What if the Aircraft had missed or been stopped?

[Captain_Swoop]

What would happen to all the rigged and primed explosives in the buildings?

Would they have blown yhem up anyway and just blamed Terrorists?

[Oystein]

Hmmm we don't really know which building flight 93 was supposed to hit. Top of the list is the Capitol in Washington, iirc.

That was not imploded. So I guess it is still rigged?

[Captain_Swoop]

Better be careful with the remote central locking on the car then.

[Oystein]

Don't worry, I'll take a plane to fly to the Capitol :cool:

[Horatius]

What would happen to all the rigged and primed explosives in the buildings?

Would they have blown yhem up anyway and just blamed Terrorists?

Hmmm we don't really know which building flight 93 was supposed to hit. Top of the list is the Capitol in Washington, iirc.

That was not imploded. So I guess it is still rigged?



The Ctists have claimed that 93 was supposed to hit WTC7, so yes, apparently they would just have blown them up, and hoped no one noticed.

That this conclusion is largely inconsistent with the flightpath of 93 is largely ignored.

[Captain_Swoop]

Why WTC7? Hardly important or well known.
I think they have all run up a blind alley with their concentrating on WTC7.
There is nothing about it that would make it a terrorist target, why bother including it rather than the Whitehouse or the Capitol, or for that matter the Brooklyn Bridge or Statue of Liberty.

[Oystein]

The Ctists have claimed that 93 was supposed to hit WTC7, so yes, apparently they would just have blown them up, and hoped no one noticed.

That this conclusion is largely inconsistent with the flightpath of 93 is largely ignored.

In trutherland, the twin towers were exploded from the top down in a most unusual CD pattern, as to make it look like they crashed from the zone of impact.

WTC7 "looked like" a classic CD as it failed in the lower stories. Why the difference? Had they planned to fly 93 into the 8th or 13th floor? Coming from the south or south-east while the towers were still standing in the way? Amazing!

[Captain_Swoop]

How would they know which floors the aircraft were going to hit?

[Horatius]

There you guys go, bringing logic into it again!

Did you really expect their answers to make sense?

[switchpoint]

Why WTC7? Hardly important or well known.
I think they have all run up a blind alley with their concentrating on WTC7.
There is nothing about it that would make it a terrorist target, why bother including it rather than the Whitehouse or the Capitol, or for that matter the Brooklyn Bridge or Statue of Liberty.

Are you kidding? According to the truthers building 7 contained all the secrets of the entire human race imprinted on its walls! Inlcuding the organizational diagram for 9/11! It HAD to come down!

[Oystein]

How would they know which floors the aircraft were going to hit?

You can* remotely fly a 757/767 to every spot on earth you desire to within 10 feet precision.













* footnote: provided you can remotely fly a 757/767 at all.

[Captain_Swoop]

So those ground crews that service and repair aircraft wouldn't be able to see any of this extra remote control equipment? Maybe it's made from the same stuff as all the thermite and excplosive charges that people never saw as well.

[CORed]

Hmmm we don't really know which building flight 93 was supposed to hit. Top of the list is the Capitol in Washington, iirc.

That was not imploded. So I guess it is still rigged?

The Capitol. LOL. That's what they want your to think. Obviously Flight 93 was headed for WTC7, and somehow they forgot to cancel the demolition, because, as we all know the gubmint is both diabolically clever and hopelessly incompetent. :D

[CORed]

Are you kidding? According to the truthers building 7 contained all the secrets of the entire human race imprinted on its walls! Inlcuding the organizational diagram for 9/11! It HAD to come down!

Well of course, because there is no way to destroy incriminating documents other than destroying the building that conatins them

[bill smith]

What would happen to all the rigged and primed explosives in the buildings?

Would they have blown yhem up anyway and just blamed Terrorists?

If I was the perps I would have a bio-terror team brought in and declare that Anthrax had been released in the missed building. Then it could be locked down and quarantined and the whole area (if not all of New york) could be evacuated

In this way they could do what they liked with the building indefinitely. Easy peasy.

[Redtail]

If I was the perps I would have a bio-terror team brought in and declare that Anthrax had been released in the missed building. Then it could be locked down and quarantined and the whole area (if not all of New york) could be evacuated

In this way they could do what they liked with the building indefinitely. Easy peasy.
Which explains why the "prepa" didn't consult you.

[bill smith]

Which explains why the "prepa" didn't consult you.

Remember how the Whitehouse instructed the EPA to say that the air was safe to breathe ? That was so that they would get wall street working normally. So I guess they would have said that there was some Anthrax contamination in the building and just had a lower key lock-down and quarantine. No Evacuation.

[DGM]

What if the Aircraft had missed or been stopped?
(I will assume "stopped" means shot down)
I'm just going to skip the pointless speculation and deal with reality. The war on terror would have proceeded with little or no changes. There is no way they* could hijack 4 planes and murder all on board (and however many on the ground) and not cause a major stir. That would have been more then enough "shock and awe" to "rally the troops".

There were no "preset" explosives. PERIOD


ETA: * By "they" I'm referring to the accepted perpetrators

[jiggeryqua]

Why WTC7? Hardly important or well known.
I think they have all run up a blind alley with their concentrating on WTC7.
There is nothing about it that would make it a terrorist target, why bother including it rather than the Whitehouse or the Capitol, or for that matter the Brooklyn Bridge or Statue of Liberty.

Why didn't they hit the Statue of Liberty? Given that they "hate [our] freedoms" and all? Is it insured?"

[Redtail]

Remember how the Whitehouse instructed the EPA to say that the air was safe to breathe ? That was so that they would get wall street working normally. So I guess they would have said that there was some Anthrax contamination in the building and just had a lower key lock-down and quarantine. No Evacuation.

So they claim there was some anthrax contamination to lock down 7 but not evacuate the neighborhood? Great! Now what?

[Captain_Swoop]

Why didn't they hit the Statue of Liberty? Given that they "hate [our] freedoms" and all? Is it insured?"

Maybe that was the last target?

[bill smith]

Maybe that was the last target?

You were right. It IS really easy to miss a building at high speed. In fact according to the pilot instructor in the attached audio it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for a pilot to actually hit such a target building flying at those high speeds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpilotsfor911truth%2Eorg%2Fforum% 2Findex%2Ephp%3Fshowtopic%3D6819&feature=player_embedded

[Lak]

If I was the perps I would have a bio-terror team brought in and declare that Anthrax had been released in the missed building. Then it could be locked down and quarantined and the whole area (if not all of New york) could be evacuated

In this way they could do what they liked with the building indefinitely. Easy peasy.
All of New York evacuated. Easy.
I don't understand how anyone can think that Bill Smith believes what he's saying...

[KingMerv00]

You were right. It IS really easy to miss a building at high speed. In fact according to the pilot instructor in the attached audio it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for a pilot to actually hit such a target building flying at those high speeds.

OK, so what are you implying? That the planes weren't actually planes or that the planes never hit the building? I hope it's the latter; what a relief that would be.

[bill smith]

All of New York evacuated. Easy.
I don't understand how anyone can think that Bill Smith believes what he's saying...

No I revised that thinking in a later post. The Whitehouse instructed the EPA to falsely say that the air was safe to breathe after the collapses so that Wall street operations would not be disrupted. Therefore I still think that they would have announced Anthrax contamination if the jet had missed and ploughed into the ground. Probably in WTC2. But I think they would have kept it pretty low key to avoid any evacuation of he area or a general panic. Just enough to keep prying eyes out of the building .

Then they could have removed the rigged explosives in their own time.

[KingMerv00]

No I revised that thinking in a later post. The Whitehouse instructed the EPA to falsely say that the air was safe to breathe after the collapses so that Wall street operations would not be disrupted. Therefore I still think that they would have announced Anthrax contamination probably in WTC2. But I think they would have kept it pretty low key to avoid any evacuation or panic. Just enough to keep prying eyes out of the building if the jet had missed and ploughed into the ground.

Then they could have removed the rigged explosives in their own time.

How long do you think it takes to rig/unrig a building for implosion?

[tuc0]

...

Therefore I still think that they would have announced Anthrax contamination probably in WTC2. But I think they would have kept it pretty low key to avoid any evacuation or panic.

...
:newlol

And it's still the most reasonable theory I've heard from you.

[Captain_Swoop]

You were right. It IS really easy to miss a building at high speed. In fact according to the pilot instructor in the attached audio it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for a pilot to actually hit such a target building flying at those high speeds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpilotsfor911truth%2Eorg%2Fforum% 2Findex%2Ephp%3Fshowtopic%3D6819&feature=player_embedded

Well it wasn't impossible because they did it!

If they miss they try again until they hit it. What's so difficult?

[bill smith]

Well it wasn't impossible because they did it!

If they miss they try again until they hit it. What's so difficult?

There would be no second chance at the angle and speed the plane was flying. They miss-they fly into the ground.

[X]

There would be no second chance at the angle and speed the plane was flying. They miss-they fly into the ground.



I don't think they cared about that.

At any rate, they didn't miss.

[KingMerv00]

There would be no second chance at the angle and speed the plane was flying. They miss-they fly into the ground.

I ask again, what are you implying? Planes hit the building even though it was "virtually impossible". What does that mean to you?

[DGM]

There would be no second chance at the angle and speed the plane was flying. They miss-they fly into the ground.
So what does this all mean?

[bill smith]

I don't think they cared about that.

At any rate, they didn't miss.

Look what I found. Have a look at the article about the FEMA team at the beginning of the attached video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4

[George152]

OK, so what are you implying? That the planes weren't actually planes or that the planes never hit the building? I hope it's the latter; what a relief that would be.

Somehow the particular kook has gotten the idea that aircraft are unable to be accurately flown...

[KingMerv00]

Look what I found. Have a look at the article about the FEMA team at the beginning of the attached video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4

Look what I found: Unanswered questions.

I ask again, what are you implying? Planes hit the building even though it was "virtually impossible". What does that mean to you?

How long do you think it takes to rig/unrig a building for implosion?

OK, so what are you implying? That the planes weren't actually planes or that the planes never hit the building? I hope it's the latter; what a relief that would be.

[patchbunny]

What would happen to all the rigged and primed explosives in the buildings?

Would they have blown yhem up anyway and just blamed Terrorists?

Frith knows where I read it, but I've seen a no planer use this as an excuse why the planes were CGI and holograms. Then there's no way they could miss!

[beachnut]

There would be no second chance at the angle and speed the plane was flying. They miss-they fly into the ground. Wow, you can't explain that with reality. Why are all your answers or ideas on 911 nonsense?

You make up flying laws out of ignorance or based on some fantasy guide book?

If flight 11 missed the WTC; the pilot would throttle back and coast past the WTC, pull up to slow down. Flight 11 was going 470 mph, and could coast miles at idle while slowing to 300 KIAS, a very nice speed. Then without looking the pilot could turn 90 degrees left or right. Then the pilot could turn 270 degrees and be right on course to try again. This is what pilots do everyday practicing touch and go landings if the wind is nil.

Flight 175 was going very fast; he would have to retard the throttles and slow if he does not hit something. And he could do a 90/270 maneuver to back and try again.

Looks like you never piloted anything other than delusions about 911.

For the Pentagon, if he missed he would be in the ground or too high; if he did not hit the top of the Pentagon, he could do a 90/270 and be back. Or you can fly straight, turn right, turn right, fly a leg past your target and then turn right again, then right, and gee, you are back.

Where did you learn flying? Balsamo?

[fess]

You were right. It IS really easy to miss a building at high speed. In fact according to the pilot instructor in the attached audio it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for a pilot to actually hit such a target building flying at those high speeds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpilotsfor911truth%2Eorg%2Fforum% 2Findex%2Ephp%3Fshowtopic%3D6819&feature=player_embedded

That is quite possibly the most idiotic narrative I have ever heard from two “professional” pilots.

[fess]

There would be no second chance at the angle and speed the plane was flying. They miss-they fly into the ground.

Are you saying that at 1000ft, there wasn’t enough time or altitude to recover?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKRUGIjnEJI

Really!

[INRM]

What are you talking about WTC 7 having the whole secrets of mankind imprinted on the walls? I have never heard that

[TSR]

What are you talking about WTC 7 having the whole secrets of mankind imprinted on the walls? I have never heard that
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
.

[triforcharity]

What are you talking about WTC 7 having the whole secrets of mankind imprinted on the walls? I have never heard that

You must have missed the briefing on WTC7 at the NWO meeting that month. Next time, show up, and you won't be out of the loop....:D

[Bell]

Pull A Fast One

http://s3.amazonaws.com/stripgenerator/strip/16/76/73/00/00/full.png

[bill smith]

So they claim there was some anthrax contamination to lock down 7 but not evacuate the neighborhood? Great! Now what?

Not WTC7. Probably WTC2. The plane that hit WTC1 could have misssed the building and flown straight ahead but the plane that hit WTC2 would have ploughed straight into the ground at only 800 feet altitude , the angle it was at and flying at 600 mph. If it had missed that is.

[fess]

Not WTC7. Probably WTC2. The plane that hit WTC1 could have misssed the building and flown straight ahead but the plane that hit WTC2 would have ploughed straight into the ground at only 800 feet altitude , the angle it was at and flying at 600 mph. If it had missed that is.

There you go, just like your cousin Jammy. Can't the two of you make up your mind as to what speed the aircraft was flying at, and at what altitude?

[dafydd]

There you go, just like your cousin Jammy. Can't the two of you make up your mind as to what speed the aircraft was flying at, and at what altitude?

Jammy says there was no plane,just a ''shadowy thing''.

[beachnut]

Not WTC7. Probably WTC2. The plane that hit WTC1 could have misssed the building and flown straight ahead but the plane that hit WTC2 would have ploughed straight into the ground at only 800 feet altitude , the angle it was at and flying at 600 mph. If it had missed that is. Nonsense. Prove it with numbers. Your other failed 911 truth liars club members say 175 was leveled off in a bank. Do you get your stories straight or just spew the first failed thought out of your head independent of any single integrated story?

Prove it. An opinion based on what?

[bill smith]

Nonsense. Prove it with numbers. Your other failed 911 truth liars club members say 175 was leveled off in a bank. Do you get your stories straight or just spew the first failed thought out of your head independent of any single integrated story?

Prove it. An opinion based on what?

Common sense Beachnut. No 767 could recover that close to the ground and at that speed.

[Captain_Swoop]

So what if the aircraft had missed the towers but crashed onto surrounding buildings?
There would have still been a huge loss of like and possibly other buildings could have collapsed.

Would we now have people arguing that those buildings were rigged to collapse?

If the Air Force had time to intercept and had shot the aircraft down what would the conspiracy be?

[DGM]

Not WTC7. Probably WTC2. The plane that hit WTC1 could have misssed the building and flown straight ahead but the plane that hit WTC2 would have ploughed straight into the ground at only 800 feet altitude , the angle it was at and flying at 600 mph. If it had missed that is.
That would have put it plowing into the financial district, right? Would there have been any major difference in the casualties and "shock value"?

[MRC_Hans]

You were right. It IS really easy to miss a building at high speed. In fact according to the pilot instructor in the attached audio it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for a pilot to actually hit such a target building flying at those high speeds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpilotsfor911truth%2Eorg%2Fforum% 2Findex%2Ephp%3Fshowtopic%3D6819&feature=player_embedded

Son, I can do that in a flight simulator. Piece of cake.

Hans

[Captain_Swoop]

Pilots routinely hit targets sometimes narrower than the WTC. They are called Runways. It's part of the training or did you not notice?

[Sam.I.Am]

Wait... so now the truthers have finally dropped their fantasy that a 767 can't travel at that speed that close to the ground and have replaced it with it another fantasy that it couldn't have recovered from a shallow dive within 800 feet?

Just because pilots don't normally do certain maneuvers with passenger airliners out of concern for their passengers comfort doesn't mean that neither they nor the aircraft are capable of doing those maneuvers. Safety envelopes are there to allow a buffer for the unexpected, not to indicate the absolute limits of whatever craft is normally constrained within the rules of a safety envelope.

We usually operated within a safety envelope anytime we were submerged with speed being limited between a certain range at certain depths. For example, at shallow depths we had to stay below a certain speed to prevent cavitation (making noise and making our presence known) and to prevent accidental broaching (surfacing and making our presence known) while still maintaining enough speed to have positive control of the ship. The deeper we went the faster we could go and still remain undetectable. Speed was also a factor in combating flooding. The faster you're going the quicker you can get up to a depth where flow of water from the sea pressure can be handled by the drain pump.

On the other hand, the deeper that you went the closer you came to your maximum operating depth (test depth). There was a real concern about what is called a "Jam Dive" where the stern planes fail in the dive position and you lose depth control and crash through test depth and go to crush depth (a very bad thing™). So you need to go slower the closer you get to test depth.

This leads to a seemingly confusing paradox where the deeper you go the faster you can go but the deeper you go the slower you must go. We broke those rules on a semi regular basis and operated well outside of the safe operating envelope for reasons I won't go into here other than to say that during sea trials we did it to make sure that the boat could operate within all design parameters even though those parameters could lead to unsafe conditions.

My point is that using a published safety envelope as the maximum operating envelope shows extreme ignorance of what a safety envelope is. I can drive an 8' wide car 100 mph down a 8.5'' wide back alley, it's just not recommended, yet we see the equivalent of that being done almost every weekend on race car tracks.

[bill smith]

Son, I can do that in a flight simulator. Piece of cake.

Hans

As a Flight Simulator pilot ypu will possibly enjoy this 747 simulation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-9EMrna-WU&feature=PlayList&p=A4F8F4BD8543597E&index=9&playnext=5&playnext_from=PL simulation

I would like to ask you and Sam whether you think that the plane would have been able to respond to control surface movements sufficiently to pull flight 175 out of it's path into the ground at an estimated 590 mph. (FEMA estimation I think).

[beachnut]

As a Flight Simulator pilot ypu will possibly enjoy this 747 simulation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-9EMrna-WU&feature=PlayList&p=A4F8F4BD8543597E&index=9&playnext=5&playnext_from=PL

I would like to ask you and Sam whether you think that the control surfaces gf the plane would have been able to respond sufficiently to pull iflight 175 out of it's path into the ground at an estimated 590 mph. (FEMA estimation I think).
Please provide the pitch angle, bank angle, and more information to support your delusion. Prove it!

[bill smith]

Please provide the pitch angle, bank angle, and more information to support your delusion. Prove it!

I anticipate the Readers using their common sense Beachnut. That's enough for me.

[Sam.I.Am]

What was the angle of the dive (in your estimation)? From what I've seen from the footage it was negligible (<5°). If he maintained that angle (assuming 5°) then it would have taken him ~2 miles to reach sea level regardless of speed. Of course, there were buildings in the way so that number can probably easily be cut in half or better. That works out to roughly 10 seconds before striking another building (give or take because I have no idea what the exact height of the buildings on an assumed trajectory might be). 10 seconds to pull out of a shallow dive in a 767 is more than enough time seeing as we can see one do a much more aggressive climb out in a much shorter period of time on a YouTube video.

7fMfUGVkHkY

From ~0° to ~+20° in less than 5 seconds. No flaps to give extra lift and I'm willing to bet that he stayed within the safe operating envelope for that aircraft.

[Captain_Swoop]

Well, I don't know about a 767, the biggest thing I have hours on is a Kingair but I think bill smith is blowing hard. I could have recovered.

[beachnut]

I anticipate the Readers using their common sense Beachnut. That's enough for me.
You are spewing nonsense. No numbers? Can't do the math? Got physics? The Readers will see you have no ability to do more than regurgitate and create nonsense.

Prove it with numbers. Can't do it can you?
How long would it take 175 to hit the ground from 800 feet, or the floor it impacted in height?
What decent angle was 175 and how did it compare to Flt 11?

If you can't answer the questions, or support your statement, why do you make up false information based on your own delusions?

[Captain_Swoop]

Wait... so now the truthers have finally dropped their fantasy that a 767 can't travel at that speed that close to the ground and have replaced it with it another fantasy that it couldn't have recovered from a shallow dive within 800 feet?

Just because pilots don't normally do certain maneuvers with passenger airliners out of concern for their passengers comfort doesn't mean that neither they nor the aircraft are capable of doing those maneuvers. Safety envelopes are there to allow a buffer for the unexpected, not to indicate the absolute limits of whatever craft is normally constrained within the rules of a safety envelope.

We usually operated within a safety envelope anytime we were submerged with speed being limited between a certain range at certain depths. For example, at shallow depths we had to stay below a certain speed to prevent cavitation (making noise and making our presence known) and to prevent accidental broaching (surfacing and making our presence known) while still maintaining enough speed to have positive control of the ship. The deeper we went the faster we could go and still remain undetectable. Speed was also a factor in combating flooding. The faster you're going the quicker you can get up to a depth where flow of water from the sea pressure can be handled by the drain pump.

On the other hand, the deeper that you went the closer you came to your maximum operating depth (test depth). There was a real concern about what is called a "Jam Dive" where the stern planes fail in the dive position and you lose depth control and crash through test depth and go to crush depth (a very bad thing™). So you need to go slower the closer you get to test depth.

This leads to a seemingly confusing paradox where the deeper you go the faster you can go but the deeper you go the slower you must go. We broke those rules on a semi regular basis and operated well outside of the safe operating envelope for reasons I won't go into here other than to say that during sea trials we did it to make sure that the boat could operate within all design parameters even though those parameters could lead to unsafe conditions.

My point is that using a published safety envelope as the maximum operating envelope shows extreme ignorance of what a safety envelope is. I can drive an 8' wide car 100 mph down a 8.5'' wide back alley, it's just not recommended, yet we see the equivalent of that being done almost every weekend on race car tracks.


We knew where you were :) I was on an AS Frigate in the RN for 6 years. ;)

But to thge point of your post. Civil Aviation Authorities and Manufacturers erron the side of caution. Operators even moer so, they don't want passengers to complain.

[bill smith]

What was the angle of the dive (in your estimation)? From what I've seen from the footage it was negligible (<5°). If he maintained that angle (assuming 5°) then it would have taken him ~2 miles to reach sea level regardless of speed. Of course, there were buildings in the way so that number can probably easily be cut in half or better. That works out to roughly 10 seconds before striking another building (give or take because I have no idea what the exact height of the buildings on an assumed trajectory might be). 10 seconds to pull out of a shallow dive in a 767 is more than enough time seeing as we can see one do a much more aggressive climb out in a much shorter period of time on a YouTube video.

7fMfUGVkHkY

From ~0° to ~+20° in less than 5 seconds. No flaps to give extra lift and I'm willing to bet that he stayed within the safe operating envelope for that aircraft.

Here is the crash happening. It is easy to see that it could never have pulled out in time at nearly 600 mph and zero control.(See simulation video above).

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/882537/cnn_fake_sept_11_video_pumpitout_calls_wq2rx_micha el_hezarkhani/

[beachnut]

Common sense Beachnut. No 767 could recover that close to the ground and at that speed.
Can't do physics? What is wrong; why not take the time to prove your statement?

You say Flt 11 can make it?
You say Flt 175 can't?
What are the decent angles at impact?
Why can, or can't each plane make it? Use pitch rate, and wing loading to make your case; when can we expect some numbers?

You can't do math?

[Sam.I.Am]

You only knew where we were when we were moored in Holy Loch or transiting the Clyde. On the other hand we did know where you were and were only tracking you out of habit and to keep in practice. :D

Back on topic though, I'm quite sure that there's an envelope for passenger comfort promulgated by each airline and written down somewhere that the pilots try to stay within. I know that we had one to patrol under (although not for designed comfort but to maintain communications and to be able to launch all of our missiles within 15 minutes). It too was well inside of our safe operating envelope.

[Redtail]

Not WTC7. Probably WTC2. The plane that hit WTC1 could have misssed the building and flown straight ahead but the plane that hit WTC2 would have ploughed straight into the ground at only 800 feet altitude , the angle it was at and flying at 600 mph. If it had missed that is.
What?

[beachnut]

Here is the crash happening. It is easy to see that it could never have pulled out in time at nearly 600 mph and zero control.(See simulation video above).

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/882537/cnn_fake_sept_11_video_pumpitout_calls_wq2rx_micha el_hezarkhani/
You can't do the math so you give us a moronic video filled with more lies.

You can't tell me how high each aircraft was at impact. Got math? Got any evidence for your claims? An idiotic, pathetic video; good job avoiding the math. How is the math coming?

... at only 800 feet altitude , ... Where did you get this number from? lol Source please.

[Sam.I.Am]

Here is the crash happening. It is easy to see that it could never have pulled out in time at nearly 600 mph and zero control.(See simulation video above).

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/882537/cnn_fake_sept_11_video_pumpitout_calls_wq2rx_micha el_hezarkhani/

Looking at that video I don't see any buildings extending up into the flightpath of the aircraft on the far side of WTC 2. Your flight sim video is crap for several reasons, not least of which is that the makers of the video started off with the intent of showing that something couldn't have happened while I showed you an actual video of a 767 doing exactly the opposite.

Pull back hard on stick... airplane goes up. As long as you are going fast enough and don't stall out you can change about 20° of angle in about 5 seconds in a 767 as long as passenger comfort isn't an issue. I've shown it above. That you can't admit it because of your own incredulity is your problem, not mine.

[Retrograde]

That would have put it plowing into the financial district, right? Would there have been any major difference in the casualties and "shock value"?

Could potentially be even more casualties and destruction, depending on where it landed.

My own theory, unsupported by facts (if the truthers don't need them neither do I) is that the targets were chosen (and I think the Capitol, not the Pentagon, was the primary target) because they were symbols of the cities they were in, and well-known throughout the world. There were two planes targeted for each, because once the first hit every camera around would be there to catch the second crash live.

So what if a plane missed? The first two would have mostly likely crashed in a densely populated area, killing who knows how many and starting scores of fires. Maybe one or both of the pilots would have enough control left to come around again or try for another skyscraper, but they were out for carnage and they were trying to get it. I don't think the other two were as successful as the plotters hoped: AA77 missed DC and almost missed the Pentagon, which is pretty hard to do considering the size of it - I'm willing to concede Hanjour was a lousy pilot - and largely by luck didn't cause as much damage as it could have. UA93 was forced down by the passengers in a thinly populated area.

But as a previous poster pointed out, just the fact that four planes were hijacked in concert would have been enough to stir up feelings of outrage.

[bill smith]

You can't do the math so you give us a moronic video filled with more lies.

You can't tell me how high each aircraft was at impact. Got math? Got any evidence for your claims? An idiotic, pathetic video; good job avoiding the math. How is the math coming?

Where did you get this number from? lol Source please.

Maybe it was closer to 1000 feet. Floor 78 x 12'5'' = 975 feet. But no sweat. The same thing applies exactly. The plane was flying at the angle you see in the video I posted at 590 mph with no control.

[bill smith]

Looking at that video I don't see any buildings extending up into the flightpath of the aircraft on the far side of WTC 2. Your flight sim video is crap for several reasons, not least of which is that the makers of the video started off with the intent of showing that something couldn't have happened while I showed you an actual video of a 767 doing exactly the opposite.

Pull back hard on stick... airplane goes up. As long as you are going fast enough and don't stall out you can change about 20° of angle in about 5 seconds in a 767 as long as passenger comfort isn't an issue. I've shown it above. That you can't admit it because of your own incredulity is your problem, not mine.

But Sam at 590 mph pulling back on the stick makes no difference. You are going straight ahead into the ground whether you like it or not. Didn't you see the video ?. Or are you saying that it's not true ? 'll just post that simulation again so that you can check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-9EMrna-WU&feature=PlayList&p=A4F8F4BD8543597E&index=9&playnext=5&playnext_from=PL 747

[beachnut]

Maybe it was closer to 1000 feet. Floor 78 x 12'5'' = 975 feet. But no sweat. The same thing applies exactly. The plane was flying at the angle you see in the video I posted at 590 mph with no control.
It is 1074 feet. Did not expect you to get that close after posting 800 feet. Good job; if you could actually look something up and get it right you might figure out 911 after 8 years.

What angle is that bill smith; the Readers are watching and waiting for you to do some math, geometry, physics and flying.

Prove 175 is would impact the ground if the terrorist pilots missed.

What is the angle of Flight 11 and why do you think it can make it and 175 can't?

[DGM]

Could potentially be even more casualties and destruction, depending on where it landed.

My own theory, unsupported by facts (if the truthers don't need them neither do I) is that the targets were chosen (and I think the Capitol, not the Pentagon, was the primary target) because they were symbols of the cities they were in, and well-known throughout the world. There were two planes targeted for each, because once the first hit every camera around would be there to catch the second crash live.

So what if a plane missed? The first two would have mostly likely crashed in a densely populated area, killing who knows how many and starting scores of fires. Maybe one or both of the pilots would have enough control left to come around again or try for another skyscraper, but they were out for carnage and they were trying to get it. I don't think the other two were as successful as the plotters hoped: AA77 missed DC and almost missed the Pentagon, which is pretty hard to do considering the size of it - I'm willing to concede Hanjour was a lousy pilot - and largely by luck didn't cause as much damage as it could have. UA93 was forced down by the passengers in a thinly populated area.

But as a previous poster pointed out, just the fact that four planes were hijacked in concert would have been enough to stir up feelings of outrage.
I remember reading that the Pentagon was in-fact the target for flight 77. KSM stated that it was a symbol of American military might. The Capital was the target for flight 93 symbolizing the political center of the US (the White House would be nearly impossible to hit).

[bill smith]

It is 1074 feet. Did not expect you to get that close after posting 800 feet. Good job; if you could actually look something up and get it right you might figure out 911 after 8 years.

What angle is that bill smith; the Readers are watching and waiting for you to do some math, geometry, physics and flying.

Prove 175 is would impact the ground if the terrorist pilots missed.

What is the angle of Flight 11 and why do you think it can make it and 175 can't?

Check these out. Is anything anomalous about the crash between the two videos ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jop84CpeFrk&feature=channel 175 altitude

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/882537/cnn_fake_sept_11_video_pumpitout_calls_wq2rx_micha el_hezarkhani/ hezarkhani

[Captain_Swoop]

But Sam at 590 mph pulling back on the stick makes no difference. You are going straight ahead into the ground whether you like it or not. Didn't you see the video ?. Or are you saying that it's not true ? 'll just post that simulation again so that you can check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-9EMrna-WU&feature=PlayList&p=A4F8F4BD8543597E&index=9&playnext=5&playnext_from=PL 747

You say that from experience as a pilot or from watching something on Youtube?

[beachnut]

But Sam at 590 mph pulling back on the stick makes no difference. You are going straight ahead into the ground whether you like it or not. Didn't you see the video ?. Or are you saying that it's not true ? 'll just post that simulation again so that you can check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-9EMrna-WU&feature=PlayList&p=A4F8F4BD8543597E&index=9&playnext=5&playnext_from=PL 747 Another video of lies; did you know a 747 went past MACH 1 and did not crash? Why do you post stupid junk? Is your google search stuck on displaying only lies, delusions and false information?

How do you make up these lies? The video is a lie, and your statement is nonsense.

Why will Flight 11 make it and not Flight 175?
What are 11 and 175 decent angles?
What is their VVI?
What g level does it take to keep from hitting the ground for each plane with recover in 4 seconds?

I have done the work for you, all you have to do is the numbers. Stop posting videos from idiots who make up delusions.

[beachnut]

Check these out. Is anything anomalous about the crash between the two videos ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jop84CpeFrk&feature=channel 175 altitude

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/882537/cnn_fake_sept_11_video_pumpitout_calls_wq2rx_micha el_hezarkhani/ hezarkhani
The idiot used Vne and shows an airspeed indicator for a little plane. A 757/767 has no Vne in the certification from the FAA. You posted the work of an idiot who does not know flying. You have done it twice; you are posting lies and delusions.

Both Flight 11 and 175 could have flown past the WTC and not crashed into the ground with less than a 2g pull up.

8 years of failure and you post delusional videos. You are diverging from the truth faster than before. You have no idea why what you posted is moronic tripe.

You were wrong bill smith; if you could do the numbers you could figure it out yourself. I first flew heavy jets in 1976; you have posted the dumbest flying lies about jets I have seen.

[bill smith]

The idiot used Vne and shows an airspeed indicator for a little plane. A 757/767 has no Vne in the certification from the FAA. You posted the work of an idiot who does not know flying. You have done it twice; you are posting lies and delusions.

Both Flight 11 and 175 could have flown past the WTC and not crashed into the ground with less than a 2g pull up.

8 years of failure and you post delusional videos. You are diverging from the truth faster than before. You have no idea why what you posted is moronic tripe.

You were wrong bill smith; if you could do the numbers you could figure it out yourself. I first flew heavy jets in 1976; you have posted the dumbest flying lies about jets I have seen.

How do you reconcile the almost flat trajectory of the plane strike in the video entitled '175 altitude' with the steepish angle the same plane hits at in the video entitled 'Hezerkhani' ?

[bardamu]

So what if the aircraft had missed the towers but crashed onto surrounding buildings?
There would have still been a huge loss of like and possibly other buildings could have collapsed.

Would we now have people arguing that those buildings were rigged to collapse?

If the Air Force had time to intercept and had shot the aircraft down what would the conspiracy be?

See? You do understand why faking the planes was their best option.

[Sam.I.Am]

How do you make up these lies? The video is a lie, and your statement is nonsense.

I already pointed out the glaring failure of the video to show anything given the premise that they started out to make it look like the easily possible was absolutely impossible. They would make the Amazing Randi proud if only their lies and misrepresentations weren't so obvious. When I rank probabilities I'll take actual proven events over simulations any day.

[Captain_Swoop]

See? You do understand why faking the planes was their best option.

How do you fake the plane?

What happened to the real planes? What happened to all the passengers and crew on those planes?

[bill smith]

I already pointed out the glaring failure of the video to show anything given the premise that they started out to make it look like the easily possible was absolutely impossible. They would make the Amazing Randi proud if only their lies and misrepresentations weren't so obvious. When I rank probabilities I'll take actual proven events over simulations any day.


Tell NIST...lol

[Sam.I.Am]

Tell NIST...lol

And yet here you are saying that a video of a cheap, off of the shelf flight sim proves something momentous while claiming that a complicated sim that took thousands of hours to calculate 20 seconds worth of events is worthless.

Up is down. Left is right. Cats are dogs. As long as it fits in with your slanted view...

[bardamu]

Tell NIST...lol

And Purdue!!

[DGM]

How do you reconcile the almost flat trajectory of the plane strike in the video entitled '175 altitude' with the steepish angle the same plane hits at in the video entitled 'Hezerkhani' ?
What are you implying? Do you think there were two planes?

Myself, I think I'll go with different camera angles.

:rolleyes:

Bill: Friendly advice, You got to stop spending so much time on UTube! It's rotting your brain.

[bill smith]

Come on Beachnut....don't let us down. Your posting is greatly improved lately.

How do you reconcile the flat trajectory of the plane in one video with the steep angle of the same plane in another video ?

[Retrograde]

I remember reading that the Pentagon was in-fact the target for flight 77. KSM stated that it was a symbol of American military might. The Capital was the target for flight 93 symbolizing the political center of the US (the White House would be nearly impossible to hit).

Yes, he did say that, after the fact, IIRC. Somehow, I have no difficulty believing that someone who plots mass murder would have a problem manipulating the truth to make himself look better ("Yeah, we meant to do that"). My theory's based on a discussion with a former pilot on 9/11, when we were trying to figure out how we would have done it.

Whatever the details, it doesn't change the overall story: 19 men hijacked 4 airplanes with the intent of causing terror. No pre-wired explosives or elaborate black-ops activities needed.

[Bell]

See? You do understand why faking the planes was their best option.

Oops. Thousands of people in New York and New Jersey saw the planes live, with their own eyes. Now what?

[triforcharity]

How do you reconcile the almost flat trajectory of the plane strike in the video entitled '175 altitude' with the steepish angle the same plane hits at in the video entitled 'Hezerkhani' ?

Could it be because you cannot tell the angle from his vantage point, and you're pulling stuff from your posterior again?

[KingMerv00]

What are you talking about WTC 7 having the whole secrets of mankind imprinted on the walls? I have never heard that

It was an exaggeration. I've heard some CTists say that WTC 7 was some kind of storehouse for secret government information.

[beachnut]

How do you reconcile the almost flat trajectory of the plane strike in the video entitled '175 altitude' with the steepish angle the same plane hits at in the video entitled 'Hezerkhani' ?
It was not flat it was descending, ...

It is called point of view, Perspective.
Why do you post delusional videos?

You failed to answer any questions and provide math to support your failed opinion. Was your failed opinion based on lies from delusional videos?

Why post the same old delusions which have failed for 8 years?

Please present the time for 11 and 175 to hit the ground at the impact decent angle, and why that makes it impossible to level off?
The g force to pull out in four seconds and avoid the ground (makes your opinion wrong)?
Why not add the distance to impact the ground along with the time asked for first?
These easy questions require math and geometry; why can't you do it?
Your opinion, Flight 175 would have to crash if it missed the WTC is false and you failed to attempt the math and geometry. Why?

Hint - use this page after you find the decent angle.
http://zonalandeducation.com/mmts/trigonometryRealms/solvers/rtTriSolvers/rtTriSolver1.htm

[Titanic Explorer]

The Ctists have claimed that 93 was supposed to hit WTC7, so yes, apparently they would just have blown them up, and hoped no one noticed.

What proof do the Truthers have to support their claim?

[fess]

Common sense Beachnut. No 767 could recover that close to the ground and at that speed.

More BS, B.S.? Where the hell do you dig up these idiotic UTube videos by some of the most ignorant individuals I have ever heard discussing aircraft flight characteristics?
Once again, let me post this video, flown in real time, by a real pilot and not some flight sim juvenile wanna be pilot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQv2KYqRYas

Your one video featuring one Jeff Hill proves one thing and one thing only… Jeff Hill is a lying SOB.

Before you go on making unrealistic claims about how aircraft actually fly, remember that some of the members on this forum are pilots… real pilots. How many hours have you logged?

[bill smith]

And yet here you are saying that a video of a cheap, off of the shelf flight sim proves something momentous while claiming that a complicated sim that took thousands of hours to calculate 20 seconds worth of events is worthless.

Up is down. Left is right. Cats are dogs. As long as it fits in with your slanted view...

Can you explain why in the Hezarkhani video we cannot hear the plane at all even though it's flyng at 590 mph when we can hear Hezarkhanis's voice and all the other people talkjing ?

THis should be interesting and believable.

[Captain_Swoop]

Are you saying it isn't a plane?

How loud is a passenger jet?
How directional is the exhaust?
How far away is it?

[beachnut]

Can you explain why in the Hezarkhani video we cannot hear the plane at all even though it's flyng at 590 mph when we can hear Hezarkhanis's voice and all the other people talkjing ?

THis should be interesting and believable.
How far away was Hezarkhanis?

BTW, the angle Flight 175 was at, you need no engines so the plane could have been very quiet. But what do you know about flying; as much as you do about 911; nothing.


You agree now Flight 175 would not hit the ground if he missed? If not provide the math? Got math?

[KingMerv00]

Can you explain why in the Hezarkhani video we cannot hear the plane at all even though it's flyng at 590 mph when we can hear Hezarkhanis's voice and all the other people talkjing ?

THis should be interesting and believable.


Bill? Am I on ignore?

How long do you think it takes to rig/unrig a building for implosion?

I ask again, what are you implying? Planes hit the building even though it was "virtually impossible". What does that mean to you?

[bill smith]

How far away was Hezarkhanis?

BTW, the angle Flight 175 was at, you need no engines so the plane could have been very quiet. But what do you know about flying; as much as you do about 911; nothing.


You agree now Flight 175 would not hit the ground if he missed? If not provide the math? Got math?

Nah the plane was way over it's rated speed for that height at 590 mph so the engines would have been roaring. In fact compare the Hezarkhani video to this Naudet Brothers video at the 46 second mark. Note that the position of the cameras are similar except that the Naudets are even further away than Hezarkhani and yet the plane is roaring in their video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUT7yup-YIg&NR=1 Naudet 2

[KingMerv00]

Bill, I was here before beachnut. Kindly answer me first.

[beachnut]

Nah the plane was way over it's rated speed for that height at 590 mph so the engines would have been roaring. In fact compare the Hezarkhani video to this Naudet Brothers video at the 46 second mark. Note that the position of the cameras are similar except that the Naudets are even further away than Hezarkhani and yet the plane is roaring in their video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUT7yup-YIg&NR=1 Naudet 2
Wrong. For the pitch angle Flight 175 had the engines could be off and the plane would be at 600 mph. You have no knowledge of flight, proving each and every post.

... you don't know how far away the camera was. You always post nonsense that means nothing. Why is that? What would your nonsense mean? Why do you support the lies of 911 truth? Why are you unable to bring any flight knowledge to the thread?

You were wrong about Flight 175 would crash if it missed; why are you going on a tangent, to hide your failed statement?

Why can Flight 175 maintain speed due to decent angle? What angle was it? Do we have sources to determine the decent angle?

[bill smith]

Wrong. For the pitch angle Flight 175 had the engines could be off and the plane would be at 600 mph. You have no knowledge of flight, proving each and every post.

... you don't know how far away the camera was. You always post nonsense that means nothing. Why is that? What would your nonsense mean? Why do you support the lies of 911 truth? Why are you unable to bring any flight knowledge to the thread?

You were wrong about Flight 175 would crash if it missed; why are you going on a tangent, to hide your failed statement?

Why can Flight 175 maintain speed due to decent angle? What angle was it? Do we have sources to determine the decent angle?

So if the engines are off how come they are roaring in the Naudet video ? It IS the same plane after all.

[beachnut]

So if the engines are off how come they are roaring in the Naudet video ? It IS the same plane after all.
Could be off and go that fast; try to read what I said and not make up delusions based on your inability to understand.

The engines were runny because they started the fires, they caused the fireball. What was the desent angle? Any clues yet?


You figure out the distances and do the numbers. Sound is science, it is hard, and I know you don't do science and math, but try once to take your own problem and solve it so you can stop spewing lies and delusions about 911.

I know you failed to do the math to figure out Flight 175 did not have to crash if it missed; but if you do some this time, you can solve your own delusions before spreading them more and stop showing the Readers you are full of lies again.

LOL (I looked a the h-video, you got to be kidding, they are so far away you need a listening device; you FAILED again), you need to get the distance the camera was from the impact and planes. Then do the math. Can you do anything other than spreading lies and delusions on 911? Prove it.

[KingMerv00]

*Taps Bill on the shoulder*

[beachnut]

*Taps Bill on the shoulder*
She is off trying to do math for the sound problem.

She posts a video taken far from the WTC and wonders why the sound is different than a video right under the WTC. An understanding of Physics or math will ruin her delusions.

She might not understand Zoom lens; ?

How can she answer rational questions like this?
How long do you think it takes to rig/unrig a building for implosion?

I ask again, what are you implying? Planes hit the building even though it was "virtually impossible". What does that mean to you?

Got any answers for the King, miss bill smith, or is it mrs?

The videos have the same sound at different levels. One video has massive rumble of wind noise, not a jet, mixed with the jet sound. The video if studied for sound forensics, will verify it is a 767 flying at 542 knots.
She, bill smith, is wrong again. She may have hearing loss, or bad speakers; I have full range speakers. She needs to, get a pair.

[sheeplesnshills]

There would be no second chance at the angle and speed the plane was flying. They miss-they fly into the ground.

Nonsense the plane that hit WTC1 came from the north and was not in a steep descent. There are no as tall buildings south of WTC1 so it would have been able (so long as the pilot had the ability) to simply go around and try again.

The second plane was leveling out as it hit but would have had the obstacle of the Empire State etc it its path. I suspect both pilots would have lost control in trying to hit if they had made last second efforts that failed but we can't say that for sure, but both were high enough to have cleared most other buildings in NYC.

[CORed]

It was an exaggeration. I've heard some CTists say that WTC 7 was some kind of storehouse for secret government information.

And, of course, in trutherland, destroying the building is easier than shredding or burning some paper, or wiping some hard drives.

[Telltale Tom]

Well it would be a bit embarrassing if WTC 7 fell down without the impact from WTC 1, and the fires it caused. So i kinda believe Danny Jowenka that the demo of WTC 7 was a last minute decision by a 30 strong demo team, who thought it would be a good insurance wheeze to knock down WTC 7 when they saw the opportunity.

Nothing like running into a blazing building with nanothermite explosives. These guys must have been really brave.

[fess]

Well it would be a bit embarrassing if WTC 7 fell down without the impact from WTC 1, and the fires it caused. So i kinda believe Danny Jowenka that the demo of WTC 7 was a last minute decision by a 30 strong demo team, who thought it would be a good insurance wheeze to knock down WTC 7 when they saw the opportunity.

Nothing like running into a blazing building with nanothermite explosives. These guys must have been really brave.
Brave? No, stupid... and able to get by the firefighters and police officers that were moving people away, far away, from WTC7.

[Titanic Explorer]

Truthers are worse than the Larouche cult members..

[KingMerv00]

Well it would be a bit embarrassing if WTC 7 fell down without the impact from WTC 1, and the fires it caused. So i kinda believe Danny Jowenka that the demo of WTC 7 was a last minute decision by a 30 strong demo team, who thought it would be a good insurance wheeze to knock down WTC 7 when they saw the opportunity.

Nothing like running into a blazing building with nanothermite explosives. These guys must have been really brave.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Bill: How long do you think it takes to rig a building for implosion?

[KingMerv00]

I'm starting to take this personally. Beachnut gets a long and complicated response to his complicated issue while my simple questions go unanswered.

Do I smell funny or something?

If I were a cynic, I'd say the CTists like complicated questions because it allows more room to bullpoop.

[beachnut]

I'm starting to take this personally. Beachnut gets a long and complicated response to his complicated issue while my simple questions go unanswered.

Do I smell funny or something?

If I were a cynic, I'd say the CTists like complicated questions because it allows more room to bullpoop.
Face it! 911 truth cult members think this is much too complex of a plot for 911.
1. kill pilot, crew and anyone in the way
2. take plane, crash plane into large buildings in USA
That could be the problem, they can't comprehend your questions because they are as complex as the plot for 911.

I asked for math, and it makes them go crazy and flee to other threads.

They never asked me for my math. If you smell something funny it is the failed claims of 911 truth rotting after 8 years of failure.

The BS plot is good; they like the hard stuff so they can make up junk ideas. This usually last a day or two until they can't remember what they said and forgot all the big words they looked up.

[KingMerv00]

Bump for Bill and Telltale:



How long do you think it takes to rig/unrig a building for implosion?


I ask again, what are you implying? Planes hit the building even though it was "virtually impossible". What does that mean to you?