Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

9/11 Cruise Missile Theory


  • Please log in to reply
581 replies to this topic

#346    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,061 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 04 July 2009 - 01:57 AM

mcrom901 on Jul 3 2009, 12:21 AM, said:

linked-image

Alternative for the path:
Inexperienced pilot navigates directly toward the nav beacon at the Washington National airport (which the path shows the plane flew directly over) until Pentagon is visual.  When visual, inexperienced pilot sees he is still too high so begins steep descent and uncoordinated turn in order to hit the target.  An experienced pilot would have been more aware of his surroundings and began the descent much qucker for a straight in hit.  Plausible.  Requires no illogical conclusion jumping.  If one wants to they could even argue that the remote control flight path was programmed that way to emulate an inexperienced pilot.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#347    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,642 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 04 July 2009 - 07:23 AM

frenat on Jul 3 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

Alternative for the path:
Inexperienced pilot navigates directly toward the nav beacon at the Washington National airport (which the path shows the plane flew directly over) until Pentagon is visual.  When visual, inexperienced pilot sees he is still too high so begins steep descent and uncoordinated turn in order to hit the target.  An experienced pilot would have been more aware of his surroundings and began the descent much qucker for a straight in hit.  Plausible.  Requires no illogical conclusion jumping.  If one wants to they could even argue that the remote control flight path was programmed that way to emulate an inexperienced pilot.





Highly plausible flight senario... cannot e proved or disproven

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#348    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,714 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 04 July 2009 - 07:39 AM

frenat on Jul 4 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

Alternative for the path:
Inexperienced pilot navigates directly toward the nav beacon at the Washington National airport (which the path shows the plane flew directly over) until Pentagon is visual.  When visual, inexperienced pilot sees he is still too high so begins steep descent and uncoordinated turn in order to hit the target.  An experienced pilot would have been more aware of his surroundings and began the descent much qucker for a straight in hit.  Plausible.  Requires no illogical conclusion jumping.  If one wants to they could even argue that the remote control flight path was programmed that way to emulate an inexperienced pilot.


And that can be backed up with reports of inexperienced pilots commencing descents too late and ending up to high for approach / a landing.

BTW: I still waiting to see evidence that a holgrammatic projection of the size required - and being visually correct from all aspects - is even possible.


#349    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 04 July 2009 - 08:22 AM

Just to note that the above flight path graphic for Flight 77 is incorrect.  There was no flyby of the Pentagon before the looped descent.  Please see NTSB Flight 77 report for the accepted approach which looked like this: -

linked-image

Another explanation for the descent and approach is that the airliner was following a preset GPS route.  A feature of Required Navigation Performance procedure utilizing GPS for the Final Approach Fix in landing is the use of descending constant radius turns.  Please see the article here for further details and links to sources.

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.

#350    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 04 July 2009 - 08:23 AM

Obviousman on Jul 3 2009, 11:55 PM, said:

The history of the hijackers means if they were US agents, they would have had to have been placed a considerable time ago (e.g. sleepers) and they are being asked to commit suicide.

You mention the history of the hijackers but the majority of them had very little history in relation to Al Qaeda until a year or two before the attacks.

When we refer to US agents, donít immediately think of employees who worked in suits and offices for the CIA before then being sent to infiltrate extremist groups.  An agent could be anyone contacted by and under the direction of intelligence services.  For instance, the three hijackers within the Hamburg cell lived fairly normal lives until 1999 when they were contacted on a train in Germany and sent to Afghanistan.  Remember, we know that 1999 onwards is when the CIA were recruiting agents who could blend into the Muslim background to infiltrate Al Qaeda.

I donít believe at any time these agents would be asked to commit suicide.  Their purpose would be nothing other than to provide the appearance of hijackers and they would be expendable once the operation was complete.

Without dismissing information, this is the only way to explain the many links to intelligence services that I provided.

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.

#351    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,714 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 04 July 2009 - 10:21 AM

Q24 on Jul 4 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

You mention the history of the hijackers but the majority of them had very little history in relation to Al Qaeda until a year or two before the attacks.

When we refer to US agents, donít immediately think of employees who worked in suits and offices for the CIA before then being sent to infiltrate extremist groups.  An agent could be anyone contacted by and under the direction of intelligence services.  For instance, the three hijackers within the Hamburg cell lived fairly normal lives until 1999 when they were contacted on a train in Germany and sent to Afghanistan.  Remember, we know that 1999 onwards is when the CIA were recruiting agents who could blend into the Muslim background to infiltrate Al Qaeda.

I donít believe at any time these agents would be asked to commit suicide.  Their purpose would be nothing other than to provide the appearance of hijackers and they would be expendable once the operation was complete.

Without dismissing information, this is the only way to explain the many links to intelligence services that I provided.


Okay, I see what you mean. That's quite plausible... though I still think posing as a front organisation and recruiting genuine extremists is more plausible.

Ref: the flight path to the target. Have a look though the distances heights, and you'll see that they were still too high for a reasonable approach. Considering there had been no calls for them to break off any approach and follow intercepted aircraft procedure, I'm sure the hijackers felt confident in doing a descending turn in order to ensure that their final impact would be befitting their mission, and not a waste of all their effort.

After all, their entry into paradise depended on it!




#352    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 04 July 2009 - 12:04 PM

Obviousman on Jul 4 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

Okay, I see what you mean. That's quite plausible... though I still think posing as a front organisation and recruiting genuine extremists is more plausible.

I wouldnít dismiss that idea but the majority of the hijackers did not seem to exhibit signs of extremism until after they were recruited relatively shortly prior to 9/11.  Back to the Hamburg cell for example, these men had no previous record of extremism and had travelled to Germany to attend university, one would think, to make a better future for themselves.  I won't bore anyone with Mohammed Attaís very unextremist like antics in the days leading to the attack.

Either way, whether these were genuine extremists or otherwise, there is undoubtedly the fingerprint of intelligence services in their recruitment, direction and funding.


Obviousman on Jul 4 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

I'm sure the hijackers felt confident in doing a descending turn in order to ensure that their final impact would be befitting their mission, and not a waste of all their effort.

Though coincidental that the loop executed was described by Air Traffic Control as like a military manoeuvre and happened to match well with what would be expected of a GPS automated turn.  Of course the manoeuvre was within the realms of manual control but add in the final approach - parallel and so close to the ground at such speed - and it becomes evermore unlikely/high risk.

Iím sure those intelligence services, who we could perhaps agree took years to nurture the plan, would prefer to play safe.  The guaranteed plan is remote guided airliners and this fully explains the characteristics of the flight path and why we now have no evidence of the specific reported aircraft at the scenes.

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.

#353    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,714 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 04 July 2009 - 12:45 PM

Q24 on Jul 4 2009, 10:04 PM, said:

Either way, whether these were genuine extremists or otherwise, there is undoubtedly the fingerprint of intelligence services in their recruitment, direction and funding.


No, I strongly disagree. It is quite plausible they were recruited as extremists or a simple agent, but the taint of intel interference is NOT confirmed by any means. At best is it possible.

Q24 on Jul 4 2009, 10:04 PM, said:

Though coincidental that the loop executed was described by Air Traffic Control as like a military manoeuvre and happened to match well with what would be expected of a GPS automated turn.


No, this is a distortion of the statement. The statement was:

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hijackeWr.htm

Now this does not say it was a fighter, or a cruise missile - which is the topic of this discussion - but rather the manoeuvres were not those expected of a civilian airliner which had passengers whom you need to be cognisant of. You don't subject passengers aboard an airliner to anything more than little more than 1G during a normal flight. These guys were making turns which subjected them to at least a couple of G... very noticeable by any passenger.


Q24 on Jul 4 2009, 10:04 PM, said:

I’m sure those intelligence services, who we could perhaps agree took years to nurture the plan, would prefer to play safe.  The guaranteed plan is remote guided airliners and this fully explains the characteristics of the flight path and why we now have no evidence of the specific reported aircraft at the scenes.


Please remember I say it is plausible - not a fact - that other agencies directed this attack.

Edited by Obviousman, 04 July 2009 - 12:51 PM.


#354    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 04 July 2009 - 01:34 PM

Obviousman on Jul 4 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

No, I strongly disagree. It is quite plausible they were recruited as extremists or a simple agent, but the taint of intel interference is NOT confirmed by any means. At best is it possible.

Ah we disagree Ė normal service is resumed.

I can only refer back to my post #275 providing the facts that strongly point the finger at intelligence services and most of which you failed to address.


Obviousman on Jul 4 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

No, this is a distortion of the statement. The statement was:

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hijackeWr.htm

The distortion is all yours here Iím afraid but you must be objective to understand.  You bold the section that is an afterthought; a reflection of events a time after the official story had been told.  The important text is, ďÖ we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military planeĒ.  There are no two ways about it - at the time of initially viewing the incident, the controllers thought that they were viewing a military plane.

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.

#355    merril

merril

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Joined:16 Feb 2008

Posted 04 July 2009 - 08:58 PM

There is no reason to think that Hani Hanjour did not prepare and focus on his operation- kill the pilots, return the plane to Washington, circle round to get his bearings and come in low for the attack. He had plenty of time to walk the steps through with his co-conspirators.

And, it did not require a rigged plane, or a missile, or any other nonsense.

Two aeronautical engineers and a volunteer in a flight simulator tested the Hani Hajour hypothesis- could he do it?

Their conclusion- no reason to assume he could not fly the descending turn, and crash the plane. They tested it three times, and decided he certainly could crash the plane.

linked-image

Link (9 min clip)


And, everything I have read about Atta has people recounting his absolute abstinance from drinking, and his cold, as*hole, misogynist personality. What antics are rumored have no proof.

Edited by merril, 04 July 2009 - 09:09 PM.


#356    KennyB

KennyB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2005

Posted 05 July 2009 - 02:37 AM

Gentlemen, please bear with me again. Look at post #30, about the 3rd pic down, the one that is well lit. If the plane came in and barely cleared the wire spools, why didn't the left wing hit that little cyclone fence. If the plane was cocked over to the right enough to clear that, the right wing or the right engine would have been plowing the ground. See the arrow pointing to the ledge under the windows on the left side. If the left wing made that mark, the wing would have been higher than the fuselage. For the fuselage to be fairly level, the only way it could be done would be if the plane had a gull wing, like a C-119. Does a 757 have a gull wing? No, I thought not.  KennyB


#357    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,294 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 05 July 2009 - 03:40 AM

KennyB on Jul 4 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

Gentlemen, please bear with me again. Look at post #30, about the 3rd pic down, the one that is well lit. If the plane came in and barely cleared the wire spools, why didn't the left wing hit that little cyclone fence. If the plane was cocked over to the right enough to clear that, the right wing or the right engine would have been plowing the ground. See the arrow pointing to the ledge under the windows on the left side. If the left wing made that mark, the wing would have been higher than the fuselage. For the fuselage to be fairly level, the only way it could be done would be if the plane had a gull wing, like a C-119. Does a 757 have a gull wing? No, I thought not.  KennyB

Once again, Kenny, if you're going to make some sort of claim, it is really a good idea for you to look into the subject a bit first.

From the "757-200/300 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning" page at the Boeing website, 757-200/300 Document D6-58327 (Revision F, August 2002), section 2, Airplane Description

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/753sec2.pdf

linked-image

Please note that the ground clearance for the wingtips (M) ranges from 16' 1" to 16' 6" and the ground clearance from the bottom of the engine pods (L) ranges from 3' 0" to 3' 7" for an aircraft fitted with Rolls Royce RB211 engines, as flight 77 was.

Please also note that the wings, while not in a typical "gull wing" configuration do have a generally upwards slope from wing root to wing tip.

Given these facts, it is completely possible for the ground damage evidenced at the Pentagon crash site to have been made by a 757-223.

In actuality, the aircraft had a slight amount of left roll when it impacted the Pentagon, meaning the right wingtip was higher than the left in relation to the ground.




Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

#358    KennyB

KennyB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2005

Posted 05 July 2009 - 04:55 AM

cz, that mark on that ledge is perfectly horizonal. For the wing to have made such a straight mark, the plane would have to have been heeled to the left and the left wing or engine would have caught the fence, the right wing would have been pointing up at a high angle. The only way the left wing could have made that mark would be if it had a gull wing and a little more altitude. Your picture shows the wing in an even lower position than I thought it was. As close as that fence is, there's no way it would have missed being hit by the left wing or the left engine. It was too close for the wing to go over it. If, as you say, the left wing was lower than the right one, it would have centered that fence. That looks like a 10ft fence.  KennyB


#359    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,294 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 05 July 2009 - 05:32 AM

KennyB on Jul 4 2009, 09:55 PM, said:

cz, that mark on that ledge is perfectly horizonal. For the wing to have made such a straight mark, the plane would have to have been heeled to the left and the left wing or engine would have caught the fence, the right wing would have been pointing up at a high angle. The only way the left wing could have made that mark would be if it had a gull wing and a little more altitude. Your picture shows the wing in an even lower position than I thought it was. As close as that fence is, there's no way it would have missed being hit by the left wing or the left engine. It was too close for the wing to go over it. If, as you say, the left wing was lower than the right one, it would have centered that fence. That looks like a 10ft fence.  KennyB


Perhaps you could be a bit more specific with which post you are referring to.

KennyB on Jul 4 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

Look at post #30, about the 3rd pic down,


This is post # 30 in this thread:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2937260

phunk on Jun 17 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

The control systems of the jets used on 9/11 are based on cables and hydrolics, they are not an electronic "fly-by-wire" type of system that can be bypassed.



And the planes that crashed on 9/11 were much bigger than that.



Not possible with that type of jet.



Marvin Bush left that company more than a year prior to 9/11, and they had nothing to do with the cleanup, so how would they destroy the evidence?


There are no images in that post.





Cz


"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

#360    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,714 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 05 July 2009 - 06:17 AM

Q24 on Jul 4 2009, 11:34 PM, said:

I can only refer back to my post #275 providing the facts that strongly point the finger at intelligence services and most of which you failed to address.

You do not quote any sources, and say they are 'readily available'. What you said in that post are NOT facts, but supposition and opinion. Some of it may well be true, and I agree it is possible that intelligence services may have had a hand in recruiting hijackers.... but it is not proven. Your opinion is that it has the mark of an intel operation; it is mine that is doesn't. Neither of us can be proven right or wrong at this time, so it is just our opinions and not facts.

Q24 on Jul 4 2009, 11:34 PM, said:

The distortion is all yours here Iím afraid but you must be objective to understand.  You bold the section that is an afterthought; a reflection of events a time after the official story had been told.  The important text is, ďÖ we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military planeĒ.  There are no two ways about it - at the time of initially viewing the incident, the controllers thought that they were viewing a military plane.


No distortion; I gave the full quote. Yes they thought it was a military plane because of the manoeuvres it did; they did NOT say "we thought it a fighter jet" or "it moved like a missile".






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users