Title: 9/11 UAL 175 Plane on Radar AFTER It Has 'Crashed' Into The WTC; (MSNBC) Source:
, URL Source:http://, Published:Mar 16, 2009 Author:msnbc Post Date:2009-03-16 13:04:41 by Artisan Ping List:*9-11*Subscribe to *9-11* Keywords:None Views:11938 Comments:607
#480. To: Artisan, Christine, Jethro Tull, Itistoolate, Diana, All (#0)
any debunkers?
I've looked at these issues with total disgust. You're seeing a "re-creation" which can be anything that the program operator wants it to be. The major question being, "Okay, where's the original computer data, from which these images were created???"
I've never discovered anything valid which denies that the Tower hits were anything but as valid as what we saw on the news of 9-11. The give-away of the truth of the Twin Towers is the difficulty of the last-second maneuvering of both aircraft; as those buildings become a really difficult target to hit, at those kinds of flying speeds. That also tells a professional pilot that there were no idiots at the controls of those aircraft - and that the strikes were hand-flown; at least in the last seconds. The 'mystery' being in the identity/nationality of the actual pros who did that flying. Who else has a cause worth dying for (It wasn't Islam!)
#482. To: RickyJ, Coral Snake, Christine, Jethro Tull, Itistoolate, Diana, All (#481)
With a camera mounted in the plane I don't see why a pilot on the ground couldn't have done it.
I've hand-flown that generation of aircraft into 'tight' airports such as Burbank & Orange County. With landing gear down, & full flaps at 150 mph, it's tough enough to hit the landing zone; at that speed. Take the speed up to 300 knots & no remote control pilot could do it. Add that no such camera would go undetected by maintenance or the pilots.
Add that the pilots would have to be done-in, to preclude their override of any "remote control." The "remote control" debate fails the smell-test, from the very beginning.
Take the speed up to 300 knots & no remote control pilot could do it. Add that no such camera would go undetected by maintenance or the pilots.
Add that the pilots would have to be done-in, to preclude their override of any "remote control." The "remote control" debate fails the smell-test, from the very beginning.
You're assuming that the government's bag of equipment contains the same equipment you can buy off the shelf. Of course they would have technology MUCH more sophisticated than anything publicly available, and it would CLASSIFIED so neither you nor anyone else would know what feats could be performed using THEIR remote control equipment.
Needless to say, if a cruise missile can hit its target, so can a larger and slower aircraft.
As far as the maintenance crew, who's to say the crew wasn't infiltrated by black ops? And who knows how well the government could conceal a device if they really wanted to...
Needless to say, if a cruise missile can hit its target, so can a larger and slower aircraft.
As far as the maintenance crew, who's to say the crew wasn't infiltrated by black ops? And who knows how well the government could conceal a device if they really wanted to...
There may have been no crew at all, no passengers, just a military jet plane guided using the latest missile guiding technology to hit the WTC buildings. At 550 MPH that would be a piece of cake with our current technology.
I watched the second plane go in and I a) knew it was UAL and b) was pretty sure it was a 767 b ut I did have some question that it might have been a 737...
Your other problem is that the second flight has been captured on several videos and yet another problem you have is the recorded conversation between the AA 11's flight attendent and AA's ground ops.
I watched the second plane go in and I a) knew it was UAL
You knew no such thing. You only know what you saw, you have no way of knowing what plane that really was despite markings on it. It would be very easy to put a United logo on a military plane.