IPB




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

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Final Approach Of 175

NightMage
post Feb 25 2007, 04:23 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 25-February 07
Member No.: 684



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 25 2007, 04:49 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,944
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tit2
post May 18 2007, 08:02 AM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 137
Joined: 27-April 07
Member No.: 999



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=0168...ev_id=&next_id=

http://i7.tinypic.com/62xqwr8.jpg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post May 18 2007, 10:32 AM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



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...opic=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.

This post has been edited by Beached: May 20 2007, 06:33 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 19 2007, 04:45 PM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,944
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mycall
post May 19 2007, 07:26 PM
Post #6





Group: Newbie
Posts: 61
Joined: 12-January 07
Member No.: 434



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post May 19 2007, 07:56 PM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



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"?

This post has been edited by Beached: May 20 2007, 06:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tit2
post Aug 11 2007, 02:53 PM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 137
Joined: 27-April 07
Member No.: 999



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tit2
post Aug 16 2007, 03:15 PM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 137
Joined: 27-April 07
Member No.: 999



the author of this video precise:

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-61...earch&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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Ningen_*
post Sep 2 2007, 01:01 AM
Post #10





Guest






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.

This post has been edited by Ningen: Sep 2 2007, 01:13 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tit2
post Sep 2 2007, 03:53 PM
Post #11





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 137
Joined: 27-April 07
Member No.: 999



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tit2
post Sep 3 2007, 02:52 AM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 137
Joined: 27-April 07
Member No.: 999



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.”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cbsiftcb
post Nov 8 2007, 07:07 AM
Post #13





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 7-November 07
Member No.: 2,456



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 8 2007, 09:12 AM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,944
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 8 2007, 02:58 PM
Post #15





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



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 (Mach 1 Thread Here). This is yet more confirmation of false evidence, IMO.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 8 2007, 03:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WetBlanket
post Nov 14 2007, 02:37 AM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 64
Joined: 29-October 07
Member No.: 2,415



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

This post has been edited by WetBlanket: Nov 14 2007, 03:43 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Destinova
post Nov 22 2007, 03:39 PM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 62
Joined: 17-July 07
From: Germany
Member No.: 1,468



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

This post has been edited by Destinova: Nov 22 2007, 03:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Nov 23 2007, 09:18 AM
Post #18





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,106
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (Destinova @ Nov 22 2007, 03:39 PM)

The video you are linking to is almost surely a fake. see:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/resizeplane/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
guesswhotoo6
post Dec 19 2007, 11:22 AM
Post #19





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 5
Joined: 26-October 07
Member No.: 2,408



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pinnacle
post Dec 19 2007, 02:47 PM
Post #20





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 276
Joined: 14-November 06
Member No.: 242



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: 19th December 2014 - 06:57 AM