[/left]

When he approached to George Washington Bridge he tuned to a local 1010 WINS news radio station. He says that at that time there was news that "a small plane hit WTC". Then he switched to hear what other pilots flying above Gudson are talking about, but they discussed same thing "a small commuter that hit WTC".

He got even more closer and noticed another BOEING 737. He says that the BOEING was flying the same way it usually does when going to landing from La Guardia destination, probably a little bit lower than usual.

And then suddenly this BOEING 737 changes his course making a very sharp curve, targeting the South WTC tower.

He shot it at the moment it hit the building.

The official timeline on 9/11 states that NEADS received notice of the hijacking of Flight 11 nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. NORAD initially claimed it was notified by Boston Flight control that Flight 175 had been hijacked at 8:43 a.m. After 9/11, NORAD and other sources claimed that NORAD was notified at this time that Flight 175 had been hijacked. The 9/11 Commission, however, later concluded that New York flight control gave NEADS its first notification that Flight 175 had been hijacked at 9:03 a.m.

Also at 8.46am FAA air traffic control in New York picked up an abnormality on Flight 175: its beacon codes changed twice within one minute. New York flight controller Dave Bottoglia was in charge of monitoring both Flights 11 and 175. He had just watched Flight 11's radar blip disappear over New York City, but did not realize the plane had crashed. "Within seconds" of losing Flight 11's blip, he realized that Flight 175 was also missing. He had another controller take over all his other planes so he could focus on finding Flight 175. He tried contacting the planes several times unsuccessfully. Just as Bottoglia noticed an unidentified blip on his radar, its transponder signal came back on, but at a different signal than before. "There is no longer any question in Bottoglia's mind that he's looking at a second hijacked airliner," according to later MSNBC reports.

The head of the NY flight control center, Mike McCormick, later told CNN that he saw the burning WTC live on TV, he said, "Probably one of the most difficult moments of my life was the 11 minutes from the point I watched that aircraft, when we first lost communications until the point that aircraft hit the World Trade Center. For those 11 minutes, I knew, we knew, what was going to happen, and that was difficult.".

This means that he decided at 8:52 a.m. that Flight 175 had been hijacked and was on a suicide run to New York City. Still, according to the 9/11 Commission, NORAD was not informed until after 175 had crashed.

With all this in mind why was the Russian Cessna pilot, and presumably others that were airborne, allowed to keep flying a course directly towards the twin towers? All the time this pilot got closer it was known that flight 11 was missing, a plane (which some had said was a cessna) had crashed into the North Tower and 175 was hijacked and heading towards New York.

You'd think he would have been told in no uncertain terms to stay the hell away from the area, but no, he was allowed to fly directly toward the towers and pass within a few hundred feet without incident.

Perhaps it was the same reason why airborne fighters were not sent to Manhattan until at least ten minutes after the second tower was hit and did not arrive there until twenty two minutes after the second hit, even though logically they could have been there BEFORE flight 175.

The pictures have emerged at the same time as A former Boston Center air traffic controller has gone public on his assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets.

After the Russian pilot had passed the Towers he tried to land but was told to fly on to New Jersey and land there. He then hid his camera so nobody could know he was filming.


Cheers


BZRK


[/left]

I have a book with these images. Or something similar to these images. =3

He wasn't flying a course directly toward the WTC towers. He was obviosuly doing a little low altitude sightseeing around the area, below the floor of the controlled airspace for the New York area (below 1000 feet AGL most certainly). He was allowed because...he was allowed.

No one at Boston Center, or the New York control center, was paying attention to a light aircraft below the floor when they were dealing with a couple of hijacked aircraft, and they didn't know what the heck was going on.

Additionally, it is apparent that he was not within a couple hundred feet of the towers. He was about a half mile out over the water at closest approach.

Within a short time, however, he was ordered not only out of the area, but out of the sky altogether. There is nothing unusual about a light plane being where this light plane was. It was a little too early in the events for ATC to ground all aircraft.

The problem is, no one actually had realized when these pictures were taken that this was an attack (although many of us watching knew as soon as the second plane hit that this was not an "accidental crash event").

First off: Amazing images!

Second: He's pretty far away from the tower.

Third: At the time that plane was there I myself could have flown close by.
No planes had been grounded.

Silly Russian says he thinks an experienced military pilot could only do the maneuvers?

Wondering if he has ever met a well educated, radical Islamist? Probably not.

For one thing he is not near the towers, he's quite far. A good camera has zoom you know?

Also, he was in the air before the planes hit. He wasn't ordered to get down, so he didn't.



I also don't know where people get their crazy ideas that the US government has protocol for everything.


"Quickly, get the 'Planes crashing into the World Trade Center' protocol form. The first thing we have to do is pay attention to EVERYTHING other than the people in the towers that we need to save."

The government wasn't planning on this happening, in fact it was almost as surprising as Pearl Harbor.

Apparantly he was flying around at the same time the other planes were crashing into the building. So in a sense, its like asking "why would they let planes fly around and crash into the buildings".

Also, did you know the airplanes that crashed into the buildings are one of a kind that can be controlled from the ground? Might be they were not actually flown by real pilots at all, but rather flown into the wtc by remote control

I remember seeing footage on 911 where you could see a plane in the background as the 2nd tower was being hit. Guess this was it. But yeah, I don't think any planes were grounded untill after the 2nd plane. I think its kind of strange these photos are just coming out though.

A. They were kinda preoccupied at the moment.

B. So it WAS a Boeing that hit the second tower? Glad we have that settled.

Its interesting to find people who switch their stories from... yea i believe all planes were grounded with no exceptions even when footage from mainstream media show helos flying around the towers and not just small planes-- the biggest grounding of planes in history to...
the biggest exception in history.

On the forth picture down top left corner of the WTC building there's a little ufo......?

that dirty russian spy should'nt be allowed to fly near that building when on high alert.....

maybe he was in a commercial plane of a sort, that would be the only reason why, he must of ***t himself seeing that.

Who ever said that! LOL Loving the typical grasp at straws !

like I stated: the biggest grounding of planes in history to...
the biggest exception in history.

Who said THIS

Its interesting to find people who switch their stories from... yea i believe all planes were grounded with no exceptions even when footage from mainstream media show helos flying around the towers and not just small planes-- the biggest grounding of planes in history to...
the biggest exception in history.

Cause neither of the people you quoted have said that.

What I did say was "GLAD WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT A BOEING HIT THE BUILDING"

The russian pilot that took pictures from his Cessna never establishes it was a Boeing that hit the building unless you have pictures from this russian pilot that has yet been revealed, well do you?

Maybe you wanna read the first post again.

I do not have my timeline in front of me. But as I remember, airspace around New York City (and only around NYC) was closed about 10 to 15 minutes after the second plane crashed into the WTC. When it was realized that there were other highjacked, or possible highjacked aircraft out there. The nation wide grounding order was about 20 to 25 minutes after the second crash.

You must remember the the grounding order did not extent to police helicopters. The New York Police opperates some 12 to 15 helicopters. Most were at the time around the WTC area. Though other helicopters, including news helicopters were grounded.

First of all Cessnas cannot keep up with a boeing 737 and its strange to find him automatically, upon visual sight ...Oh that boeing 737 "usually does when going to landing from La Guardia destination".

Why's that strange. I look up at planes all the time, and like most people living in this area, I can tell if they're heading to or departing from one of the local airports. And that's from the ground, from the air for an experienced pilot, it's probably easier.

Anybody else notice the UFO flying in the background.

Looks like a distant plane to me, remember this is before they grounded air traffic and there are 2 airports on that side of the WTC.

The air traffic controllers' statements are, to say the least, interesting: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/decem...ccontroller.htm
Perhaps time will tell.

You expect me to believe that the average person who flies private planes are able to say something like: "I see a commerical plane and its the 737 coming from a specific place and is doing a course change, why? cuz its common knowledge? i'll take wishful thinking alex for 500.

obviously you don't live near an airport. I can tell when planes come in differently. Its very noticeable when you live near an area that has a lot of planes landing. I am sure that especially a pilot would notice a plane turning from course and crashing into a building.

When Corey Lidel's plane hit a building on the Upper East Side here in NY plenty of people noticed it going off course as well. I guess Corey Lidel is part of some sort of conspiracy as well.

You only notice a course change after the fact unless you are actually trying to tail the plane not to mention for the fact that the russian pilot is not a local native. Edit: You must not be familiar with looking at all the facts before assuming common knowledge.

No you will notice a course of change when you are familiar with what you are looking at.

Just because you wouldn't notice it doesn't mean everyone is like you.


A pilot would know the flight pattern. Listen to yourself LOL if the pilot didn't know the flight pattern to LAG he wouldn't have been allowed to fly. Do you honestly think pilots just fly around the sky randomly?

Wrong, a person doesnt necessarily have to know the flight path of commercial aircraft if they are flying private planes LOL

Wow you are really a piece of work.

Flight patterns in the sky are like a highway but with levels and lanes. Its not set, but if someone drastically changes course, you will notice it.

If you were driving down the highway and a tractor trailer took a left turn in the middle of the road, I think you would notice it immediately even if you had no idea where it was going.

That's because you are used to driving. Also when you are driving do you not have the ability to tell when people are going to cut you off or change lanes, even if they don't signal? Because most people can. Its called defensive driving. There's a lot more at stake in the sky and I am sure professional pilots know more than you do about paying attention to the flight paths of the planes around them.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/index_TRACKER.html.

LOL you are evading your assertion that all private plane pilots must know all commercial plane pathways when its obvious that this is not so. They must know how and why they must maintian at and within certain altitudes and the areas where there are no fly zones but you do NOT have to know commercial flight paths even if you find out by going to a website.

Here is what you need to know to become a private plane pilot:

What topics will you need to learn?
Here is a brief overview of some of the topics you will need to master in order to earn a pilot's license:


Aircraft systems: the basic components of an airplane, engine, flight controls, instruments, and how they operate.
Aerodynamics: basic priciples of how an airplane is able to leave the ground, and how to control it once airborne.
Navigation: how to use aviation maps and radio navigation aids to get you and your aircraft to your destination.
Weather: basic concepts of weather formation, and how to obtain and interpret weather information that may affect your flight.
Aircraft operations: just as there are rules for operating automobiles on roads and highways, there are rules governing the operation of aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS).
Regulations: the applicable portions of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which govern licensing of pilots and the licensing and operation of aircraft in the USA.

NOT one does it state that you must know commerical fight paths for commercial planes

boggle, when cutting and pasting from other sites you must provide a source or link. I really suggest that you read the rules of this forum.

here

Just because they don't HAVE TO know doesn't mean that none of them know. In an area like NYC, with 3 major airports a few miles apart, pilots will see a constant stream of planes following the same paths. From my house, I see all of the planes heading towards EWR runway 22, from the turnpike, you can see the approach paths of all of the runways, they are very distinct. Similarly, from my office I can see planes heading to laguardia and jfk, and it's very easy to tell which. I imagine from the view a pilot has coming down the hudson river, it's even easier to tell. A plane on a descent path towards one of the airports suddenly making a sharp turn would be anomalous, and any pilot who saw it happen would know something was up.

ROFL-- who should 'listen' as you put it to their own words? lets look back:



Now taking a russian PRIVATE plane pilot who is NOT a local native to the area, while flying a Cessna to be able to recognize upon visual sight ... 'OH that 737 comes directly from a specific location and is doing a course change' is strange', would then seem logical unless you're insistently ignorant and not looking at all the facts. Common knowledge comes into question when and if it comes into contradiction to common knowledge circumstances.

Don't misquote me, that second quote was someone else.

A russian pilot who WAS living in the area. You think this was his first flight down the hudson? Think he didn't know where the airports are?

Are you implying that upon visual sight he knew exactly where the 737 commercial plane came from and new where it's destination so as to recognize immediately a course change? well lets look at your statement first:



Lets compare your statement with a source:

http://www.englishrussia.com/?p=501

quote: Here is a shocking story of Russian pilot, now living in the USA who was on the air 9th September 2001 and have made photos right from the air when planes crashed the WTC

Do you notice the difference between your use of the term WAS vs. now? in light of this I would then state that I stand correct.

Please show me once where I said that "all private plane pilots must know all commercial plane pathways"

I never said this. First of all its not about all pilots its about ONE pilot who said he saw the plane change paths.

This is what the pilot SAID. Just because you are unable to figure out how he realized this doesn't make him a liar, it simply means you have no idea what you are talking about. Obviously HE DOES.

Well, you don't have to believe it, but if a private pilot cannot visualize other aircraft while in flight, he has a serious problem.
p.s., it was actually a larger aircraft than a 737...this particular pilot saw a jet, but he didn't ident it correctly....probably understandable at that distance.


The bottom line to this whole affair is this:

1) This pilot was indeed allowed to be flying where he was flying. The corridor surrounding Manhattan was accessible to light aircraft without flight control supervision below 1100 feet. It is a common place for light aircraft to be (or, at least it was...I think the FAA has now restricted all traffic now in that corridor, save police helicopters).

2) This pilot would've easily been able to perceive a jet making a turn.

3) This pilot, if truly familiar with New York City airspace, would've also been shocked to see a jet where he saw one, since no airliners have approach paths to any of the New York airports that take them any where near the WTC towers, nor are any jets that low when flying over that that area.

4) He would've also been shocked to see this aircraft ramming along below 2000 feet at cruise speed, since it's common knowledge among pilots that inside the controlled airspace one cannot exceed about 150 knots. This jet was flying almost 3 times that fast.


5) However, it is not true that a private pilot must have in-depth knowedge of the specific approaches in use to the various New York airports to fly in this corridor. He or she should probably have an idea about them, but it is not required, since no light plane is going to be flying any of those approaches, nor would be permitted to be anywhere near one of them. Nonetheless, any pilot attempting to fly that corridor had best be pretty familiar with the NYC Airspace controls and rules.


There was nothing unusual about this pilot flying his plane in that area on 9-11-01.

Thats well and good and after reading boggle's points and yours I would have to agree with boggle, here is some thoughts I consider:


If the russian pilot who:

1. is not a local native or 'now' living in the USA
2. isnt trained in flight paths for commercial flights
3. cant even identify correctly the type of commercial plane it is initially and this would be pertinent to common knowledge circumstances

I would have to agree with boggle on this one and trying to give the benefit of the doubt is by far stretching farther than even boeing could go.

Why exactly is this in the conspiracy section?

Because it has to do with 911. To complex for you?

Anything dealing with 9/11 is a conspiracy now?

Ummm, no. However, I think photos of the attacks taken from a plane, are relevant. Is it really that hard to understand? Or are you just posting these little negative snippets in hope of quieting those who wish to explore 911?

So a plane flying where it is allowed to, taking pictures as it flys after a plane hit a trade center is related to a conspiracy.....keep your day job.

Who said it was a conspiracy? I said it was relevant to the topic..............get a day job.

Try taking a look at what the sections name is...

I'm suprised you know how to type considering how low your reading comprehension is.

The topic or the section?? As for the topic the photos just came out and he had a question about them. If you read the posts you would have seen his question was address by several people before you showed up to ridicule him. For the section, its conspiracies and secret societies, don't act like this is this the first post you have seen about 911. You know exactly why he posted it and your just mad becuase you don't like hearing it. Like I said, you just posting these little negative snippets in hope of quieting those who wish to explore 911. If you cant deal with it don't read it.

lol yeah, I don't know how to type or read, I am blind to lol. Give me a break, are you going to start making momma jokes now? How easy you break down to childishness. Grow up.

1. The fact that he's Russian is irrelevant.
2. The point was that he doesn't have to be trained in the "flight paths" (you mean approach paths) of commercial airliners to do what he was doing.
3. Many people don't know the difference between a 767 and a 737. From a distance, and at great speed, they're both 2 engine jet aircraft.


Based upon that, you agree with what?
That perhaps there is something unusual about an airplane flying in a perfectly legal piece of airspace around the Manhattan/East River corridor?

This thread has nothing to do with the 9/11 conspiracy theories, thus it does not belong here. If you can give a reason why a plane flying in a airzone it is allowed to fly in before all flights were grounded is part of a conspiracy I would like to hear it.

I can only hope you make an effort to actually address the issue this time.

Oh and I have nothing against the thread, just where it is posted. Poor reading comprehension at its finest. Dont feel bad, not everyone can be as good as me.

Anything related to an event that has inspired such conspiracy theorising as the events of 9/11 deserves a place in a conspiracy forum thread.
Where do you think it would be better placed Ashigaru, in the Writers and Artists Hangout?

Can anyone translate Russian? The web address in the photos on Pg 1, maxho.com leads to: Link
with a Link that has this photo



Ooh. Interesting? Or just a game setup?