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:14977 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.
#484. To: wudidiz, Christine, Jethro Tull, All (#483)
What if it was more like a guided missile system? Computers and lasers and all that? It seems hard to believe that it couldn't be done.
There is no doubt that the technology has been available since the 60s. BUT, you can't get by the issue of maintenance (observing the alteration of the electronics), the pilots & cabin crew. There's the rub.
Trust me, I've looked at that angle very closely. It's well worth considering, but too quickly fails the probability test.
There are plenty of "possibilities," but most are quick to be excluded, by the industry professionals - if they have the guts to speak out; and that's a really small number.
wait a minute. from my understanding this newly-found clip and those posting it simply purport not that planes didnt hit the towers, but that the planes were perhaps different planes than the originals which the govt claims hit the buildings.
I did not know you did not believe that the planes were remote controlled. I repsect your opinion which is why i asked.
so you are saying that you believe that there had to be real pilots flying the planes but that they were not arab boogeyman? who the heck were they then? some neocons with a zeal for empire? i dont know if that sounds plausible??
#530. To: Artisan, Christine, Jethro Tull, It istoolate, All (#498)
so you are saying that you believe that there had to be real pilots flying the planes but that they were not arab boogeyman? who the heck were they then? some neocons with a zeal for empire? i dont know if that sounds plausible??
There are a handful of viable possibilities available. If the aircraft was "remote controlled," the pilots would have the ability to either override the electronics, or at least radio that they were in dire peril, via radio, or the transponder. That pretty well rules out the "remote control" idea. It can be debated all day long, but those such as myself are qualified to cite the impossible and absurd. I keep an open mind, but there hasn't been that much viable material to speak in support of the detractor theories. Passionate nonsense & rationalization doesn't manufacture truth.
One possibility is the hand-picking of at least four black-ops pilots, willing to commit suicide. We'll probably never know.
The most important issue is that the 'official' story is so full of holes, that it looks like a chotic gause bandage. Add the massive coverup by the government agencies, aided by the robotic media.
Only Israelis were warned of 9-11, the London & Jordianian bombings. As Netanyahu said - before 'correcting' himself, "911 is very good for Israel." Being reasonable & realistic; what can anyone make of all that?
Add the Mossad "Dancing Art Students," set up to film the twin tower strikes.
Has anyone else noticed that our great "Ally" Israel never contributed as much as a troop of Boy Scouts to serve coffee in the Afghan & Iraq war crime invasions/occupations. (They don't have to!)
AND - after being the primary beneficiary of the Geneva Conventions, why is Israel not a signatory to those Conventions? By virtue of their membership in the UN, they are technically a signatory to the Geneva Conventions & Nuremberg Precedents - but tell that to the Gazzans.
We live in a time where we must subjectively establish a highly reasonable possibility. Sometimes that comes from presented facts; sometimes from presented information, which can't possibly be true.
My advice on 9-11 is to get a copy of Dr. Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited." He does quite an academic and surgical analysis of the 911 'official' accounts. I admit, I'm prejudiced on that work. I disagree with him on his conclusion that Flight 93 was shot down, but that's the only criticism I have of the book.
#559. To: SKYDRIFTER, Artisan, Christine, Jethro Tull, It istoolate, All (#530)
If the aircraft was "remote controlled," the pilots would have the ability to either override the electronics, or at least radio that they were in dire peril, via radio, or the transponder.
So you're saying that there is NO way someone with intimate knowledge of the aircraft systems could design a device to completely take over any and all systems, and that there would be no way to stop the pilot from isolating the problem and disabling the device?
>> If the aircraft was "remote controlled," the pilots would have the ability to either override the electronics, or at least radio that they were in dire peril, via radio, or the transponder.
So you're saying that there is NO way someone with intimate knowledge of the aircraft systems could design a device to completely take over any and all systems, and that there would be no way to stop the pilot from isolating the problem and disabling the device?
Why does everyone assume that there even was a crew, or passengers?
This could have been a military plane disguised as a UAL plane.
I can't understand why SKYDRIFTER hasn't answered any of my questions here concerning his view of the possibility of remote control being used in the 9/11 attacks.
#587. To: FormerLurker, RickyJ, Christine, Jethro Tull, All (#563)
I can't understand why SKYDRIFTER hasn't answered any of my questions here concerning his view of the possibility of remote control being used in the 9/11 attacks.
My sincere apologies, I got distracted by other events.