

On the speeds, I have used some approximation methods on the USAF 84 RADES data for UA175 to obtain the approximate "instantaneous" speeds between latitude/longitude points. The more "interesting" velocities are covered here at post #6:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=12029&view=findpost&p=10742683

I will need to review and update my UA175 spreadsheet for altitude rate (and convert to meters/sec as the USAF data is in feet, nautical miles, and degrees). I will post a descent rate chart here later, but I have posted about the final pitch angles (according to the RADES data for UA175) above on this thread.

I believe SPreston posted this image analysis of the UA175 video already on this thread:

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/hezarkhani/

Posted by: guillaumedock Mar 10 2009, 05:19 AM

QUOTE (dMole @ Mar 9 2009, 07:48 AM) *
Hi guillaumedock,

We have been told that no SSFDR or CVR were recovered for either AA11 or UA175 at WTC. After I have now said that, you may want to read this article about SSFDR and WTC:

Of course not finding those boxes doesn't seem to make much sense, but anyway.

I've also analyzed the live footage from the NY1 channel.

2nd WTC Attack: NY1 LIVE (high quality)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM_fMrIARoA

The plane is difficult to see, but it's not impossible. Except that it seems to suddenly appear at t-12.5 s
(where t=explosion) and has some weirdness in its trajectory. Either that's due to MPEG funkiness
(an effect of motion estimation, or of block update thresholds), or something else is involved.


Posted by: dMole Mar 10 2009, 06:22 AM

Here is the altitude profile for UA175 according to USAF 84 RADES:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/24739 [altitude in feet]

It can be compared to page 4 of the NTSB UA175 flight report:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf

If I zoom in from about 09:00 EDT afterward and add trendlines to that data subset, you will see that the rate of descent is not exactly linear- a 2nd order polynomial (quadratic or inverted parabola) fits the data points better. The huge coefficients are due to the way that Excel handles time, but can be adjusted for too:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/24740 [altitude in feet]

Figuring the rates of descent from the transponder-reported Mode C altitude and the time intervals between RADES radar returns for the last portion of the UA175 RADES data, I obtain the following. A constant rate of descent would be horizontal on this chart, and a gravitational "free fall" should show up as linear on this chart until "terminal velocity" is reached. As you can see, a 3rd order polynomial was better than 2nd order (for descent rate dH/dt) for this RADES data, and the fit was marginally better up through 6th degree polynomials:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/24741 [descent rate expressed in meters/second]

EDIT: There is only a RADES return approximately every 12.0 seconds.

Posted by: guillaumedock Mar 10 2009, 07:08 AM

QUOTE (dMole @ Mar 10 2009, 11:22 AM) *
Here is the altitude profile for UA175 according to USAF 84 RADES:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/24739 [altitude in feet]

Hi,

Is there a source for this data in numerical format, or is everyone
tracing some chart available somewhere?

The problem is that the various footage shows only the last few seconds of
the plane (the videos show about 10-15 seconds from "impact").
But you say that

QUOTE
EDIT: There is only a RADES return approximately every 12.0 seconds.

which means that we only have at most one radar point plus video
for the last few seconds. Also synchronizing the radar timestamps
with the videos is not necessarily easy.

QUOTE
If I zoom in from about 09:00 EDT afterward and add trendlines to that data
subset, you will see that the rate of descent is not exactly linear- a 2nd
order polynomial (quadratic or inverted parabola) fits the data points better.

That's also what I found for the CBS divebomb trajectory. A 2nd order poly
fits quite well. I've extrapolated the CBS divebomb descent curve back in time
(the
altitude is from the point of impact) and it seems in line with the RADAR data.

QUOTE
Figuring the rates of descent from the transponder-reported Mode C altitude and
the time intervals between RADES radar returns for the last portion of the
UA175 RADES data, I obtain the following.

Your last point for speed is at about -50 m/s, at approx. 30 seconds from impact.
If we extrapolate roughly from the CBS divebomb, the descent rate is estimated
to be about 50 m/s 20 seconds from impact, which fits with your data.
OTOH your speed estimate curve is a bit noisy.

Posted by: dMole Mar 10 2009, 08:40 AM

Hello guillaumedock,

From this post #349 on another thread here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=9179&view=findpost&p=10499572

Here is the original MS Excel 97? .XLS spreadsheet released by USAF 84 RADES on the the CD (or so we were told). There are many anomalies to be found, but you may download a zipped version of that .XLS file directly from this server:

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2392699235.html

That is the original file as received, without my speed approximations and without the altitude rate. All altitudes will be in feet, with lat/lon in degrees (and deg min sec), and the times are Zulu and EDT.

I have found many anomalies in the .XLS data, and I also have the USAF 84 RADES RS3 software, which I could query for various aircraft in the Sep. 11 dataset. It helps to have a rough lat/lon location, a transponder code, and the Zulu timeframe in question. I have found that it is best to sort that data by the radar location(s) first, then by timestamp before charting anything.

For the final UA175 return in the .XLS, I get:

RIV, 09:02:23.660 EDT, Height 2800 ft, Mode C alt- 2200 ft, N40.6874 W-74.0379, GS 471.34 kts [542.41mph, 0.7176 Mach], dH/dt ~=-166.32 ft/sec [-50.694 m/sec]

On the speed calculations, I have posted much on that on other threads here (mainly in the UA175 sub-forum), but it is derived from the lat/lon values. I can convert that .XLS to .CSV (comma separated) if anyone doesn't have Excel and needs that instead.

EDIT: I was interpreting the 3rd order polynomial as aircraft pitch (and possibly bank) control inputs, as it shows up in an external, redundant system (Mode C transponder altitude with less-accurate "Height" data from primary radar) in the data set, but I didn't examine the "Height" rates yet. Data from an SSFDR would tell a lot here, but I'm unaware of any of that for "UA175."

Posted by: JackD Mar 10 2009, 08:40 PM

Thanks, dMole. People need to see just how steep that dive was that the WTC2 plane did.

It took some ace piloting not to miss the rather narrow target completely.

Posted by: Paul Mar 16 2009, 12:43 PM

QUOTE (JackD @ Mar 11 2009, 10:10 AM) *
Thanks, dMole. People need to see just how steep that dive was that the WTC2 plane did.

It took some ace piloting not to miss the rather narrow target completely.


Here is something you guys might want to consider looking at.

UAL 175 did NOT crash into WTC 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UuH6D4pob8

Posted by: JCLoophole Apr 3 2009, 02:49 PM

I've been learning alot since I found this site! thumbsup.gif

First off, I didn't know that the speed of flight 175 has been pegged at near Mach1! UFB! Has anyone looked into the control problems that would arise for a low time pilot trying to control a large aircraft at such speeds. I remember reading that as Chuck Yeager approached Mach 1 in the X-1, the elevator became ineffective due to the shock wave which developed on the leading edge of the horizontal stab. In the end, he ended up controlling the aircraft by using the stab trim rather than the elevator. I understand that that is why all aircraft which are designed for supersonic flight have all flying stab/elevator combinations.

Also, from my own experience trying to duplicate the attacks in MSFS, I find the most logical way to perform the attacks is once control of the aircraft is achieved by the "hijackers" I use the MCP to fly to my target. I have used both a linked GPS and simply tuning into a nearby VOR. Both work well to get me in the vicinity of the targets. It is also easy to control my descent and airspeed by using the MCP and changing the altitude to, say 2000 ft, and entering a rate of descent of 2000 fpm or so.

These are things that anyone sophisticated enough to plan the hijacking of 4 aircraft on the same day and use them as weapons to attack specific targets should have been able to figure out! And yet, the more I find out about the "hijackers" and their flight paths, I find it more than amazing that they were able to hit anything at all (other than the ground itself!).

Another thing that bothers me is why attack both WTC1 and WTC2. Assuming that Al Quaida and bin Laden were behind the attacks (and the more I read the larger that assumption becomes!) and that his objective was to "bring down the tower(s)", shouldn't he have had both aircraft hit the same tower to increase his chances of brining at least one tower down. He knew they were well constructed and could stand up to a lot of damage (as exemplified by the 1993 attacks), so to my way of thinking, wouldn't it be more prudent to use both aircraft to attack one tower? Thus improving his chance of "success"! He must have been pretty sure both towers would fall (that is IF he was behind it at all!)

-JC

Posted by: Freedomlover911 Apr 14 2009, 02:29 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 23 2007, 07:49 PM) *
NM

Some theorize that the airplanes were drone, and thus controlled remotely. Others suggest some sort of laser targeting as what drove the homing "instinct", and others note that the floors hit might have contained some sort of precision homing device.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=16967&pid=10769974&st=0&#entry10769974

Good analysis my friend!
Freedomlover911

Posted by: BaNoyes Apr 20 2009, 11:27 AM

QUOTE (Beached @ May 16 2007, 01:32 PM) *
Interestingly, both aircraft flew directly into secure computer rooms in both buildings. Now, is that simply a coincidence or were the computer rooms equipped to play a role in the crime?

http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html

I personally believe that the impact zones had been carefully pre-planned prior to rigging the buildings with explosives. For the sake of precision, the most likely scenario is that both aircraft were flying under the FMC.


No doubt... this is the area where pre planted explosives were set- the computer rooms.
(CGI planes need an entrance-watch it glide inside with out a scratch)
Check you will find extensive work being done to run fiber cable , two weeks prior 9/11
They also pull out the bomb dogs
gee ain't that co-incidental

Posted by: Freedomlover911 Apr 20 2009, 12:25 PM

QUOTE (BaNoyes @ Apr 18 2009, 02:27 PM) *
(CGI planes need an entrance-watch it glide inside with out a scratch)


The problem with "TV Fakery" and "CGI planes" is not just that it is a red herring, it just doesn't fit! You still have the problem with several eyewitnesses actually seeing planes with their own eyes, planes in live video feeds and several images of planes on home video. Anyone with basic knowledge of home video knows that there is no way to "implant" fake images of planes on hand held analog recording devices. This is a rabbit hole with a hungry fox at the end. Time to back out and reevaluate.
peace
FL911

Posted by: SwingDangler Apr 21 2009, 12:24 PM

QUOTE (Freedomlover911 @ Apr 18 2009, 03:25 PM) *
The problem with "TV Fakery" and "CGI planes" is not just that it is a red herring, it just doesn't fit! You still have the problem with several eyewitnesses actually seeing planes with their own eyes, planes in live video feeds and several images of planes on home video. Anyone with basic knowledge of home video knows that there is no way to "implant" fake images of planes on hand held analog recording devices. This is a rabbit hole with a hungry fox at the end. Time to back out and reevaluate.
peace
FL911


After studying CGI for sometime, I would have to agree. However, I could see the live feed use a CGI cover-up to mask the model of the impact plane from the world that may or may not have been a hijacked airliner. I would imagine it would be nearly impossible to determine the model when viewing or filming from the ground.

Too bad they hid the black boxes from the public, eh?

Posted by: BaNoyes Apr 21 2009, 01:47 PM

QUOTE (Freedomlover911 @ Apr 18 2009, 02:25 PM) *
The problem with "TV Fakery" and "CGI planes" is not just that it is a red herring, it just doesn't fit! You still have the problem with several eyewitnesses actually seeing planes with their own eyes, planes in live video feeds and several images of planes on home video. Anyone with basic knowledge of home video knows that there is no way to "implant" fake images of planes on hand held analog recording devices. This is a rabbit hole with a hungry fox at the end. Time to back out and reevaluate.
peace
FL911

Well
You can accept dubious witness
but
then you have to accept an airplane "entering" a building
then exploding after it is totally inside
seems like thats no problem for you
for me it spells ,CGI

Posted by: MANOLETE Jun 10 2009, 07:20 AM

Dear All:

Please look the attache video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lOcEOsmAtA

is the final approach. I realized yesterday that there is a flashing light in the right wing before the impact. I suppose that is the navigation light, butis this position normal for an boieng 767 222 comercial liner????

The flash is in the seconds 4 to 5 of the video.

Thanks,

Posted by: SwingDangler Jun 10 2009, 10:18 AM

QUOTE (MANOLETE @ Jun 8 2009, 09:20 AM) *
Dear All:

Please look the attache video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lOcEOsmAtA

is the final approach. I realized yesterday that there is a flashing light in the right wing before the impact. I suppose that is the navigation light, butis this position normal for an boieng 767 222 comercial liner????

The flash is in the seconds 4 to 5 of the video.

Thanks,


The flash in question appears to be a video artifact. That flash doesn't appear on other source videos that haven't been "stabilized".

Posted by: achimspok Jun 16 2009, 08:34 AM

This may answer some questions about the final approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ

But there are a lot of open qustions.
I thought the Rades data were just displaced because the Rades flight path is parallel to the visible flight path but about 520m displaced to the south + too high (wrong time).
The Rades data for AA11 are wrong as well. According to these data AA11 would have passed behind Naudet at the junction of Church and Lispenard. May be Naudet would have panned the camera to the left but the Rades plane would have entered the screen from the left side in a high banking turn.
I checked Google Earth for any failure of the longitude/latitude. GE is correct.
So how correct is a USAF radar? What are these Rades data?

Posted by: Obwon Mar 22 2011, 08:46 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 21 2008, 09:41 AM) *
My opinion is that there was some sort of homing device located in each of the towers. One in Bremer's office and one in the Fuji bank's office. To me, that would possibly explain the bank at the last few seconds.

It appears that if it had NOT banked, it would have mostly missed.


Let's put some points that have been made together here:

The exact floors "hit" by the two aircraft, are the same floors that are made suspect by
evidence of "prior preparation" and/or "connection to the crash effects".

That means that if these floors were prepared to display "crash effects", then they are
necessarily the floors that MUST be hit, because to hit any other floors would not obtain
or explain the "crash effect" results, that would be displayed in the aftermath of the crashes.
[a bit convoluted I know, but it means that; if the crash sites were prepared to display
in a certain way, the planes must hit them precisely, or you've created yet another
conundrum.]

Therefore, if videos are faked, the makers do not have any choice of "crash points". They can only alter the way the planes arrive at these points.

Now, this is what I believe, gives rise to the "last second" maneuvers; the need to bring the aircraft to their precisely located strike points! Where even 20 feet higher or lower, right or left, results in plane part strikes, that leave no damage at all. And damage to building areas, where no plane parts have struck at all. The prepared crash effects require precision alignment with the video evidence.

I also think that, because there is a time limit factor, since the prepared areas would have to initiate their methods of displaying crash damage, at a particular point in time, the arrival of the aircraft at these strike points is also fixed, and cannot be altered.

With the elements of place and time of the crash points so fixed, the video makers had to work backwards from these points and times first, in creating the video "explanations" for them. However, after working backwards and putting things in place, they then need to run forward and assess for anomalies that need to be removed if possible.

Okay, having said the above, the question becomes then: Why do these anomalies still exist?

For example, why does flt 11 exhibit 510 knots for over a minute?
Why do both flights exhibit suspicious maneuvers?

I believe that the answers lay in the expected times of arrivals of the flights into the local areas. Since flights cannot hover in the air, the only way to absorb additional time, is to alter the flight paths of the crafts in getting to the local area. But this takes time and once the "evidence" is put into the data tracking systems, it's locked for release, thus robbing the perps of needed flexibility.

Looking at flight 11 and 175, one question that comes to mind is: Why the 18 minute delay of flight 175 when both flights could easily have hit at the same time?

This seems to say that the perps were not at all worried about any and all interception possibilities! This delay assumes completely free airspace/access for the needed additional time. So then, who are the perps, most likely able to make such an assumption?

So the speculation loops back and forth between a)prepared strike points (floors) b) flight paths to these strike points. c) Times of arrivals at these strike points. d) The extreme difficulty of arriving at these strike points. e) inability of the skyjackers to fly to these strike points on time, using the paths given. f) Lack of collateral evidence of aircraft post crash.

Where we have evidence of fake planes flying impossible paths to precise strike points on floors that have undergone "renovations", if we simplify and solve, we come away with... what?

Obwon

Posted by: DonM Mar 22 2011, 01:03 PM

Obwon,

Go and watch "September Clues"
http://www.septemberclues.info/

and spend a day reading Leslie Raphael's site
http://frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%20Home%20Page.htm

I'm not saying that they are completely correct, but they give one lots to think about

Posted by: Obwon Mar 22 2011, 03:23 PM

QUOTE (DonM @ Mar 22 2011, 12:03 PM) *
Obwon,

Go and watch "September Clues"
http://www.septemberclues.info/

and spend a day reading Leslie Raphael's site
http://frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%20Home%20Page.htm

I'm not saying that they are completely correct, but they give one lots to think about


Mostly a lot I've already seen and have been thinking about for nearly 10 years.
Site has a lot of rhetoric to wade through, that kind of thing detracts from the
"authority" the site wants to achieve.

That aside, they make a very good point that the north faces should be in shadow.
The sun is not known to selectively illuminate buildings and as we all know, moss grows on the north side of trees.

Obwon

PS: Here, take a look down at the bottom of the page:

http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911JULES%20NAUDET%202.htm#The_Flight_11_shot_in_39_cuts

The north face of the south tower is in shadow, the north face of the north tower is sunlit.

Posted by: localbod Mar 22 2011, 05:39 PM

QUOTE (Freedomlover911 @ Apr 18 2009, 03:25 PM) *
The problem with "TV Fakery" and "CGI planes" is not just that it is a red herring, it just doesn't fit! You still have the problem with several eyewitnesses actually seeing planes with their own eyes, planes in live video feeds and several images of planes on home video. Anyone with basic knowledge of home video knows that there is no way to "implant" fake images of planes on hand held analog recording devices. This is a rabbit hole with a hungry fox at the end. Time to back out and reevaluate.
peace
FL911


I have also checked out Leslie Raphael and September clues.They both offer compelling arguements especially Raphael.
I recently heard a Scot Forbes interview on Fetzer's site -Real Deal. Now this guy is not a 'Conspiracy Theorist' by his own admission and sounded very genuine.He described seeing Flt175 ( with his Mk.1 Eyeball ) simply dissappear into the south tower! He was left dumbfounded and unable to comprehend what he had seen with his own eyes.
He seems like a credible witness to me. Surely taking into account eye witness accounts and all of the video evidence that corroborates a large jet going straight into the south tower upon impact without slowing down , deformation of the airframe -wing tips entering intact , lack of tail section breaking off and debris outside the tower etc.... we are looking at the use of a Hologram!?
I have to say that when it comes to audio and the sounds witnesses heard i give up.
I can just about get my head round the possibility that Holographic tech exists and is useable but how do you create the illusion of a moving sound source?
I know John Lear has already suggested NPT / Holograms but i cannot see what else would meet the requirements for all the known evidence imho.
Just my 10 cents worth.

Posted by: Obwon Mar 22 2011, 06:16 PM

QUOTE (localbod @ Mar 22 2011, 04:39 PM) *
I have also checked out Leslie Raphael and September clues.They both offer compelling arguements especially Raphael.
<snips>
I have to say that when it comes to audio and the sounds witnesses heard i give up.
I can just about get my head round the possibility that Holographic tech exists and is useable but how do you create the illusion of a moving sound source?
I know John Lear has already suggested NPT / Holograms but i cannot see what else would meet the requirements for all the known evidence imho.
Just my 10 cents worth.


The idea is, no matter what anyone claims they saw or heard, has to match with corroborating evidence, that what they saw or heard, was actually available to be seen or heard and not merely imagined.

For example, you could swear up and down that you heard a 747 crash into the building next door to you. You could claim that the building being on fire and flattened, was good evidence that what you're saying is true. Other people could also join in and claim that what you've said was true, that they too saw a 747 crash into the building next door to you.

Now, if any videos and/or pictures that happened to have been taken of the event in progress, don't verify the claim. If they show things that are impossible, like say the aircraft taking off, after the crash, and flying away. People have to have a serious problem believing the story. But, let's say the video showed the plane going completely into the ground. But, no amount of digging can retrieve but a part or two, and they can't be verified as having come from a 747. Then what is there to believe? The "eyewitnesses"?

Minds are very poor witnesses to events, because they're so flexible. People can make up stories, they can lie, they can imagine things, and they can hallucinate, something that cameras can't do. So, if the cameras were supposedly faithfully recording, what these people claimed they saw. But the examination of those pictures and vids, show things that could not possibly have happened, then the pictures and vids are fakes. If there is no residue of the 100 ton jetliners, then there simply weren't any jetliners downed there.

Either they want us to believe the official story is true, in which case they should have made every effort to recover and display the plane parts, which I believe they would have if they could have. Or, there were no plane parts to recover and display, because there weren't any planes to begin with... In which case you'd only hear stories and claims, just as we've been hearing for the last 10 years. All manner of explanations as to why the plane debris can't be found, even though a paper and plastic passport/id, managed to escape the inferno intact and flutter to the ground nearby. Even the "black boxes" couldn't be recovered or found, so we're told. So all the hard evidence that should be there, if planes had crashed, are substituted for by stories and fake images/videos and a raft of suspicious data that doesn't line up. Large heavy aircraft don't simply disappear into thin air, merely because they've crashed into a building at 500 mph or so.

So, it comes down to a question of whether or not one wishes to believe in magic.

Obwon blink.gif

Posted by: localbod Mar 22 2011, 06:45 PM

[quote name='Obwon'
Either they want us to believe the official story is true, in which case they should have made every effort to recover and display the plane parts, which I believe they would have if they could have. Or, there were no plane parts to recover and display, because there weren't any planes to begin with... In which case

I would concede that occums razor would dictate that if no aeroplane wreckage (debris field, bodies and body parts , miles of cable etc...) has been recovered then no aeroplane has crashed!
All of the videos available of the tower strikes being doctered however well, seems like a very big ask.
Whereas using a Hologram per plane where 'witnesses' would be able to see the right event i.e. a plane impact at the correct floor level for the ensuing fireball.
If it can be done a hologram seems alot simpler and therefore easier to achieve!?
I guess if they wanted to get people rubbing their temples and screaming 'i know the OCT is bullshit but what the fuck happened to Newton here' -they achieved that!
If there is a hell it would certainly include eternity in the company of Bush , Cheney and Rumsfeld!

Posted by: Obwon Mar 23 2011, 06:24 AM

QUOTE (localbod @ Mar 22 2011, 05:45 PM) *
[quote name='Obwon'
Either they want us to believe the official story is true, in which case they should have made every effort to recover and display the plane parts, which I believe they would have if they could have. Or, there were no plane parts to recover and display, because there weren't any planes to begin with... In which case...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would concede that occums razor would dictate that if no aeroplane wreckage (debris field, bodies and body parts , miles of cable etc...) has been recovered then no aeroplane has crashed!
All of the videos available of the tower strikes being doctered however well, seems like a very big ask.

<snips>


Yes! That's is exactly their point! It would seem that it's a "big ask" to most people around the nation and around the world! But the facts tell a much different story. In truth, anyone who has surveyed early morning downtown NYC, would know that most people simply would not be paying attention, if the Statue of Liberty were to start walking up Broadway at 9 to 10 am.

Firstly, because of the tall buildings and the narrow streets, and the sidewalks up close to the buildings, where most people would be walking, there are very few sight lines to view the towers from, up close. In the areas where there were local views of the towers, there were very few people by city standards at that time of day. At 9 am, in the Wall street area, you can actually walk without being "crushed" by the crowds that develop at lunch hour.

What you have mostly at that time is, a trickle of people coming out of PATH and the subways, and dispersing through the streets. These people's biggest concern is scurrying into work. Loud noises? New Yorkers are used to loud noises, there's always plenty of construction and other odd events going on around. I've heard and watched as trucks backfired on Church street and nary a soul on the pavement even bothered to stop or turn a head to see what the matter was.

If someone was to walk nude through the streets, around the wall street area, they'd get away with it until a police or other official got involved, the people would just shake their heads and keep walking, same goes for people who collapse on the street, most people just step around them, not wanting to get involved/sidetracked from their daily personal ordeals.

So, with the towers, people as close as a block away, would be oblivious to what was happening. Even after the first hit, there weren't that many "looky-loos" standing around gawking at the towers. Most New Yorkers just don't have that kind of time on their hands, so they just keep walking to work, after giving the towers a few glances. They expect they'll pick up the rest of it on the news. One reason there is no point in hanging around is, in New York, when the first responders arrive, the area, in question, is usually quickly cordoned off. Most of the people using the PATH (port authority trans-Hudson, which carries people from New Jersey into New York for about 2 dollars), are professionals with very important jobs, like stock traders, lawyers, consultants and others with jobs that thousands, if not millions of people depend on. These are ultra high stress jobs, involving extremely high stakes. A "mere" plane crash pales by comparison to tasks many of these people are performing and the consequences of making mistakes or failing to execute in timely fashions.
So there's a lot of pressure on the people in this area, hardly a wonder they pay so little attention to things they see on the streets.

There was a gun fight that broke out between a bank robber and a cop over on Cedar st. and people didn't even duck for cover, they just kept moving along. An executive secretary was hit in the leg by a stray shot, her concern? That she wouldn't be in to work that day! Of course, Wall Street breathed fire and brimstone down on City Hall, so police in the area are advised not to shoot, let the criminal get away to an area better suited such efforts (and we know what areas those might be). Can't have Mr. CEO getting hit by a stray shot, in an attempt to recover the paltry sums bank robbers handle. Btw, the robber had 2,500, I'm sure the Executive secretary made more than that per week, heck, I was making more than that, often in a day as an expediter.

Point is, most working people would not have cameras handy, and even if they did, in that area, few if any would have time on their hands to dally. Many people coming out of the WTC at the south east entrance onto Liberty street, as well as out the south side entrance on Greenwich, probably would not even know that the north tower had even been hit. They're only two city blocks away, yet, once they crossed the street and continued east on Liberty, a few feet, their view of the north tower is blocked out.

The media, however, should have had their choppers in the air with their high resolution, broadcast quality cameras, in the hands of professional operators. There's usually at least one media traffic chopper up during rush hour. But all we have to gawk at is a police chopper video, which avoids taping the most interesting effects?!? Go figure, eh?

Obwon

Posted by: amazed! Jul 24 2011, 02:10 PM

What you say is true Obwon, about the noise and distractions in Manhattan in the morning.

But how would they (the planners) know which parts to place here and there? Would they know that landing gear and engine parts would be the only parts to survive the impact?

Further, would they have planned to have those pieces in the video record landing at the exact location they did?

My apologies for not being able to link to it, but I have seen work, accurate drawings, here at PFT showing the trajectory the pieces took according to video record, and the pieces end up right were they should be.

I think the debris found down range was consistent with what we saw.

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