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
What Hit The South Tower?, The wrong plane!

amazed!
post Oct 27 2007, 08:40 PM
Post #21





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,908
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



dMole

The controversy about gate assignments at BOS can be found here at Pilots. Back in some of those "pinned" threads. Some of them cannot be posted on, but I think they can all be read.

Yes, the passengers is the most curious angle for me. My bet is they were not even boarded. We know Securacom did "security" at WTC, and for United, and for IAD if I'm not mistaken. That allows for many irregularities. Throw in the "training exercise" part, and ordinary and unwitting employees become like putty in their hands.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 27 2007, 10:46 PM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 27 2007, 07:40 PM)
My bet is they were not even boarded.  We know Securacom did "security" at WTC, and for United, and for IAD if I'm not mistaken.  That allows for many irregularities.  Throw in the "training exercise" part, and ordinary and unwitting employees become like putty in their hands.

Hypothetical situation:

1. Someone very highly placed (NSA, National Security Council, Vice-Presidential and/or Executive Staff, DIA, DoD, etc.) reads the Northwoods and PNAC documents (or had a hand in drafting one or both).

2. This highly-placed person or persons implements plans to foment a false flag "New Pearl Harbor" "War on Terror" and also is interested in demolishing the WTC in a quicker, dirtier, cheaper way.

3. A handful of ultra-secret memos are drafted and distributed to the appropriate agency/organization directors on a "need to know, eyes only" basis.

4. A computer generated list of "victims'" names is generated, and nearly a score of Saudi and Egyptian "persons of interest" that the FBI has been observing is sprinkled in with some very grainy photos, so the "official" story will hold water (believed to be permanently by the planners of steps 1-3).

5. Very small demolitions crews are brought into WTC 1, 2, & 7 under the watchful eye of Securacom, directed by Neil Bush, over a period of weeks or months pre-9/11/2001.

6. The rest of the "technical details" are set into motion (Boeings of some flavor are procured, IgNORAD is put on DefCON "ineffectual," telecommunications and FAA channels are disrupted, "altered" flight recorders are installed somewhere on some kind of flying machinery, etc.)

7. "Anonymously" warn a few key individuals that you don't want getting caught in the "collateral damage" not to fly or go to work on Tues. 9/11/2001.

8. Send George W. Bush off to Florida for a photo-op, and bring FEMA into NYC on the night of Sept. 10, 2001.

9. Have Cheney at the "undisclosed" command/control center early on Tuesday morning.

10. Give the secret orders, throw the switches, and let the machinery churn.

11. Watch it happen on CNN, MSNBC, and FNC. You will need to maintain a barrage of media coverage to "shock and awe" the minds and hearts of the American population.

I ask, is this a far-fetched scenario or not? Please keep in mind that there are several levels of government security clearance above "Top Secret"- that's more for Hollywood action movies, you know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 28 2007, 11:00 AM
Post #23





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,908
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



No, that's not ridiculous. It is probably a variation on the central theme. We can only speculate as to the details, but it is obvious that the entire system was spoofed that day by somebody who knew very well what they were doing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 28 2007, 01:19 PM
Post #24





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 27 2007, 08:06 AM)
Hello O892,

I'm sorry to say that I'm growing increasingly weary of all the infighting, self-censorship,  and "pet" theories in the 9/11 Truth Movement.


I am sorry if I have aroused your ire but I was only speculating on a possible answer for one of the phenomena seen on that day, unless of course it has been proven that the highlights were simply sun reflections, one which could help explain how the a/c sliced so easily through the outer steel columns of the tower and then produced a large fireball.

It is not exactly a pet theory of mine more a point for discussion and not intended to promote any infighting etc.

Now that 800 meter time apart (and being from UK I am not sure what that is) I also have a background in science, welding (fitting, turning, sheet metal working and more) and military aviation (naval) only lacking formal studies in military strategy. However being widely read on many such topics and WRT that latter I could probably vie with Clausewitz and his naval counterparts. wink.gif


On naval studies I have quite a library around the days of naval fighting sail, not that such battles would occur again as climate change is killing the trade winds. ohmy.gif

Judging by the content of your post, and your later one, it seems that we agree on much.

I have taken time before replying to study that 911 Blogger page that you cited and to fetch and read the MacKey document, thank you for bringing that to my attention.

I began reading it and to be honest at first only got as far as the quote of Robertson (page 8) and smelt a rat so decided to then have a look at the comments by yourself, Tony Zamboti and others. Indeed Tony pins it to the wall very well. Any comparison between a 707 and what hit the WTC goes against anything that NIST tries to prove, or rather obfuscate over. In short Griffin is right and this counter Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a parody. mcfrandy also makes a very good point that such attempts at undermining the work of those trying to get to the truth should be considered, understood and replied to when cited.

Many things bothered me about the NIST report not least the emotive language often used in what is supposed to be a scientific report. It should be a scientific report and not a tabloid newspaper article. I find those who try to shut me up often use emotive language and accuse me of having little respect for those that died that day. This is far from the case.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Oct 28 2007, 01:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 28 2007, 02:43 PM
Post #25





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



QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Mar 4 2007, 03:00 AM)
has this picture been "photo-shopped" i.e. is it possible or impossible to add the plane to a high res pic like this one.

Anybody?

Yes, IMO, this picture has been photoshopped. Using digital photo editing software, you can get in to the image and modify on a pixel by pixel basis. This offers all kinds of possibilities to skilled digital 'retouchers', so of course such image modification of hi res images is possible and more importantly: undetectable.

The only real clues as to whether or not a digital image is fake are those relative to the image's content. In this example, the fact that the plane has the wrong dimensions for its specified type is a BIG clue that the image of the plane has been added.

My two cents.

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ 0ct 28 2007, 12:19 PM)
I was only speculating on a possible answer for one of the phenomena seen on that day, unless of course it has been proven that the highlights were simply sun reflections, one which could help explain how the a/c sliced so easily through the outer steel columns of the tower and then produced a large fireball.

How could the a/c slice so easily through steel columns, not to mention steel spandrel plates along with steel and concrete floors?

Simple answer: IMO, it couldn't.

The planes were added digitally to footage of penetrator missile events. The flash seen in the videos, if this is what you are referring to, is typically released by the Depleted Uranium tip of such missiles going pyrophoric as they impact and begin to penetrate their targets. Also note in the videos the exit of the glowing white pyrophoric D.U. tip from the resulting explosions, which is also characteristic of penetrator missile events.

My four cents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 28 2007, 04:51 PM
Post #26





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,908
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



The guys who did this followed Goebbels advice about going for the whole thing if you're going to go at all. If you're going to defraud, do it on a massive scale.

Mission Acccomplished!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 29 2007, 04:16 AM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 28 2007, 12:19 PM)
I am sorry if I have aroused your ire but I was only speculating on a possible answer for one of the phenomena seen on that day, unless of course it has been proven that the highlights were simply sun reflections, one which could help explain how the a/c sliced so easily through the outer steel columns of the tower and then produced a large fireball.

It is not exactly a pet theory of mine more a point for discussion and not intended to promote any infighting etc.

Hello again O892,

Thank you for your astute observations, and I assure you that MOST of the problems that I referenced are on THIS side of the "pond." It would be interesting for a British fellow like you and a mountain/desert creature like myself (both having similar backgrounds) to compare notes.

Sincerely,
d
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 29 2007, 08:03 AM
Post #28





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 29 2007, 03:16 AM)
Hello again O892,

Thank you for your astute observations, and I assure you that MOST of the problems that I referenced are on THIS side of the "pond."  It would be interesting for a British fellow like you and a mountain/desert creature like myself (both having similar backgrounds) to compare notes.

Sincerely,
d

Thank you dMole.

I am still looking into details of WTC construction. I walked passed them whilst briefly in NY in 1972 before they were finished and have 35mm transparencies taken looking downtown towards then from the Empire State and others from inside the head of the Statue of Liberty.

I have found useful pic's and diagrams on:

http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/index.php

including a diagram of the lift (sorry elevator) arrangements, but only a side elevation which gives no clue as to which corner, or corners had shuttle and freight elevators. This would be useful in judging how fuel could descend to the lower floors. Further the diagram found there appears to finish at the ground floor with no clue as to lift arrangements through to the basement levels.

I know this question is away from what hit but I asked here as I have not yet found such information elsewhere on P4T.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 29 2007, 08:20 AM
Post #29





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Oct 28 2007, 01:43 PM)
Yes, IMO, this picture has been photoshopped.  Using digital photo editing software, you can get in to the image and modify on a pixel by pixel basis.  This offers all kinds of possibilities to skilled digital 'retouchers', so of course such image modification of hi res images is possible and more importantly: undetectable.

The only real clues as to whether or not a digital image is fake are those relative to the image's content.  In this example, the fact that the plane has the wrong dimensions for its specified type is a BIG clue that the image of the plane has been added.

My two cents.

Sorry but IMHO there is no way that this can have been 'shopped. Have you looked at the crop I posted at the images natural resolution?

By looking at this, and I have enlarged to 1000 per cent on screen, I can see that this is typical of images of distant aircraft, I have enough similar shots of my own, where the edges become fuzzy. There is no hint of pixel messing which would show. The grain, as blobs of dye in a film image, extends smoothly from sky across the a/c.

One thing that makes me think that the bright spots are not reflections of the sun is that one would expect a similar reflection from the starboard engine who’s shape can be made out just outboard of the near wing root bright spot.

QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Oct 28 2007, 01:43 PM)
The planes were added digitally to footage of penetrator missile events.  The flash seen in the videos, if this is what you are referring to, is typically released by the Depleted Uranium tip of such missiles going pyrophoric as they impact and begin to penetrate their targets.  Also note in the videos the exit of the glowing white pyrophoric D.U. tip from the resulting explosions, which is also characteristic of penetrator missile events.


Nah! I go with drone aircraft, aircraft much modified perhaps with specially modified wing leading edges amongst other things.

That object that is seen exiting the south side of WTC2 would most likely be that starboard engine. After all we are talking about a sizeable chunk of machinery here made of harder, heat resistant materials.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 29 2007, 12:26 PM
Post #30





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



OK WRT the orientation of the cores of WTC1 & 2 I have found the answer at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html

where if one changes from Medium resolution as found to Original or High something unexpected happens. Instead of looking at one tower in cross section one gets a plan of the whole complex at B3 level.

The core layouts are as I recalled by their rectangles long sides being at 90 degrees to each other, the core of the north tower running east-west and that of the south tower running north-south.

Also of course the elevator side elevation drawing at

http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/index.php

is incorrect as no lift shafts were at the extreme corners of the buildings, being all within the core, unless I am missing something.

The core orientation means that each aircraft was aimed at a face such that the cores resistance to movement was least and being presented with the largest target area.

And then WTC2 a/c managed to achieve an angle of entry whereby much more of the a/c structure missed the core, most certainly the starboard engine.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 29 2007, 03:01 PM
Post #31



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 29 2007, 07:03 AM)
This would be useful in judging how fuel could descend to the lower floors.

O892,

If you are referring to the lobby and lower floor damage, the fuel should have been burning on its way across the impact floors and on the way down the elevator/lift shafts, if we buy the Kean-Hamilton, FEMA, and NIST "explanations." Already-burning fuel will be very hot, but should NOT have "blast" effects IMHO. Plus, diesel and JP4 aren't all that volatile, compared to things like gasoline/petrol and nitro-glycerine (and nitro's solid cousins). And the fact that it appeared much of the fuel combusted OUTSIDE the South Tower, where the starboard engine most probably (in the probability sense) should have ended up post-impact due to its kinetic energy and collision dynamics...

The lobby damage bears clear evidence of brisance and blast/shock waves IMHO.

$0.02 USD please. biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by dMole: Oct 29 2007, 03:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 31 2007, 01:14 PM
Post #32





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 29 2007, 02:01 PM)
Already-burning fuel will be very hot, but should NOT have "blast" effects IMHO.  Plus, diesel and JP4 aren't all that volatile, compared to things like gasoline/petrol and nitro-glycerine (and nitro's solid cousins).

I am with you all the way there. After all I have more than a nodding aquaintance with the effects of both fuel fires and HE.

To be sure most of the fuel combusted outside of the tower. Indeed watching that recently posted video sequence:

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Trut...&#entry10230587

there is no blast back at the time of impact so all the fuel did shoot forwards and mostly out of the building.

Interesting white reflection on the building face at about 3:43 in that video.

I have felt the effect of flash-over, well in the open air.

We had a problem with our F4Ks Spey engines when throttles were slammed open through to max-AB. There would be an over-fuel into the vapour gutters and a huge cloud of unburned but vaporised fuel would build up around the rear of the aircraft, and blow forwards if the wind changed to up the pipes, until an ignition point was reached and then the whole lot would blow at once.banger.gif


RR managed to solve this, except that it would still sometimes happen if a boundary layer control sensing unit got stuck (dissimilar metals in a salt water atmosphere) and caused an over-fuel condition when rapid reheat (afterburner to you) was selected with half-flap and a quick accel' was carried out from about 85pc. Quite exciting in the cockpit too when this happened. spin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 1 2007, 11:13 AM
Post #33





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



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 29 2007, 07:20 AM)
Sorry but IMHO there is no way that this can have been 'shopped. Have you looked at the crop I posted at the images natural resolution?

By looking at this, and I have enlarged to 1000 per cent on screen, I can see that this is typical of images of distant aircraft, I have enough similar shots of my own, where the edges become fuzzy. There is no hint of pixel messing which would show. The grain, as blobs of dye in a film image, extends smoothly from sky across the a/c.



That object that is seen exiting the south side of WTC2 would most likely be that starboard engine. After all we are talking about a sizeable chunk of machinery here made of harder, heat resistant materials.

This WAS shopped, IMO. The capability to produce undetectable modification of such images definitely exists and has done for some time, it merely demands the right software and expertise of application.

The white hot object seen exiting the South Tower HAD to have been pyrophoric Depleted Uranium, IMO. The white hot glow indicates that the object was pyrophoric and pyrophoric potential is particular of Depleted Uranium and not of steel or titanium.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Nov 2 2007, 05:52 PM
Post #34





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Nov 1 2007, 10:13 AM)
QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 29 2007, 07:20 AM)
Sorry but IMHO there is no way that this can have been 'shopped. Have you looked at the crop I posted at the images natural resolution?

By looking at this, and I have enlarged to 1000 per cent on screen, I can see that this is typical of images of distant aircraft, I have enough similar shots of my own, where the edges become fuzzy. There is no hint of pixel messing which would show. The grain, as blobs of dye in a film image, extends smoothly from sky across the a/c.



That object that is seen exiting the south side of WTC2 would most likely be that starboard engine. After all we are talking about a sizeable chunk of machinery here made of harder, heat resistant materials.

This WAS shopped, IMO. The capability to produce undetectable modification of such images definitely exists and has done for some time, it merely demands the right software and expertise of application.

The white hot object seen exiting the South Tower HAD to have been pyrophoric Depleted Uranium, IMO. The white hot glow indicates that the object was pyrophoric and pyrophoric potential is particular of Depleted Uranium and not of steel or titanium.

FfG
Having looked around a bit in the meantime and amongst other articles read your post at:

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/d...99&mesg_id=6254

I am now wondering what did hit WTCs 1 & 2, and the Pentagon too for that matter and understand better where you are comming from.

If it was Penetrators, or a more advanced weapon, this raises a number of questions. How were the fireballs engineered. Ask Hollywood Stunt managers, or Bruce Willis - they may have an idea or two.

Also the NIST arguments WRT massive fuel fires relies upon such pantomime except panto's have a funny side.

As for the planes, I have to say that I was watching it on TV as it unfolded 'live' and distinctly recall seeing an a/c fly in from the opposite side to that which was impacted and fly behind the south tower before seeing an object come in fast from the left followed by the fireball.

I am now very puzzled by that phot' which I have studied closely and can not see how it could have been tampered with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 3 2007, 07:54 AM
Post #35





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



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Nov 2 2007, 04:52 PM)
FfG
Having looked around a bit in the meantime and amongst other articles read your post at:

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/d...99&mesg_id=6254

I am now wondering what did hit WTCs 1 & 2, and the Pentagon too for that matter and understand better where you are comming from.

If it was Penetrators, or a more advanced weapon, this raises a number of questions. How were the fireballs engineered. Ask Hollywood Stunt managers, or Bruce Willis - they may have an idea or two.

Also the NIST arguments WRT massive fuel fires relies upon such pantomime except panto's have a funny side.

As for the planes, I have to say that I was watching it on TV as it unfolded 'live' and distinctly recall seeing an a/c fly in from the opposite side to that which was impacted and fly behind the south tower before seeing an object come in fast from the left followed by the fireball.

I am now very puzzled by that phot' which I have studied closely and can not see how it could have been tampered with.

I believe that the missiles used would have been able to produce the fireballs. In fact the explosions look very much like missile explosions, but there was undoubtedly supplementary explosions to fake the plane like "entry" holes.

The so called live shots were achieved by utilizing a broadcast delay to modify the feed with superimpositions of fake plane images. None of the live shots showed the plane impacting the north facade which made the work of the computer graphics technicians easier as all they had to do was set the software up to cover over the missile with their plane model.

Photo retouch is a skill and there are people who are masters of this skill. Digital technology allows for thoroughly succesful modification of images. Just like with the tower demolitions, skilled technicians were obviously utilized.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Nov 3 2007, 01:30 PM
Post #36





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



Well I have just been looking over some of the video shot that day and in What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse? at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...earch&plindex=0

I spotted something interesting at between 1:07 to 1:09 where if you look at the bottom of the picture at the sky area just left of the south tower a dark aircraft-like shape appears. What is extraordinary about this is that besides its shape and colour, a dark sea grey, is what looks to be about a 70 degree angle of bank which is quickly reduced before it vanishes from sight. The photograph posted above in this thread shows no such extreme angle and neither does other video.

The lady was right, ‘That was no American Airlines, That was no American Airlines...’
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 3 2007, 04:50 PM
Post #37





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



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Nov 3 2007, 12:30 PM)
Well I have just been looking over some of the video shot that day and in What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse? at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...earch&plindex=0

I spotted something interesting at between 1:07 to 1:09 where if you look at the bottom of the picture at the sky area just left of the south tower a dark aircraft-like shape appears. What is extraordinary about this is that besides its shape and colour, a dark sea grey, is what looks to be about a 70 degree angle of bank which is quickly reduced before it vanishes from sight. The photograph posted above in this thread shows no such extreme angle and neither does other video.

The lady was right, ‘That was no American Airlines, That was no American Airlines...’

Dang! Your hyperlink didn't work. Maybe the URL wasn't entered completely?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Nov 3 2007, 06:05 PM
Post #38





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Nov 3 2007, 03:50 PM)
Dang!  Your hyperlink didn't work.  Maybe the URL wasn't entered completely?

Sorry about that try this:

What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 4 2007, 12:04 PM
Post #39





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



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Nov 3 2007, 05:05 PM)

I see what your saying about the banking angle being reduced just before it is obscured by the tower. It's almost as if the plane wing flashes at that point, becoming larger and considerably lighter: indeed very odd, and overall, quite unacceptable as a representation of a real plane, IMO!

There was definitely some sloppy Computer Graphics work going on with the production of these modified videos. Whether that was because the technicians were rushed or for some other reason, is anybody's guess. My "half a hunch" feeling is that the perps purposefully put out sloppy work to create a climate of confusion, fooling the people who don't know better and mind-screwing with the people who do.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 4 2007, 12:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
teknikAL
post Nov 7 2007, 09:33 PM
Post #40





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 6-November 07
Member No.: 2,447



QUOTE (Beached @ Mar 4 2007, 10:15 AM)
Considering these points, and the fact that Flight 175's transponder changed just after it passed over Stewart AFB ... I'd rather not speculate, and instead stick to facts.

At the time flight 175 flew over Stewart Airport, I was eight miles directly off the end of the run way. I can't say for sure if it was 175, but I was awoke by a high speed low flying screamer approaching from the West on the same pattern as the C5A's doing touch and goes. This was no C5A. It was not concerned, as are the practicing pilots of the C5A's, about their approach. You see they are supposed to approach at a higher altitude, from the South because of noise issues. This thing screamed, must have been really low and sounded nothing like any of the military planes, C5A, C130 cargo, Harrier and several other small fighters that fly out of Stewart from time to time. Much more like the sound of a pushed commercial jet.
When I jumped out of bed to look, it was already behind the trees, so I couldn't get a visual. I turned on the TV and made some Tea... you can guess the rest.
I always wondered about this as I have heard several times about this Stewart overflight. It was even suggested the planes nearly collided.
I don't know what this adds to this conversation, if anything.
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: 24th July 2014 - 05:38 PM