It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by airspoon
Look, I think we are working for the same goal here. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here but more importantly, I just want to get to the truth, whatever that truth may be.

With that being said, are you suggesting that the aircraft was flying into headwinds due to this picture?

The aircraft is turning into a headwind.

It is certainly NOT turning into a 103 mph tailwind.

You can see this as you see the smoke grace above and touch the top of the South tower.

Do you disagree?

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:33 PM
Which means..terrorists not only took over the "home run"anti-hijacking systems and remote-controlled jets in to the buildings, they also planted explosives, probably of the exotic type:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:37 PM
reply to post by trebor451

Mm, and don't let the simple matter that top military brass and intelligence officers, ex Whitehouse elite and hundreds of experts and professionals believe there is something very wrong with the OS, don't let this ever suggest that your US District Court Judge Denny Chin, who I am sureis in full possession of all the facts, could conceivably be wrong.

Don't take my word for it, heavens no, but perhaps you could put your prejudice aside for a moment and consider that not all the people on the list below, and hundreds more top experts believe something is 'rotten':


Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (bio)

Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said:

"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"

U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:

"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "

President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11
U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."

For a much longer list of top people in their fields who have serious doubts, please go to:

But, I mean, if US District Judge Denny Chin says all these top brass, experienced experts are just complete idiots spewing bulloney then hey, who are we to disbelieve District Judge Chenny? I mean, Chenny is omnipotent and omniscient, isn't he?

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:39 PM
S0 ---- what is the reason for the cover-up?

Oops...untraceable micro-nukes are already all over the place. Suitcase fusion-fusion devices?

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:40 PM

Originally posted by earthdude
It is so funny how you can tell by the writting style that Tiffany is not a woman. Women argue differently than men, even the lesbians. The elephant is not in the room and there is no smoking gun for me. I do think a plane did not go down in the spot they staged in Skanksville and the hole in the pentagon seems just wrong. Too bad the truthers don't have a unified theory. Here is mine:
The CIA ripped off Bin Laden, he sent some guys to get even, they crashed into the twin towers. This greatly benefited American Oil interests. Flight 93 was shot down and something strange hit the pentagon. I suspect an inside job. That is all I have.

OMG! Where are the thread police!
Or is this proof that people are brainwashed this easily? IF you believe stereotypes like this, then yeah, you believe the government.
Many women have rational arguments. Darn the Reps for Sarah Palin!

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:41 PM
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Ok I re read the OP and I am still getting the same thought.
There were 2 planes that hit two towers.
I think that the planes were visually identified also.
If you are saying there is no way those airplanes could fly that fast, look at the video. They are doing it.
Now could the problem with the airspeed difference be between MPH and KPH?
A MPH is measured 1760 where a knot is 2000 maybe?
Other than that dunno what to say kiddo, the video clearly shows.
Forgive me please on my lack of flightification knowledge as I am not the aerioplanographical type.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:43 PM

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Helmkat

As pointed out in the presentation, if you think the NTSB data is wrong, you should think twice about getting on an aircraft in the NY area or arriving to a terminal area, as all separation is done by speed and radar.
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

I understand what they are saying but they are forgetting one important condition of the situation. The aircraft were not performing within normal parameters. Radar is rythmic in nature and a lot can happen between one sweep and the next. The systems used on 9/11 and today are not optomized for conditions experienced that day. So for your everyday flights around the world? sure the systems are fine but once you have lots of course/speed/apsect changes you are entering a scenario more akin to combat situations and again the everyday traffic control systems are not up to snuff for that.

Have you reviewed the NTSB radar data? The Lat/Long? The Mode C returns within 10 miles of 3 primary airports? And if so, what do you think is the margin of error associated with their analysis?

More than 100 knots in error?

Because that is what you need for a plausible speed.

I will say this. I have seen a SR-71 tracked at mach 10 and that is plainly not possible. Radar is not perfect, far from it, it can be fooled in a myraid of ways. The Radar data should be taken with a huge old lump of salt.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:43 PM

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Ok I re read the OP and I am still getting the same thought.
There were 2 planes that hit two towers.
I think that the planes were visually identified also.
If you are saying there is no way those airplanes could fly that fast,

Read the OP again.

Read the words, "An Aeronautical Improbability".

That is not me saying it, it is Dwain Deets.

Then click the links in the OP and listen to the interviews with 767 Capts from American and United airlines who have actual command time in the reported aircraft, all 4, who say the speeds are IMPOSSIBLE.

Again, not me saying it, they are.

I happen to agree with Deets.

You don't.


We agree to disagree.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:45 PM
How I wish people would really go and spend a day reading up on all the evidence and arguments before spouting blind opinions.

This is a HUGELY serious matter and has been the cause of millions of deaths.

At the very least it deserves SERIOUS consideration based on an appraisal of all the evidence which is available.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:46 PM
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

What I'm trying to get at, is judging from the two different pictures posted in this thread, we can't really get a good idea of which direction the building smoke is blowing. At first, it would appear that the smoke is going in the same direction in which the plane is coming, however this is just an illusion due to the 2 dimensional aspects of the photos and the camera position. I believe that the building smoke was blowing towards Brooklyn during the UA175 impact, which would put the plane flying into the same semi-direction of the tail winds.

The photos given are not adequate enough to determine exact wind direction at the required altitude. I will however look for more photos and videos, then using landmarks, I will try to determine the exact direction of the wind. Even still, this may not be entirely accurate due to the heat and vortex coming from the buildings that could change the immediate direction of the wind.

I will research a little further and get back to you, however just know that the photos posted thus far, are not good markers to judge by, especially that animated GIF.


posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:46 PM

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I am a truther myself and don't believe the OS.
However, this report has a fundamental flaw.
That flaw being that it is assumed by the writer
that these aircraft cannot exceed certain limitations
in design when in actuality all kinds of vehicles
including submarines have safe operating limits.
But when under stress can exceed those numbers.
And if they can exceed those numbers then for proper
testing would require a test flight to fly said model
as fast as it could go until it actually broke up and
splintered in mid-air. To my knowledge, these tests
have never been done. So to prove this report to
have merit he would have to prove at what speed
these models actually broke apart.

To second that these pilots have never pushed those planes to their limits before so how can they say with certainty that these planes could not pull it off. We all know the OS is BS but this is a waste of an angle of it.

I flew from O'Hare int. to Tampa in 1.5hrs after a delay do to a storm. The plane was a 757, as we taxied the female pilot said well it looks like there is a long line ahead. We sat on the runway for about five minutes. She comes over the PA and says oh cool we got permission to go on a different runway, we moved to that one and she locked the brakes.
She then told us all to hold on that this one was going to be good as we need to get out of here before they stop us again. She revved those engines to max power and about shook the plane apart before we took off like a F-14 from an aircraft carrier. I fly allot and I have never seen a passenger jet take off like that, we were hauling ass the whole trip.

669.3 miles an hour for that trip.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:47 PM
reply to post by g146541

"I think that the planes were visually identified also."

You could try doing a google search to find out more about whether the planes were identified.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Helmkat

I will say this. I have seen a SR-71 tracked at mach 10 and that is plainly not possible.

Was it tracked up the Hudson river with 3 ASR radar within 10 miles?

The Radar data should be taken with a huge old lump of salt.

"A lump of salt"? Really....

I'm sure those shooting approaches to minimums at JFK, LGA, EWR and every other terminal hub would love to hear your story.

Go in the terminals and tell the passengers at the gate, just before they board for a socked in airport on the east or west coast. Tell them the radar vectoring them to the approach gate should be taken with a "huge grain of salt".

Let us know the reaction you get.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:49 PM
reply to post by Mobius1974

Won in court? Are you a moron*? (asking a question, no insult intened) The "real" court battles haven't even begun.

Everything you express is opinion based on emotion. You have not provided one piece of evidence to back your claims against Tiffany. You and your buds can spew all the crap you want but you double digit IQers are the only ones who believe each other. Most intelligent readers understand about your blogger circle jerk.

Why don't you contact Boeing engineers (teams) who were actively involved in the RD&T of each of the 767 series units, and without making any reference to 9-11, ask the known actual limits - NOT the advertised safe limits of the planes? Afraid it will bust your bubble?

Lacking education is not a terrible thing but denying it is.

Main Entry: mo·ron
1 usually offensive : a person affected with mild mental retardation
2 : a very stupid person

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:53 PM
YouTube - UFO - helicopter_films_world_trade_center_ufo


posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Sky watcher
669.3 miles an hour for that trip.

A 100 - 200 knot tailwind is not unheard of... at 30,000 feet and above. Especially if your pilots took advantage of the jetstream.

It appears they did, considering storms were at your departure.

Learn troughs and ridges and what causes them.

Also learn the Tropopause.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:09 PM

Originally posted by airspoon
The photos given are not adequate enough to determine exact wind direction at the required altitude.

How about this one?

The aircraft which hit the south tower was turning into a headwind. It had a left quartering headwind. It did not have a tailwind, nor any type of tailwind component.... and certainly not a 103 mph tailwind.

You can also find METAR archives on the net. Also local stations report between 300-330 degrees at 10-20 knots.

This is a headwind based on final course for the reported UA175.

The surface winds and winds aloft at 1000 feet make sense as the most crisp days east of the Mississippi during the fall is weather brought down from Canada.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:13 PM
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

I read till I was blind screaming and scratching at my eyes!
But still we have film of planes hitting the towers at some speed.
Look I am not looking for truth in this arena, I have waaay too many other questions regarding this day and all of the information that conveniently came out in the following days.
So now that we know that I know not a dern thing about planes as it is not anywhere near a specialty of mine other than a few cool video games that I’m sure don’t give you the real feel, I’ll just give up on this pursuit as if you were to, and you did spell it out I still wouldn’t understand.
So… truth on this one angle is beyond me. I am more concerned of other things I do know of like making a building fall perfectly pancaking perfectly by hitting it up top.. oh yeah twice.
And then making another building blocks away fall perfectly just like the other two.
The only thing I do not understand about those was the demolition teams did not board up any neighboring windows when they set the explosives nor did they surround the buildings with plywood walls. They got lucky no other buildings were damaged.
4 planes absolutely disintegrated that is strange and well you know I’m sure the days stories had holes in them larger than said planes.
So we will not agree to disagree I will just concede victory shut up and sit down as I’m not the person to argue about avionics and the like.
However, I will reserve the right to shake my fist in the air at your general direction.

Either way I think this is a fruitless pursuit as we will never get a conviction, and if we did the full amount of persons would never get prosecuted. That is what truly sucks.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by g146541]

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:15 PM
ok, dont want to sound rude or anything, but if you look into a similar thread on 9/11 on ATS, i cant find it, but maybe some other peeps might,you will find a few posts which basically prove the theories put forward here as flawed....i cant remeber if they were papers from test pilots or aeronautical engineers, maybe someone will remember....

for me 9/11 happened as it happened on the wtc's but i think it was "spiced up" a bit, so the powers that be let it run its course to give them a stronger excuse to go to war....

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:19 PM

Originally posted by g146541
But still we have film of planes hitting the towers at some speed.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth nor Dwain Deets dispute that planes hit the towers. It is not listed as any of the possibilities in the OP.

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in