Final Approach Of 175 Options

[NightMage]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/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, this one, 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.

[amazed!]

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.

[Obwon]

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