Originally posted by hikix
I was on Church Street when it happened.

Dear hikix:

Thanks for responding. We’re not trying to be difficult. No-planers like myself are just trying to figure out what happened on 9-11. Did you see the plane physically glide into the building while you were on Church street? Or did you “only” observe an explosion?

My intentions are not to rake you over the coals. I have a brother who lived near Church street on 9-11 and he swears he “saw the planes”. But if pressed, he defensively admits he didn’t exactly see them but has ‘friends’ who did. If you really did witness the south tower impact — please share further details — it would tremendously help many of us CT-ers comprehend what might have transpired on that dark day.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 9/23/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Here somethings...look it up

767-200 - Max cruising speed 914km/h (568mph), economical cruising speed 854km/h (531mph).

This is an educated guess, but it seems likely that whoever fed the 9-11 flight data to the newsfakers — some spooks — simply took the highest possible Boeing 757 flightspeeds right from the spec charts without thinking/understanding that they weren’t attainable at sea-level heights. People are highly specialized these days and it is unlikely that the 9-11 cabal was a well-rounded, educated, intelligent group of people. They compensated their stupidity with their ruthlessness.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Those are not max speeds those are normal flight speeds the 568mph economical cruising is their best gas speed not max. 568 is around .78 mach at cruise, and is a very normal fly all day type of speed.

The C-141 I was on for 10 years flew .74 for best gas, the C-5 was .78, the KC-135 is the fastest at about .86, and the 747 is around .83. These are all just your basic normal speeds for jets.

Just do some research on the net or your local airport.

I just can't fathom why that guy on the video would say such a goofball statement like that.



[edit on 23-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by hikix
I'd love to know who came up with this hologram theory, probably some idiot living on a farm with too much time on his hands.

Or someone sitting at a desk at the "George Bush Center For Intelligence" (AKA the CIA) seeing what ways to make us look bad. No offense CB.

I often see a lot of scientific claims but never see any mathematical proofs to back up those claims. If you can't prove your claims then you can't claim that they are true.

Here are simple reasons there were *REAL* planes and not some fake CGI.

#1. If it were the case that there weren't real planes, then can someone explain why they never bothered to also include a CGI of the plane going into the Pentagon??

#2. If their weren't *REAL* planes, then we might as well conclude that NONE Of the events were *REAL*.

#3.Corrobarating eyewitness Testimony backs up the visuals. Now notice I say--Corrobarating--, that is because it is a strong piece of evidence in a court of law.

Our entire Court system relies on *EYEWITNESS* testimony in many cases where other evidence is lacking. YES there are some times differences, YES there are often conflicting testimony. But once you can get a pattern of *AGREEMENT* then that is considered very strong.

If the *NO PLANE* thing was true, then you might as well do away with *HISTORY*, our Court System and Justice, You might as well do away with anything that has *EYEWITNESSES* so there goes everything.

#4. The No Plane theorists never put UP THE ORIGINAL but often are busy putting up highly compressed visuals.

How do we know they didn't "TAMPER" with the evidence? Not saying they did, but they seem to want YOU TO TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT!

IF the Media tampered with everything, then why should I believe the No Plane Theorists. For all I know,they may be tampering with everything as well!

#5. I want the no plane people to put up a large number of Good Angled video's that show NOTHING HITTING THE TOWERS AND THEN AN EXPLOSION.

I am not talking about far away wrong angled shots, but shots from the right place.

Obviously they can't. So if this is the case can they answer how on Earth did the MEDIA ALSO CONTROL EVERY SINGLE TONY with a film camera pointed at the Towers that Day??

#6. It would be utterly STUPID for the Military to CGI video into the Media's feed when everyone happened to be looking at Both Towers after the first tower was hit. Who on earth would plan something so stupid. The chances of the Feed going wrong, the millions of New Yorkers speaking up about seeing nothing.

NEW YORK is definitely not the city to do something like that, since it is one of the most vocal on earth. The City itself refutes the idea that there were No planes.

There were planes, there were large explosions, and there were many people killed that day.



[edit on 23-9-2007 by talisman]

You've GOT to be kidding me. Them 'engineers', have got no clue what they're talking about.

In normal operations the 767 shouldn't exceed 250 knots when below 10 000 feet for safety. However, you can be wavered from this rule if you request (or are requested) where your maximum speed near sealevel is 320-350 knots.

There is not a thing in the world which is going to stop a 767 from flying 500mph if the pilot REALLY wants to. All you'd get is a very annoying warning sound, not to mention you'd have to be gentle with the controls.

If anyone wants to debate how fast a plane can go above VNE (Never exceed speed), you should really search for FedEx Flight 705 and China Airlines Flight 006. Good luck.

Originally posted by talisman #5. I want the no plane people to put up a large number of Good Angled video's that show NOTHING HITTING THE TOWERS AND THEN AN EXPLOSION.

Dear talisman:

You make one good point that there ought to be some pictures/videos showing only an explosion — without any planes — hitting the twin towers. But, indeed there aren’t.

I don’t really have a super-straight answer for that. I still don’t think it’s a coincidence that the south tower was hit from the south, the opposite side of where the north tower was impacted from and the opposite side of the city where the second plane originated from, Boston, MA. Perhaps this way there were less cameras focused on that side of the building.

I have no explanation, other than perfect media control. How can this be possible? How can anything be controlled so entirely? Well this brings me to a related subject which I have been wondering about since 9-11-2001 itself. Why are there no ‘gory’ 9-11 images on the internet. I realize it’s morbid and troubling to bring this up, but why are there no pictures of 9-11 victims anywhere to be found? Surely they must exist. A single image of a someone burned to death in one of the many charred cars might shock us into understanding what sort of forces were present at the destruction of the WTC’s. Three thousand people died and not one picture has made it past censorship. So maybe total control is possible…

Perturbed,
The Wizard In The Woods