Jump to content


* * * * * 2 votes

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack


  • Please log in to reply
2521 replies to this topic

#406    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 25,590 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 October 2011 - 08:08 PM

View PostValkyrieWings, on 06 October 2011 - 04:00 AM, said:

Apparently skyeagle doesn't understand that EAS on this particular topic was brought up more than 2 years ago by real and verified pilots who have placed their name to their work.

Of course I do, but it seems that you don't understand why I brought forth EAS and why I told  you why your presentation is MOOT! Once again, we have videos of two INTACT, B-767s striking the WTC buildings, so what does that tell you?

Figure it out!

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 October 2011 - 08:09 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#407    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 25,590 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 October 2011 - 08:12 PM

View PostScott G, on 06 October 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

And yet...
Look, how much research have you done regarding the 9/11 planes? Do you believe that they could have gone 130 to 150 over VMO, despite the fact that no one here has reported a passenger plane going over 70 VMO and surviving? Given the fact that atleast 3 of the 4 planes are claimed to have gone 130+ VMO, we are left with what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said:

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

As I told the other poster, it is all MOOT, because we have videos of two INTACT B-767s striking both WTC buildings.
KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#408    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 25,590 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 October 2011 - 08:14 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 06 October 2011 - 10:34 AM, said:

I dont understand how anyone could believe the official story about the pentagon. There are litteraly dozens of video recordings of the event, and all they show is a half clip that showed nothing but a explosion. Im mean seriously, is anyone that dumb?


Considering that wreckage from an American Airlines, B-757 was recovered from inside and outside the Pentagon, along with its recorders, what more is there to say?
KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#409    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,133 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 October 2011 - 08:18 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 06 October 2011 - 08:14 PM, said:

Considering that wreckage from an American Airlines, B-757 was recovered from inside and outside the Pentagon, along with its recorders, what more is there to say?


Release the video?

#410    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 25,590 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 October 2011 - 08:21 PM

View PostScott G, on 06 October 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

If the evidence were there for it, that'd be one thing. But there isn't. I think the real question is, why is it so difficult for people to question the official story?

Simple! We know that we have lost 4 scheduled airliners, and know beyond any doubt that two struck the WTC buildings, and another struck the Pentagon, and the fourth struck the ground short of its target.

Quote

As a general rule, I've found that official story supporters aren't interested in asking questions; what they want is official explanations. The people who tend to ask all the questions are those who have come to disagree with the official story. I think the logical conclusion here is that as soon as you start asking questions and realize that the official story either doesn't have answers for them (the speeds of the 9/11 planes, impossible for passenger planes, the fact that the BTS states that Flight 11 and 77 never took off on 9/11), or the answers they give are, in turn, discredited, the more you begin to realize the truth; the official story regarding 9/11 is a stack of cards and anyone who has the courage to ask questions and actually expect responses from the government realizes this.

Prove that those aircraft never took off. Apparently, this flight path says otherwise.

Quote


Posted Image

United Airlines Flight 175 was United Airlines' daily scheduled morning transcontinental flight, from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California. On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the aircraft flying this route—a Boeing 767–222—was hijacked by five al-Qaeda terrorists and deliberately crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City as part of the September 11 attacks.

Approximately thirty minutes into the flight, the hijackers forcibly breached the cockpit and overpowered the pilot and first officer, allowing lead hijacker and trained pilot Marwan al-Shehhi to take over the controls. The aircraft's transponder was turned off and the aircraft deviated from the assigned flight path for four minutes before air traffic controllers noticed these changes at 08:51 EDT. They made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the cockpit. Several passengers and crew aboard made phone calls from the plane and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.

The Boeing 767 operating as Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 09:03, killing all 65 people aboard, including the hijackers. The Flight 175 hijacking was coordinated with that of American Airlines Flight 11, which struck the top of the North Tower 17 minutes earlier. The crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower was the only impact seen live on television around the world as it happened. It was upon the loss of Flight 175 that the world realized that the crashes of both aircraft at the World Trade Center were in fact deliberate. The impact and subsequent fire caused the South Tower to collapse 56 minutes after the crash, resulting in hundreds of additional casualties due to the collapse of the tower.

During the recovery effort at the World Trade Center site, workers recovered and identified remains from Flight 175 victims

My link



In addition:


Quote

At 08:55, a supervisor at the New York Air Traffic Control center notified the center's operations manager of the Flight 175 hijacking, and David Bottiglia, who was tracking Flight 175, noted, "we might have a hijack over here, two of them."

By 08:58, the plane was heading toward New York and descended from an altitude of 28,500 feet over New Jersey. From the time, at approximately 08:58, when Shehhi completed the final turn toward New York City to the moment of impact, the plane went into a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 5 minutes 4 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute.

New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues "were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet."


CallsFlight attendant Robert Fangman, as well as two passengers (Peter Hanson and Brian David Sweeney) made phone calls from United Airlines Flight 175, using GTE airphones, from the rear of the aircraft. Airphone records also indicate that Garnet Bailey made four phone call attempts, trying to reach his wife.

Flight attendant Robert Fangman called a United Airlines office in San Francisco at 08:52, and spoke with Marc Policastro. Fangman reported the hijacking, and said that the hijackers were likely flying the plane. He also said that both pilots were dead, and that a flight attendant was stabbed.[10] After a minute and 15 seconds, Fangman's call was disconnected. Policastro subsequently made attempts to contact the aircraft's cockpit using the Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) message system.

Brian David Sweeney tried calling his wife, Julie, at 08:58, but ended up leaving a message, telling her that the plane had been hijacked. He then called his parents at 9:00 a.m., and spoke with his mother, Louise. Sweeney told his mother about the hijacking, and mentioned that passengers were considering storming the cockpit and taking control of the aircraft, as the passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93, which had not yet been hijacked, would.

At 08:52, Peter Hanson called his father, Lee Hanson, in Easton, Connecticut, telling him of the hijacking. The family was originally seated in Row 19, in seats C, D, and E; however, Peter placed the call to his father from seat 30E. Hanson was traveling with his wife, Sue, and 2½-year-old daughter, Christine, who had never flown on a plane before. Speaking softly, Hanson said that the hijackers had commandeered the cockpit, that a flight attendant had been stabbed, and possibly someone else in the front of the aircraft had been killed. He also said that the plane was flying erratically. Hanson asked his father to contact United Airlines, but Lee could not get through and instead called the police.

Peter Hanson made a second phone call to his father at 09:00:

“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. 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....Oh my God... oh my God, oh my God."”As the call abruptly ended, Hanson's father heard a woman screaming

My link

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

84TH RADAR EVALUATION SQUADRON (ACC)

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH

3.2 WTC Aircraft Two (UA 175). The Riverhead NY ARSR-4 provided full radar coverage for the UA Boeing 757 aircraft that impacted with the WTC at 09:02 ET. Radar data begins shortly after takeoff at 08:16 ET. Radar data shows UA 175 climbing to flight altitude west of Boston Logan International Airport. During this flight, the aircraft transponder mode 3A code changed twice. The initial mode 3A code of UA 175 was 1470. At 08:46 ET, the mode 3A code changed to 3020 and at 08:47 ET to 3321.


My link


In addition, I was stationed at Hill AFB, UT, from 1968-71.

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 October 2011 - 09:20 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#411    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 25,590 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 October 2011 - 08:41 PM

View PostScott G, on 06 October 2011 - 05:12 AM, said:

He may provide his name one day, but he can't provide evidence that an unmodified 767-200 could have been flying at 500+ knots at 700 feet. I took a look at one of your links and found this statement from a Boeing spokesperson:


Pretty much sums it up.


To prove that the airspeed is moot, watch the video and notice that the aircraft is an INTACT, B-767.



Note the condition of United 175 afterward.


Posted Image





Quote

9.00:00 Last radar reading is seen at an altitude of 18,000 feet as flight is descending at a ground speed of 480 knots.  

Now, perhaps you will understand why I have said that your airspeed figure is MOOT since United 175 struck the WTC building INTACT.

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 October 2011 - 09:02 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#412    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 October 2011 - 02:12 AM

Quote

the fact that the BTS states that Flight 11 and 77 never took off on 9/11)

SkyEagle asks

Quote

Prove that those aircraft never took off. Apparently, this flight path says otherwise.

SkyEagle says

Quote

United Airlines Flight 175 was United Airlines' daily scheduled morning transcontinental flight, from Logan International Airport


He said 11 and 77. You provide a link for 175.

Can you read?

#413    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 25,590 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 07 October 2011 - 03:26 AM

View PostWandering, on 07 October 2011 - 02:12 AM, said:

SkyEagle asks

SkyEagle says


He said 11 and 77. You provide a link for 175.

Can you read?

It was all there in one of the links I had provided. Apparently you didn't even bother to check all of the links. What you did was to raise the landing gear before you left the runway.


From the link you somehow had missed.

Quote


3.3 Pentagon Aircraft (AA 77). The Plains VA ARSR-3 provided radar coverage for the AA Boeing 757 aircraft that impacted the Pentagon at 09:37 ET. Radar data shows AA 77 climbed to flight altitude west of Washington Dulles International Airport. Mode C altitude information was available on the outbound track from the aircraft transponder. The mode 3A transponder code changed at 08:40 ET from 6553 to 3743.

Radar data is not available from 08:50 to 09:09 ET because AA 77 left the NORAD radar coverage area. When AA 77 was reacquired, the transponder was OFF. Interior FAA radars may have coverage during the missing portion of flight. Only bearing and range information can be provided on the inbound leg because detection was accomplished by two-dimensional radar systems.

Aircraft altitude is estimated at 25,000 feet when reacquired, based on radar horizon screening. At 09:34 ET, the Gibbsboro radar provided search height of 10,000 feet within three minutes of impact.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

3.1 WTC Aircraft One (AA 11). The Riverhead NY ARSR-4 provided full radar coverage of the AA Boeing 767 aircraft that impacted with the World Trade Center (WTC) at 08:46 Eastern Time (ET). Primary search-only data is available for the entire flight. Radar target reports begin shortly after takeoff at 08:10 ET. Radar data shows AA 11 climbing to flight altitude west of Boston Logan International Airport.

At approximately 08:20 ET, the aircraft’s beacon transponder is turned OFF eliminating mode 3A code reports of 1443 as well as the aircraft’s mode C height reporting. The remainder of the flight information comes from search-only radar returns that include 3-D height. At 08:37 ET, AA 11 deviates from its original flight route and turns towards New York City.



Didn't any of the skeptics think that all four airliners would have had flight plans and been under radar control after takeoff?

Edited by skyeagle409, 07 October 2011 - 03:49 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#414    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 October 2011 - 05:08 AM

Quote

From the link you somehow had missed.

My mistake, I thought your quote was the entirety of the link.

Which one do you refer to however? Your link to wikipedia? (automatic lose) or your link to a Government website... One of which can be edited by everyone, one of which can be edited by anyone with a vested interest in who reads it.

#415    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,792 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 07 October 2011 - 09:25 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 October 2011 - 03:26 AM, said:

Didn't any of the skeptics think that all four airliners would have had flight plans and been under radar control after takeoff?
How are aircraft identified after the transponders are turned off?
Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#416    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 October 2011 - 10:35 AM

Quote

How are aircraft identified after the transponders are turned off?

By magic of course silly!  :P

#417    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 07 October 2011 - 12:56 PM

View PostQ24, on 07 October 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

How are aircraft identified after the transponders are turned off?

This is a major reason for the confusion of the controllers in identifying the various aircraft that morning. The data tag is assigned to the track using it's squawk (Mode 3 code), and when that beacon goes away, the tag no longer remains attached to the track...it "coasts", based on the last valid heading and speed. Add to that that the plane is now only "raw" radar, not using a beacon, and ATC doesn't normally have the raw radar display up, and there are often outages where the raw radar is not available. This is not normally an operational problem, as flights above 18000' are required to have an operational transponder.

So non-squawking flights off their flight plans was a problem.

#418    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,792 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 07 October 2011 - 01:17 PM

View Postmrbusdriver, on 07 October 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

This is a major reason for the confusion of the controllers in identifying the various aircraft that morning. The data tag is assigned to the track using it's squawk (Mode 3 code), and when that beacon goes away, the tag no longer remains attached to the track...it "coasts", based on the last valid heading and speed. Add to that that the plane is now only "raw" radar, not using a beacon, and ATC doesn't normally have the raw radar display up, and there are often outages where the raw radar is not available. This is not normally an operational problem, as flights above 18000' are required to have an operational transponder.

So non-squawking flights off their flight plans was a problem.
Thank you, mrb  :tu:

So how were the 9/11 aircraft identified after the transponders were turned off?

How did controllers know they were tracking the same aircraft on primary radar?
Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#419    bubs49

bubs49

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 132 posts
  • Joined:15 Sep 2011

Posted 07 October 2011 - 03:06 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 October 2011 - 03:26 AM, said:

Didn't any of the skeptics think that all four airliners would have had flight plans and been under radar control after takeoff?
Good question.
So how do you explain the bizarre flight path of Flight 11?
If you were a terrorist, would you really follow that track to reach New York as soon as possible?
:unsure2:

Posted Image

Posted Image

#420    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 October 2011 - 03:23 PM

View Postbubs49, on 07 October 2011 - 03:06 PM, said:

Good question.
So how do you explain the bizarre flight path of Flight 11?
If you were a terrorist, would you really follow that track to reach New York as soon as possible?
:unsure2:

http://femr2.ucoz.com/Feaa11static.gif

http://femr2.ucoz.com/Feaa11anim.gif
Out of curiosity, what exactly do you consider "bizarre" in that flight path?  The fact that it initially headed west and then turned south?  The stilted southern flight path?  Something else?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users