It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

flight 175 nose dive and high-speed bank

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I'm new here and apologize if this has been posted a dozen times already.

A supposed ATC rep claimed that united flight 175 was basically nosed down from an altitude of approximately 28k feet increasing speed from 3k feet per minute to around 10,000 feet per minute from 8:58am until impact at 9:03. An (suggested) apparently unprecedented speed for a commercial airliner. Another "1st time on 9/11 scenario". The pilot, presumably Al-shehhi, when the plane came down over the statue of liberty was coming in from the southwest at a slant towards the tower. In one video from a slightly northeast looking slightly south west angle you can see "the/a" plane from an angle not caught in any other footage that I am aware of. According to the video and this ATC rep the pilot excecuted two seemingly "impossible" maneuvers by pulling the plane up out of an undprecedented nose dive and suddenly banked left within seconds in order to slice into the south tower @590mph. Of all the presumed pilots Atta and Al-shehhi faired best on their flight exams, though they were still marginal. Supposed professional pilots ,whom I have never seen in a public interview, claim that 9 times out of 10 they could not have performed the said maneuvers. This is also claimed by these "unseen" pilots on the "corkscrew dive" pulled off by the alleged pilot Hani Hanjour aboard AA77 that is claimed to have hit the pentagon. Apparently he approached from the west, brought the plane down into a spiral towards the south,eventually striking from the south. Why bother,eh?






[edit on 26-12-2007 by powerdive]




posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by powerdive
 


Maybe you could fix you link? I think I know which appoach your writing about but others probably don't.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   


This is also claimed by these "unseen" pilots on the "corkscrew dive" pulled off by the alleged pilot Hani Hanjour aboard AA77 that is claimed to have hit the pentagon. Apparently he approached from the west, brought the plane down into a spiral towards the south,eventually striking from the south. Why bother,eh?


Reason I have heard for Hanjour to do this maneuver was that he
made elementary mistake on approach. Apparently programmed
auto pilot to bring him into visual range of Pentagon, but was too high
when he spotted the Pentagon. Had several options

1) Overshoot Pentagon while losing altitude, go on several miles, do
180 turn and head back toward Pentagon

2) Do a descending 270 deg turn to bleed off altitude to line up for
your approach run

3) Do a power "kamikaze" dive directly into the Pentagon

No 1 would take time to execute, could not be sure that fighters were not
in area to intercept

No 3 - dive such as this would be difficult to control. Problem is that
stress on airframe might have caused it to break up or at least shed
pieces which might throw plane off.

Option No 2 was chosen because seemed best option



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
wellll..i never have seen a picture of a wing, fuselage or anything else.
i did see the hole...my pickup would have made a hole that size?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
reply to post by powerdive
 


Maybe you could fix you link? I think I know which appoach your writing about but others probably don't.





its a great little video and sparked much debate on youtube and still does. It shows what I have previously brought up in some of the 9/11 plane type threads. Well who knows, it looks like it could of been electronically guided to its target, its certainly not impossible.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
wow thats insane....either the pilot was EXCELLENT, which we know could not possibly be the case, or it was guided by remote.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
wow thats insane....either the pilot was EXCELLENT, which we know could not possibly be the case, or it was guided by remote.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
A couple of things I noticed:
The perspective caused by the zoom lense gives a false sense of how steep the dive angle is but certainly it's good for extravagant claims and showing it to us 6 or more times consecutively with soothing music might help convince some


Accuracy? Precision? The plane almost missed and would have maybe only clipped the corner of the tower except for the last second desperate attempt to correct it.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I think that it takes a lot of accuracy and precision to fly a plane into the twin towers. So it ALMOST missed.....regardless its still an amazing feat. No way in hell any old person with a few hours behind a simulator is going to be able to visually fly a plane into NYC, and hit the towers. Not possible. Accuracy, yes. precision, yes



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by powerdive
 


Do you have valid substantiation any of the alleged hijacking pilots passed any flight exams actually having flown solo hours in any commercial aircraft, to receive certification licenses as commercial aircraft pilots or co-pilots?

Passing flight simulation play is not the same as being qualified to actually fly commercial aircraft, under any and all weather conditions or models of plane. Flight simulation would be comparable to playing at the grounded video arcade.

Until certification is proved, every video available states whoever was flying any alleged planes was certified in flying commercial and/or military aircraft. I do know an experience pilot forum member has pointed that out several times. All it takes, to prove or disprove the pilot member's statements, is to research what is required to become a certified licensed commercial jetliner pilot or co-pilot.

If anyone watched "Project X" with Matthew Broderick, and saw chimpanzees using flight simulators, that will give people a clear understanding of what is involved in use of flight simulators. It is not the same as actually operating the control panel of any commercial jetliner and flying a commercial jetliner.

The following links have a photos of flight simulators:

www.itreviews.co.uk...

rides.webshots.com...

The following is a photo of the cockpit of an actual Boeing 767:

www.airliners.net...




[edit on 27-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   
This may be off topic, but I had an interesting conversation, the other night, with someone who went through a lot of questioning by the FBI, after 9-11. She happened to be a bank teller who was dealing with trasactions made by the alledged hijackers along with the guy who was running Venice Airport in Florida. She saw them the day before 9-11 at the bank. Sounds very Queer to me, that they were going about their normal activities right before all this hijacking was supossed to be going on in Boston. Just thought I would throw this out there in case someone is interested.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by jmdewey60]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Were any of those supposed to be the ones renting car and leaving one in Portland, Maine, and then flying to Logan, and leaving another different rental car "full of incriminating evidence" parked at Logan?

If they flew out of Portalnd, they could have landed at Logan and not needed a rental car to leave at Logan.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 




If they flew out of Portalnd, they could have landed at Logan and not needed a rental car to leave at Logan.


Flight 11 and Flight 175 both originated at Boston. Each flight had five hijackers. Two hijackers flew in from Maine. Do you think the other eight hijackers were in their carry-on luggage?

Here's a novel idea; read the 9/11 Commission Report.

I find it very entertaining when a conspiracy theorists claims that there's too many inconsistencies and not enough proof to believe the official story when they have no idea what the official story says.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


That is not exactly what the following states.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...:00am%20Sept%2011%202001&timeline=complete_911_timeline

"6:45 a.m. September 11, 2001: Hijacker’s Connecting Flight Arrives in Boston Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari’s Portland-Boston flight arrives on time at Boston’s Logan Airport. [Der Spiegel, 2002] They cross a parking lot on their way to the departure terminal for Flight 11, and are observed asking for directions. The other three Flight 11 hijackers arrive at Logan in a rented car around this same time (see (6:45 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 5 ]
Entity Tags: Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari, Logan Airport
Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline
Category Tags: All Day of 9/11 Events, Flight AA 11

(6:45 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Hijackers Cause Trouble at Logan Airport; Have Flight Training Manuals in Car Flight 11 hijackers Waleed Alshehri, Wail Alshehri, and Satam Al Suqami arrive at Boston’s Logan Airport in a rental car, which they park in the airport’s central parking lot. [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 5 ] According to the News of the World, a man who arrives at Logan at “about 6:30 a.m.” for an early flight, has an argument with several Middle Eastern men over a parking space, before moving on. Some early press reports say his confrontation is with five men. [Daily Telegraph, 9/13/2001; ABC News, 9/14/2001; News of the World, 9/16/2001] However, the 9/11 Commission will later describe the incident differently. It says there are just three Middle Eastern men, and the man ends up parked next to them. One of them opens his car door to get out then spends time “fiddling with his things,” thus trapping the man in his car. Eventually he has to force his way out, but the Middle Eastern men are completely unresponsive to him, saying nothing. The man will report the incident to authorities after hearing of the attacks. However, whether he identifies the men as Flight 11 hijackers is unstated. The hijackers’ car, which is associated with either Wail or Waleed Alshehri, will be found in the lot later in the day of 9/11. [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 85 ] Inside the car, a Mitsubishi sedan rented from National Rental Car, are found Arabic-language flight training manuals. [Associated Press, 9/12/2001; Boston Herald, 9/12/2001; Daily Telegraph, 9/13/2001]
Entity Tags: Wail Alshehri, Waleed M. Alshehri, Satam Al Suqami, Logan Airport
Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline
Category Tags: All Day of 9/11 Events

(6:45 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Israeli Company Given Two Hours’ Notice of Attack “Approximately two hours prior to the first attack,” at least two workers at Odigo, an Israeli-owned instant messaging company, receive messages warning of the attack. Odigo’s US headquarters are located two blocks from the WTC. The source of the warning is unknown. [Ha'aretz, 9/26/2001; Washington Post, 9/28/2001]
Entity Tags: Odigo Inc., World Trade Center
Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline
Category Tags: All Day of 9/11 Events, World Trade Center

(6:45 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Ziad Jarrah Makes Final Phone Call to Girlfriend in Germany About an hour before boarding Flight 93, Ziad Jarrah phones his girlfriend, Aysel Senguen, who is currently recovering from a minor operation in a hospital in Germany, where she lives. [Los Angeles Times, 10/23/2001; Observer, 8/22/2004] Senguen will later recount, “[H]e was very brief. He said he loved me three times. I asked what was up. He hung up shortly afterwards.… It was so short and rather strange him saying that repeatedly.” [Reuters, 11/19/2002; Guardian, 11/20/2002] Some accounts say Jarrah makes this call from his hotel, the Days Inn in Newark. Other accounts claim he makes it from a payphone at the airport, although he does not actually check in there until later on, at 7:39 a.m. [PBS, 1/17/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 532; Observer, 8/22/2004; Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 8/22/2004; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 35 ]
Entity Tags: Ziad Jarrah, Aysel Senguen
Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline
Category Tags: All Day of 9/11 Events, Flight UA 93, Ziad Jarrah"


There are Internet sites asserting Atta had two rental cars. One left in Portland, Maine, and one at Logan. The one at Logan is alleged to be "full of incriminating evidence".

Drawing attention to, particularly making spectacles of, themselves at an airport, is certainly no way to complete a planned covert mission.

Then there is the mystery that Flight 11 was not even scheduled to fly on 9/11. So how it is, on 9/11, anyone headed for a gate to board a flight that was not scheduled on 9/11? That is per BTS.

killtown.911review.org...

"What's interesting to note is that the BTS has statistics on their website for the doomed flights of Flight 175 and Flight 93, but not for Flight 11 or Flight 77. So according to the BTS, not only did Flight 11 and Flight 77 not depart on 9/11, they weren't even scheduled to fly on 9/11. Also note that the BTS' wheels off time for Flight 93 on 9/11 is 8:28 am, 14 minutes earlier than the 9/11 Commission's reported takeoff time of 8:42 am."



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


With only 19 alleged people, how could all four flights have 5 people?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I didn't see any mention by the 9/11 commission of Mohamed Atta having two separate rental cars.

Cooperativeresearch and killtown's web site are not the 9/11 commission report.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


You said this.

Were any of those supposed to be the ones renting car and leaving one in Portland, Maine, and then flying to Logan, and leaving another different rental car "full of incriminating evidence" parked at Logan?

If they flew out of Portalnd, they could have landed at Logan and not needed a rental car to leave at Logan.


10 hijackers flew out of Boston Logan Airport. Five on each flight. I never said five on every flight. If two of them flew in from Maine that would leave eight more hijackers at Boston. How did they get to the airport? Maybe a rental car?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


www.whatreallyhappened.com...

"How did Atta leave a rental car at Logan Airport in Boston when he supposedly flew there from Portland, Maine?

The official story:

[Atta] rented a car at Logan Airport Alamo and drove to Maine [on September 10]. Then flew down from Portland, Maine, early Tuesday before connecting on Flight 11. [Boston.com]"


www.boston.com...

"Mohammad Atta, 33

Rented a car at Logan Airport Alamo and drove to Maine. Then flew down from Portland, Maine, early Tuesday before connecting on Flight 11.
Attis is from United Arab Emirates. Born in the United Arab Emirates and is believed to be the cousin of suspected United Airlines Flight 175 hijacker Marwan Al-Shehhi.

Investigators say the two followed parallel paths.

Atta received pilot training at Huffman Aviation in Venice Fla., and took two three-hour courses at SimCenter Inc. in Opa-locka, Fla., where he trained on a Boeing 727 full-motion flight simulator.

Atta lived in Venice, Coral Springs and Hollywood, Fla., and Hamburg, Germany, investigators say. He held an Egyptian driver's license.

Atta studied electrical engineering for eight years at the Technical University in Hamburg and had ties to an Islamic fundamentalist group that planned attacks on American targets, German investigators say. He and Al-Shehhi left for the United States in May.

Both went to a sports bar in Hollywood last Friday night. Atta played video games while Al-Shehhi drank with another man."


Drinking of alcohol and playing video games is not endorsed by the imams of Islam. How does anyone feign seriously calling Atta a "fundamentalist Muslim", while keeping a straight face?

Atta took two whole 3-hour courses on a 727 flight simulator, and immediately was an "expert pilot" doing daring feats with a real Boeing 767? If teenagers playing video games buy that fish story hook, line, and sinker, they better put on far more security. Teenagers have a bad habit of emulating daring feats they see publicized without examining whether or not the publications are true.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
This person who I was talking to is the wife of the guy that I work with. I was at their house on Christmas eve. History Channel was on the tv. It was a show about Nostrodanus. They got to where he supposedly predicted 9-11, and I made some comment. She jumped up and left the room. He told me that she did not like to talk about 9-11. She had to go into councelling because of the traumatic affect of seeing on tv the people you know killing three thousand people. I asked her if she would feel better if I told her that I did not think that they did it. She said, No. It was only through her crying that I could get any information. It was not just 9-11, but the FBI that messed her up. After they were done with her, she had no job and no chance of ever having a job in a bank, again. About all I could find out (as far as hard facts go) was that there was the man running the pilot school, Mohamed Atah, and two other of the hijackers in a car going through her drive-through on the day before 9-11. She said you never could have known that they were going to hijack planes the next day. She would not even talk about Attah. He obviously freaked her out pretty badly.
What seemed peculiar to me is the fact that they were acting so routinely, when they should have been someplace else, as far as I can tell.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by jmdewey60]

[edit on 27-12-2007 by jmdewey60]

[edit on 27-12-2007 by jmdewey60]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Passing flight simulation play is not the same as being qualified to actually fly commercial aircraft, under any and all weather conditions or models of plane. Flight simulation would be comparable to playing at the grounded video arcade.

Several RW pilots I know, all "qualified to fly commercial aircraft" (actually known as a CPL in the real-world, quite different from a type-rating), and type rated on these kinds of aircraft, would disagree.

The manouver is not impossible - it happened on 9/11.

10,000 ft/min rate of descent sounds a lot, and wouldn't be pleasant (if the pressurization system couldn't keep up), but aside from that, far from impossible. Aside from the high speed, g is what really matters when it comes to aircraft in that situation. If he pushed over gently (unlikely) then it is perfectly safe, given sufficient altitude to pull out without over-stressing (e.g. pulling more than +2.5 g).

On 9/11 however, the hijackers wouldn't really care in the last few moments; all aircraft have safety limits built-in ready for the "oh ****" situation, and not break apart.

I have no problems with any of the maneuvers the aircraft pulled on 9/11 - they're all possible if you throw passenger comfort out the window.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join