911 'planes' - impossible speed

Originally posted by anti72
what is this? brainwashing? trolling?
and, the Titanic is completely off-topic.

Do you believe the Titanic was sunk by an iceberg? Do you think it was found at the bottom of the Atlantic?

I will NOT believe a gov´s institution confirming that. just as simple.
its not ignorance, its called intelligence.

So you wouldn't look at all availible information impartially to derive a sound conclusion?

Yet you describe this partial gathering of information as intelligent..and not ignorant?

Interesting...and a bit disturbing.

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

Do you believe the Titanic was sunk by an iceberg? Do you think it was found at the bottom of the Atlantic?

I will NOT believe a gov´s institution confirming that. just as simple.
its not ignorance, its called intelligence.

So you wouldn't look at all availible information impartially to derive a sound conclusion?
Yet you describe this partial gathering of information as intelligent..and not ignorant?
Interesting...and a bit disturbing.

just read.not talk about the Titanic.
and,yes, sometimes its better to NOT believe what the gov claims..For some people that maybe´outrageous´.
cheers

FBI Refuses To Confirm Identity Of 9/11 Planes
rinf.com...
rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/fbi-refuses-to-confirm-identity-of-911-planes/1875/

visibility911.com...
visibility911.com/blog/?p=500

[edit on 13-8-2008 by anti72]

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Look, here are a few pictures of United airliners going SLOW ( opposed to VERY fast in a stressful situation like on 9/11)

You can still see how some are lighter and others darker, due to either the camera, the lighting, or the photographer.

I'm not seeing a black plane. Yes, one is lighter than the other, but neither is black.

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
BTW- I can still make out the United markings in your first photo..the angle and quality of the second one prevents them from being seen, but that does not make them go away, it just isn't a good angle.

Please point out the "markings" you see.

You do realize the first picture is one of a set that was shown on CNN at 3:15p.m. and then later shown as video, right? It's proven fake because the "plane" in the video is not a plane at all, it's a JASSM missile.

I posted about it here.

Taxi you flatter me with the genius dig. I'm sure you will make quite alot of freinds around here with that attitude. The 737 engine laying on Murray street must have been dropped there by popular science. Lighten up on people. We all suffered great tragedy. That day. There are enough anomolies surrounding the event to evoke discussion of it. Hopefully in the spirit of politeness. quote]Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

Originally posted by jpm1602
The enigma is the terror in her voice saying that is not an American airliner. What would have caused such an outburst? I make no claims on the veracity of 911, it's snafu'ed enough.
I just find it very curious why she would have said this.

What would have caused such an outburst? ARE YOU KIDDING???

The fact that ANOTHER plane had slammed into a WTC tower ( thus revealing the first impact was NO ACCIDENT!)

And it WASN'T and American Airlines jet that hit the South Tower.. It was A UNITED jetliner ( not silver.. but grey and blue)

Do you want to know what the FIRST thing I did when I read your post?

I went to the charlatan video "in plane site" to check and see if the blonde ladies description/reaction was the FIRST or the Second impact.. Look at the Smoke genius. Not the camara angle.

There was a butt-load of smoke filling the sky from the EARLIER "first" A.A. flt 11 impact and the MUCH more RECENT after effects of the Second impact UNITED flt 175 around the towers. Her reaction actually implies that the FIRST impact was an American Airlines jet..and the SECOND impact was not..it was something different...like United Airlines.

Mystery solved.. And I am FLAT-OUT embarrassed that there is not a higher level of research prevailant in the American society.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but no one will grow if they only hear mindless agreement

[edit on 8/13/2008 by jpm1602]

I don't usually drop into the 9/11 forum anymore... but is this what it's become? Using MICROSOFT FLIGHT SIMULATOR for evidence? Ummm, ok.... Microsoft Flight Simulator is a unrealistic pile of crap when it comes to abnormal maneuvers. Check back on my youtube account - here: www.youtube.com...

And I'll upload a video which will show why MSFS is a pile of crap, and two, the guy who made that video is a retarded little pansy who doesn't even know how to fly MSFS properly.

reply to post by C0bzz


so, you say, all the info of pilots and engineers are wrong?
ok.

reply to post by anti72


No, but I am saying the MICROSOFT FLIGHT SIMULATOR is wrong. Oh, and tons of pilots will tell you that it is possible.... Weedwacker flew the 767 / 757...

[edit on 13/8/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz
Weedwacker flew the 767 / 757...

Weedwhacker also had professional training, regular evaluations and plenty of experience at flying those planes.

He wasn't a newbie hi-jacker with minimal training (at best) pushing the alleged plane to its limits, to collide almost dead centre into the targets three out of four times on the same day.

All while the best pilots in the world were sitting in their dorms, with their thumbs up their arses, instead of being scrambled to intercept the allegedly hijacked planes, with their F-15/6s, for nearly two hours!

[Totally off topic - Weedwhacker, how was your cruise? I bet you had a gay old time, huh (gay as in happy)? It's good to see you back.]

[edit on 13-8-2008 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw


Well if someone's going to consider engineers and pilots who think it was fake, then it's important to consider the engineers and pilots who think it was real. Otherwise it's a double standard - i.e. unjustified differentiation. That's all I'm saying dude.

[edit on 13/8/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz
That's all I'm saying dude.

No arguments there, dude. I can see how both sides chime in with what they think is believable.

It's too bad that John Lear doesn't frequent here anymore. He was hoping to host the FlightSim experiment a while ago to see if novice pilots could hit the towers dead centre on their first run.

It was probably as close as we would have got to obtaining real data about the possibility of performing the stunts that those alleged planes did on that day.

I still want to know how UA175 managed to avoid being filmed live by the NBC Chopper 4 as it was allegedly less than ten seconds from striking the tower... hmmm...

Yea, thats what I said way back in 2004... that they couldn't be that low flying that fast.. but i was shot down by Areonaughtical engineers and Im just a little ole computer repairman. Pilots for 911 truth is the spot to learn more about it...

reply to post by BornPatriot


yes, interesting site.do you have an overview what most of the pilots think,
is there a certain agreement about some of the events?

Well most have tried to duplicate what happend that day. And even the best of the best -- John Lear -- was unable to duplicate the manuvers -- suggesting that they where not manned aircraft.. I would say is their conclusion -- but I dont want to put words in their mouths... thats just my cumulative assessment.

reply to post by anti72



Even better yet, if you dropped a vacuum from the top story of one of the towers, it would have taken about 10 seconds to fall with NO RESISTANCE. The towers fell in about 9 seconds, with every floor on the way down serving as resistance... How did that happen??

reply to post by BornPatriot


yeah, I heard John´s story. he also thinks there were no planes, but holograms.
just wondered what other pilots think.

greets