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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
9/11 Aircraft - Why Fly So Fast?, PilotsFor911Truth.org - June 9, 2014

rob balsamo
post Jun 9 2014, 09:35 AM
Post #1



Group Icon

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



After releasing 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, 9/11: Intercepted, and Skygate 9/11, Pilots For Truth have been asked questions regarding the excessive aircraft speeds reported.

One commonly asked question is:
"If it is impossible for a standard 767 to perform at the speeds reported, why would the alleged terrorist or elements within our govt fly the aircraft so fast?"





Visit http://PilotsFor911Truth.org for more details.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jun 9 2014, 08:27 PM
Post #2





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 10 2014, 01:35 AM) *
After releasing 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, 9/11: Intercepted, and Skygate 9/11, Pilots For Truth have been asked questions regarding the excessive aircraft speeds reported.

One commonly asked question is:
"If it is impossible for a standard 767 to perform at the speeds reported, why would the alleged terrorist or elements within our govt fly the aircraft so fast?"



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/AfaWiEMuatU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Visit http://PilotsFor911Truth.org for more details.


Every account of Arab flight-school dropouts flying any airplane on 9/11/01 is utterly incredible, unbelievable.
Any concept of a specially-modified 767 is utterly incredible, unbelievable.
The claimed airspeeds utterly incredible, unbelievable...indeed impossible.

If the radar data IS credible, then flying the ufo device/s had nothing to do
with arab novices out for revenge, but everything to do with the real terrorists...
many no doubt still flying by the seats of very hot pants filling very big chairs,
wafting in the rarified heights of absolute power

This post has been edited by MikeR: Jun 9 2014, 08:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SteveF
post Jun 11 2014, 01:50 PM
Post #3





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



MikeR said:

"Any concept of a specially-modified 767 is utterly incredible, unbelievable"

What do you base that statement on?

Not only does a modified airplane fit Occam's Razor better than anything else; to me it is obviously what "They" did.

"If the radar data IS credible, then flying the ufo device/s ....."

In what sense do you mean "ufo device/s"?

How many witnesses said they saw OFO's hit the WTC?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jun 11 2014, 06:29 PM
Post #4





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



QUOTE (SteveF @ Jun 11 2014, 12:50 PM) *
MikeR said:

"Any concept of a specially-modified 767 is utterly incredible, unbelievable"

What do you base that statement on?

Not only does a modified airplane fit Occam's Razor better than anything else; to me it is obviously what "They" did.

"If the radar data IS credible, then flying the ufo device/s ....."

In what sense do you mean "ufo device/s"?

How many witnesses said they saw OFO's hit the WTC?


Thanks Rob for the 'Why Fly So Fast' video.

I too would like to hear MikeR's answers to Steve's questions above.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 11 2014, 11:00 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



I love the sim freeze section! Haha handsdown.gif

My 2cents on the speeds that they want us to swallow is both for shock and awe effect and for the anticipated questions on "how could an aircraft bring the towers down?" or "how does an aircraft breach a reinforced concrete facade and liquidize?" (though it was more of a "hit and run" job to confuse the witnesses) or "how the hell does an aircraft get sucked right in to the ground?".

Mainly I believe that it was a way of destroying the evidence (the weapon) without visiting the scene. Think about it. Two aircraft pulverized by 2 million tons of rubble, one "liquidized" and one on a journey to the center of the earth. All 100% success rates (yes, even "93").

Sorry for the sarcasm towards the end, but I nearly rolled my eyes round to the back of my head as I was writing what they expect us to believe (and that some do....)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jun 14 2014, 06:38 PM
Post #6





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 11 2014, 10:00 PM) *
I love the sim freeze section! Haha handsdown.gif

My 2cents on the speeds that they want us to swallow is both for shock and awe effect and for the anticipated questions on "how could an aircraft bring the towers down?" or "how does an aircraft breach a reinforced concrete facade and liquidize?" (though it was more of a "hit and run" job to confuse the witnesses) or "how the hell does an aircraft get sucked right in to the ground?".

Mainly I believe that it was a way of destroying the evidence (the weapon) without visiting the scene. Think about it. Two aircraft pulverized by 2 million tons of rubble, one "liquidized" and one on a journey to the center of the earth. All 100% success rates (yes, even "93").

Sorry for the sarcasm towards the end, but I nearly rolled my eyes round to the back of my head as I was writing what they expect us to believe (and that some do....)


Yes it certainly is completely unbelievable.
Apart from the odd aircraft part (and I mean very odd), all four aircraft disappeared from the face of the earth; literally vanished into thin air.

The recent disappearance of flight MH370 continues to keep the 'disappearing into thin air' paradigm alive and well.

It's amazing that with all of our super duper latest hi-tech toys we are still at a stage where huge jumbo jets can vanish without a trace from the earth.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 17 2014, 08:50 AM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Re 370, the earth is still a pretty big place for us humans. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tit2
post Jun 17 2014, 09:32 AM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 144
Joined: 27-April 07
From: France, Ajaccio
Member No.: 999




“The recent disappearance of flight MH370 continues to keep the 'disappearing into thin air' paradigm alive and well. It's amazing that with all of our super duper latest hi-tech toys we are still at a stage where huge jumbo jets can vanish without a trace from the earth.”

About flight MH370, although this is unlikely, we cannot exclude the possibility of disappearance "unconventional" of this aircraft. One speculative hypothesis is explained by the following links:

Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370: Disintegrated by a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) at 35,000 Feet:

http://thefreedomreport.us/malaysian-airli...dew-35000-feet/

http://thefreedomreport.us/wp-content/uplo...PM-1024x241.png

Leuren Moret: Flight 370 downing was Energy weapons demo:

http://exopolitics.blogs.com/peaceinspace/...ribunal-ve.html

Of course, there is one thing I do not know: even if such a weapon was used to destroy the flight MH370, is it normal that no debris of this large aircraft was found?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jun 19 2014, 06:28 AM
Post #9





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



QUOTE (SteveF @ Jun 12 2014, 05:50 AM) *
MikeR said:

"Any concept of a specially-modified 767 is utterly incredible, unbelievable"

What do you base that statement on?

Based on famous footage of a Boeing-lookalike image "not-UA175"
dissolving into virtual WTC2 Tower, no broken-off plane parts,
absolute-zero shattered glass, no busted stauncions... and
most significant of all, we don't even see the airplane cutout
that magically appeared in the building facade when all the
smoke and mirrors got later removed. All as seen at 31:50 in
Ace Baker's video outlining the compositing techniques used
in a vain attempt to hide the by-now-obvious fact that there
was no plane. Ace goes one step further, adds a phony
airplane in parallel with the original faked CGI, to show how
easily it could be faked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds...eature=youtu.be

There was no plane in THE original video which pretended otherwise...
so how could a "specially-modified" plane be any more credible. It can't.


Not only does a modified airplane fit Occam's Razor better than anything else; to me it is obviously what "They" did.

"If the radar data IS credible, then flying the ufo device/s ....."

In what sense do you mean "ufo device/s"?


I've just referenced that there was no plane: yet there SEEMS
to be possibly-credible evidence of a radar track indicating a flying something.
If I cannot identify the flying object, do I really need to elaborate on
why it is a UFO?


How many witnesses said they saw OFO's hit the WTC?

THE most VIP "witness" declared she saw the plane hit WTC2
from her office desk....when it was later proven that the point of impact
was not visible, could not have been seen from her office... her
testimony folded.
A rather-more-reliable witness testified he HEARD
an impact, his line of sight included the entire alleged final approach,
yet from where he was stationed, no plane was could be seen.

MikeR


This post has been edited by MikeR: Jun 19 2014, 06:34 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jun 20 2014, 01:08 AM
Post #10





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



MikeR have you read my post where I debunked Ace Baker's compositing theory?
If not, please read it and give me your impression of it.
It's been several months now since I posted it.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jun 20 2014, 09:20 PM
Post #11





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



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2014, 05:08 PM) *
MikeR have you read my post where I debunked Ace Baker's compositing theory?
If not, please read it and give me your impression of it.
It's been several months now since I posted it.



I do remember you posting something having a shot at Ace Baker....
I also recall thinking you were aiming at the rong target,
but I'm nothing if not forgiving *grin*, so what's the link again pls?

My point here doesn't begin to rely on the compositing
that caused Steve Wright's twisted knickers...

This video of a CGi dissolving into a building image, with
no damage except a few reconfigured pixels, is a
shot that's been posted prior to Ace's good efforts.
All Ace did was show how easily an identical CGI plane could be
superimposed... the difference being the original CGI
was faked minutes after the event, even before the ink
had dried on the reporters' ball-point copy they posted
back to CNNs editorial inside jobbers.

Try debunking Baker however takes your fancy, how can you
accept another word the perpeTRAITOR told you after the
fact, especially after the same lying fraudster said a plane had
crashed into the Pentagon at the same time a naval photog
was carefully photographing an entire facade of the Pentagon
proving the building was 99.9995% intact....
that faked (I didn't say "fake") plane was one of the two routes
that failed to appear on the BTS website that day
(and which prompted the same BTS website to disappear
underground for a long tiume, before resurfacing on
a different server, still bearing scars of attempted removal
of evidential entries for AA11 and AA77

The same lying turd said another plane had crashed into
what turned out to be a pre-existing little hole in Shanksville
ground....

How many more liars, and how many more years of
perpeTRAITORs' disinformational word-wars do we have to
support with e.g. investigating radar tracks of airplanes
that BTS said were not even flying, and had been canceled
that day?

BTW The exact-same cock-up happened 4 years later in
the 7/7 London Tube Bombing Drill-Fraud... The same
perpeTYRAITORs have never to this day explained
how the 4 late suspects could possibly have been within
50 miles of the Perps' crime scene, because the ONLY
possible Luton train the suspects could have hopped on
was cancelled that day

But no prizes for any plane spotter who happens to notice
I'm arguably off topic.

Again. rolleyes.gif

MikeR

This post has been edited by MikeR: Jun 20 2014, 09:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 21 2014, 06:55 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Bringing this thread back on topic, from an earlier discussion on this forum about aircraft modification...

QUOTE
Post 4.

The claim that modification of the witnessed aircraft which was travelling well over the structural limitations of a standard transport category Boeing 767 is "impossible"

Rob's response:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804735

My response:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804737

What's the difference in bodyframe between these two 747s?





This...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Componen...hotoblog900.jpg

QUOTE
Weights

Empty: 151,315 lb (68,635 kg)
With main engines: 171,000 lb (77,564 kg)

Source


QUOTE
The aircraft was extensively modified by Boeing in 1976.[2] Its cabin was stripped, mounting struts added, and the fuselage strengthened; vertical stabilizers were added to the tail to aid stability when the Orbiter was being carried. The avionics and engines were also upgraded, and an escape tunnel system similar to that used on Boeing's first 747 test flights was added. The flight crew escape tunnel system was later removed following the completion of the Approach and Landing Tests (ALT) due to concerns over possible engine ingestion of an escaping crew member

Flying with the additional drag and weight of the Orbiter imposed significant fuel and altitude penalties. The range was reduced to 1,000 nautical miles (1,850 km), compared to an unladen range of 5500 nautical miles (10,100 km),[3] requiring an SCA to stop several times to refuel on a transcontinental flight. The SCA had an altitude ceiling of 15,000 feet and a maximum cruise speed of Mach 0.6 (445mph) with the orbiter attached.

Source


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jun 22 2014, 04:50 PM
Post #13





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



QUOTE (MikeR @ Jun 20 2014, 08:20 PM) *
I do remember you posting something having a shot at Ace Baker....
I also recall thinking you were aiming at the rong target,
but I'm nothing if not forgiving *grin*, so what's the link again pls?



MikeR, here is the link.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...5&start=125

But please, if you have anything to say about it, reply in the thread I am now linking to and not here, OK?

Let's keep this thread on topic: 9/11 Aircraft - Why fly so fast

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th October 2019 - 06:02 PM