Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Scott G

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

2,524 posts in this topic

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think the people that planned this would fill out the logbook stating 'Today we modified the plane to slam it into the twin towers on 9/11...shh don't tell anyone' ???

You put that well :lol:

I’ve had others suggest similar - they actually expect the whole operation to be written down and in the public record for them.

No wonder they don’t really get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... Let me get this straight, you believe that it wasn't modified because....The records/logbook don't indicate it? So you think the people that planned this would fill out the logbook stating 'Today we modified the plane to slam it into the twin towers on 9/11...shh don't tell anyone' ???

There's another issue; what if the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers weren't the planes that we were told they were? We already know that 2 of the 4 airplanes that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 never even took off, according to the BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics). Those flights were Flight 77 and Flight 11. Flight 77 is the plane that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, and Flight 11 is the plane that hit the North Tower, aka Tower 1. Don't believe me? Check out the BTS yourself here:

http://www.bts.gov/x...paturesData.xml

Remember; airline flights appear to simply be numbers assigned to random aircraft in the various airline fleets.

To find the information on the BTS, you need to know that:

Flight 11 is an American Airlines daily flight (it's simply a number assigned to a random aircraft in its fleet), which on September 11 was scheduled to Depart from Boston (Logan International).

Flight 77 is also an American Airlines daily flight. Years ago, a 911 researcher couldn't find it to be even scheduled to depart on 9/11. Today, it clearly does say that it was scheduled to depart on 9/11; only again, according to the BTS, it never actually did.

You might say, well, that still leaves Flight 175 to crash into the South Tower or WTC 2, so atleast half the official story is true, right? Not so fast. While Flight 175 does show as having taken off from Logan Airport in Boston at 8:23am, there is some interesting information about it, according to the administrator for Let's Roll forums:

American Flights 11 & 77 don't show as having been flights on 9/11. It is plausible that the people/passengers from flights 11 & 175 were combined, as they both took off from Boston Logan Airport. And since 77 never took off, it is plausible that these passengers from 77, in Washington DC, took off earlier in a plane which then connected with the flight 93.

Thus in this scenario, Flight 11 & 175 would more then likely become the Delta 1989, flying at first under flight 175 call signs. And Flight 93, now having also the Flight 77 people aboard, become the Flight 93 or Flight X that landed at Cleveland, and now all 265 people are accounted for. This would also explain why Cleveland air controllers reported both flight 93 & Flight 175 coming into Cleveland airspace that morning.

And they both end up at Cleveland, after it is evacuated and cleared of people.

Source: http://letsrollforum...645&postcount=9

If anyone is confused by all of this, you're not alone. I've been looking at all the research that the administrator of the Let's Roll Forums Phil Jayhan has done, and there are many conclusions he's reached that I don't yet understand. I'm a member at his forum, so I can certainly ask questions, but I really think he's on to things (it's from their site that I found out that Flight 11 and 77 are shown as never having flown on 9/11).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's another issue; what if the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers weren't the planes that we were told they were? We already know that 2 of the 4 airplanes that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 never even took off, according to the BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics). Those flights were Flight 77 and Flight 11. Flight 77 is the plane that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, and Flight 11 is the plane that hit the North Tower, aka Tower 1. Don't believe me? Check out the BTS yourself here:

http://www.bts.gov/x...paturesData.xml

Remember; airline flights appear to simply be numbers assigned to random aircraft in the various airline fleets.

To find the information on the BTS, you need to know that:

Flight 11 is an American Airlines daily flight (it's simply a number assigned to a random aircraft in its fleet), which on September 11 was scheduled to Depart from Boston (Logan International).

Flight 77 is also an American Airlines daily flight. Years ago, a 911 researcher couldn't find it to be even scheduled to depart on 9/11. Today, it clearly does say that it was scheduled to depart on 9/11; only again, according to the BTS, it never actually did.

You might say, well, that still leaves Flight 175 to crash into the South Tower or WTC 2, so atleast half the official story is true, right? Not so fast. While Flight 175 does show as having taken off from Logan Airport in Boston at 8:23am, there is some interesting information about it, according to the administrator for Let's Roll forums:

Source: http://letsrollforum...645&postcount=9

If anyone is confused by all of this, you're not alone. I've been looking at all the research that the administrator of the Let's Roll Forums Phil Jayhan has done, and there are many conclusions he's reached that I don't yet understand. I'm a member at his forum, so I can certainly ask questions, but I really think he's on to things (it's from their site that I found out that Flight 11 and 77 are shown as never having flown on 9/11).

I'm not a pilot and I'm not a radar operator and I'm not a technician but I can smell BS a mile away.

Next we'll be told little green men from Mars were in charge.

What is so difficult for people to accept that Islamic terrorists were trained to fly but not land planes. Except into buildings and into the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a pilot and I'm not a radar operator and I'm not a technician

And yet...

I can smell BS a mile away.

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."

And the more you look into it, the more probable it becomes. It takes a lot of work; I clearly need to do more. But a good start is the fact that the BTS, aka The Bureau for Transportation Statistics, a government agency, shows that both Flight 77 and Flight 11 never took off on 9/11. If you want to do more research, by all means, take a look at this article, which really got me going:

The "4" Flights of 9/11 - What about the Passengers? What happened to them?

What is so difficult for people to accept that Islamic terrorists were trained to fly but not land planes. Except into buildings and into the ground.

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? 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.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

260px-UA175_path.svg.png

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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

WtcUA175debris.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the fact that the BTS states that Flight 11 and 77 never took off on 9/11)

SkyEagle asks

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

SkyEagle says

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How are aircraft identified after the transponders are turned off?

By magic of course silly! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Feaa11static.gif

Feaa11anim.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Feaa11static.gif

Feaa11anim.gif

The flight South looks liek they were blown by the wind and correcting. Expected for an inexperienced pilot, not for a remote controlled plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flight South looks liek they were blown by the wind and correcting. Expected for an inexperienced pilot, not for a remote controlled plane.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flight South looks liek they were blown by the wind and correcting. Expected for an inexperienced pilot, not for a remote controlled plane.

I agree. A more direct route and lower altitudes would have been used had the aircraft been an attack drone and the last thing that anyone would do if such an attack drone, is to fly the aircraft above 18,000 feet into controlled airspace where it is going to attract all kind of attention.

Class A airspace extends from 18,000 feet (FL180) to 60,000 (FL600) feet and any aircraft flying between those flight levels must fly under instrument flight rules ( IFR) and that aircraft will be under the control of ground controllers.

There are certain requirements to be met by the pilot and for an aircraft in order to operate above 18,000 feet and if those requirements are not met, then the aircraft will not be allowed to operate IFR above that altitude..

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

An inexperienced pilot would not be aware of the winds and would not correct as often. A remote controlled plane would correct far more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A remote controlled plane would correct far more often.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.