See other 9/11 Articles
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: 14786
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 599.
#480. To: Artisan, Christine, Jethro Tull, Itistoolate, Diana, All (#0)
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!)
So you don't think it was remote controlled? 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.
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?? thanks for the reply.
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.
Hi Sky - Glad to hear from you.
Because they were made of cement ond the force of the impact obliderated them. What do you ***think*** a good part of that "dust" was? That said, when the Towers collapsed, the debris was up to 14 stories tall.
Because they were made of cement ond (sic) the force of the impact obliderated (sic) them. This is what a building whose floors pancaked during an earthquake looks like. As you can see, the cement was not obliterated by the force of the collisions on each floor. The WTC tower's floors were blown up just like the rest of the building was in each building.
Ha... HA Ha... HA HA Ha... HA HA HA... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Hey Moonbat...why didn't the explosion and fire that by everyone's observation reached the core, set off any of those charges?
They did. It just didn't set off enough of them to bring the building down so they had to do it later via remote control. Oh, and that explosion, the big fire ball of jet fuel seen outside the WTC tower after impact, was mostly outside the building. If it were mostly inside the building then no one on any of those floors would have survived it. But many did.
Say "Good Night, Gracie"...
You are retarded, do you know that?
Sad the guy who believes that they built remote control redundancy into plane crash activated set charges and but doesn't understand the force/energy dynamic of a falling multi-ton structure on cement...
Hey imbecile, check this out. This is a bridge in Lebanon that was hit by missiles from Israeli jets. This bridge was much higher than the 1 floor distance in the WTC Towers. Still yet, even after falling hundreds of feet and having an actual missile hit it, it did NOT obliterate upon impact to fine dust. You might want to go back and check your physics book, you just screwed up big time. Thank god you are not a structural engineer. :)
How many tons fell upon it to make it fall?
You surely don't think that the entire WTC structure above the impact zone fell straight down at once, do you? Not even the government's loony theory goes that far. The government's theory says one floor fell, which led to the next floor falling in a domino fashion. When they say a floor fell, they mean just the floor fell, not the entire structure above it. You really need to know what it is you are trying to defend before you start defending it.
As is apparent from the videos it most certainly appeared to do so as it was the support [a combo of the trusses weakened by fire and the outer support walls bowing inward] below the level above the imapact zone that gave way thus allowing the top to fll as it was detached from the bottom. Some of the "Troofers" try to fashion the fiction that because the below impact trusses failed that the top trusses had to fail too. Unfortunately for them [and you] there is no aspect of the WTC's engineering to support that contention.
trusses weakened by fire? I thought that you said that fire wouldn't weaken steel? Or was it jet-a that wouldn't weaken steel, only that some office furnishings would weaken steel. Rather confusing. Keep going with this trolling. It's amusing. ...outer support walls bowing inward...> Now that's a howl.
I "said" that where? So were are clear...plane impact, explosion, ensuing fires were the only "conspiracy" that brought down the tires.
Yes, I can admit that all of those could, in fact, bring down tires. But not a building, or three, symmetrically.
I'm sitting a block away from where you';ve been proven wrong.
You saw the first plane hit too?
Heard it and saw the aftermath which was watching the glass on 26th Floor 1 Libtery being pelted with office debris and the wtc2 burning out of its South and East Faees...I said "I'm out of here we're under attack..." got down to the street and listened to fools opine that it was a freak accident...as I was getting ready to split for the day, I walked over to the Liberty Street side from the Cortland Street side...as I was approaching corner Church and Liberty #1 got hit...
Heard it and saw the aftermath which was watching the glass on 26th Floor 1 Libtery being pelted with office debris and the wtc2 burning out of its South and East Faees. Did you see the Arab hijackers?
I wonder if he saw any of the Magickal Jet Fuel™. Guess not, it would have probably blinded anyone who saw it or scorched them to death from a thousand feet away.
There are no replies to Comment # 599. End Trace Mode for Comment # 599.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestany debunkers?
#481. To: SKYDRIFTER (#480)
#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.
#483. To: SKYDRIFTER (#482)
#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.
#498. To: SKYDRIFTER, all (#484)
#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??
#533. To: SKYDRIFTER (#530)
#538. To: tom007 (#533)
If the floors 'pancaked', then why was there no stack of floors at the bottom?
#545. To: war, tom007 (#538)
>> If the floors 'pancaked', then why was there no stack of floors at the bottom?
#547. To: RickyJ (#545)
The WTC tower's floors were blown up just like the rest of the building was in each building.
#548. To: war (#547)
(Edited)
Hey Moonbat...why didn't the explosion and fire that by everyone's observation reached the core, set off any of those charges?
#550. To: RickyJ (#548)
They did. It just didn't set off enough of them to bring the building down so they had to do it later via remote control.
#552. To: war (#550)
Say "Good Night, Gracie"...
#553. To: RickyJ (#552)
You are retarded, do you know that?
#565. To: war (#553)
Sad the guy who believes that they built remote control redundancy into plane crash activated set charges and but doesn't understand the force/energy dynamic of a falling multi-ton structure on cement...
#569. To: RickyJ (#565)
#571. To: war (#569)
How many tons fell upon it to make it fall?
#572. To: RickyJ (#571)
You surely don't think that the entire WTC structure above the impact zone fell straight down at once
#575. To: war (#572)
As is apparent from the videos it most certainly appeared to do so as it was the support [a combo of the trusses weakened by fire and the outer support walls bowing inward]
#583. To: rack42 (#575)
trusses weakened by fire? I thought that you said that fire wouldn't weaken steel?
#584. To: war (#583)
(Edited)
plane impact, explosion, ensuing fires were the only "conspiracy" that brought down the tires.
#585. To: Critter (#584)
But not a building
#592. To: war (#585)
#593. To: mininggold (#592)
You saw the first plane hit too?
#594. To: war (#593)
You saw the first plane hit too?
#599. To: TwentyTwelve (#594)
Did you see the Arab hijackers?
Replies to Comment # 599.