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

In the videos, the aircraft that hit the WTC towers sure looked like large Boeings. I can understand the concern about speeds being too high but what is the explanation then, that they had modified engines? Were they structurally re-enforced as well so that they wouldn't break apart? If so, what was the reason for this? Is it claimed that at 400 knots, they wouldn't have caused as much damage? Besides, I thought the common thought around here was the explosives were planted in the WTC. Why go to all the bother to use modified planes then?

Originally posted by ghofer
In the videos, the aircraft that hit the WTC towers sure looked like large Boeings. I can understand the concern about speeds being too high but what is the explanation then,

That is for the govt to explain.

However Deets gives his thoughts on the possibilities in the OP.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


I am not dictating events from someones story.. I am telling you what I saw with my eyes.. I dont care who it proves wrong or right!!! What is wrong with you? Nvm.. I thought I would add something to this.. I am now finding myself regreting ever reading your thread..Somewhere there is a man that just wishes you would hush up and listen to him more. Have a good night folks.. I am not contributing to this thread anymore.. What we have here is a OP that is looking to convince the masses!!!

This is where you come across as pompous..

If you were to look at both of your maps.. you would see that the 2 oclock that I describe could happen in either case..... Just the one that you says happen.. we would have not seen the plane fly across in front of us... I have no clue the flight path nor have I ever looked it up... I only know what I saw.. My buddy said "hey look" I looked then watched what i watched..

I can only asume that you dont believe me.. but shoot, I wouldnt expect you to.. It doesnt fit your story..

Dont respond.. I wont be back.. your not worth another minute of my time!

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

I am not dictating events from someones story.. I am telling you what I saw with my eyes.. I dont care who it proves wrong or right!!! What is wrong with you? Nvm.. I thought I would add something to this.. I am now finding myself regreting ever reading your thread..Somewhere there is a man that just wishes you would hush up and listen to him more. Have a good night folks.. I am not contributing to this thread anymore.. What we have here is a OP that is looking to convince the masses!!!

The flight path you describe is fatal to the govt story. You should go on the record.

If you were to look at both of your maps.. you would see that the 2 oclock that I describe could happen in either case.....

I know, but one path resembles what you describe, the plane "flying south", then turning around your position as you were heading almost directly north, between the Pentagon and Crystal city.This path is fatal to the govt story.

If you saw the NTSB flight path, you would have to be roughly 7-10 miles from the Pentagon to see the aircraft at your 2 oclock, and you wouldn't be heading almost directly north.

These are the facts. I believe you of what you saw as many other witnesses describe the same thing.

Unfortunately, it doesn't support the govt story. This is why we are here, because the govt story doesn't add up to what people saw, nor the data govt agencies have provided.


Again, you should really watch National Security Alert and go on the record.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


The CIT doco is good. The witnesses DO confirm a NOC Flight Path. However, it is still possible that a plane hit the building, even with a NOC flightpath-(Check out the thread by Labtop covering this).

BUT, if the real Flight 77 hit the Pentagon - Why did they LIE and release a FALSE flight path (SOC) then stage the light poles and Lloyd with his cab?

This is the reason, I don't believe that the real Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but I do believe a look-a-like plane hit.

Mobius should check it out.

Mobius1974 is typical of many witnesses to events of 9/11. They are very convinced of their own interpretation of events. In some cases, like feeling a concussion wave, they don't realize the real significance of what they are a witness to.

Craig Ranke and others have mentioned the peculiarities of witnesses in numerous posts. Witnesses are very susceptible to peer influence and the herd instinct. Everyone, including me, is susceptible to some extent to those subtle influences.

Mobius1974 is not the first Pentagon witness I have run into who talks of feeling the blast wave that occurred there. An ordinary plane crash would not produce such a wave.

Many people simply do not want to know the truth of what happened on 9/11. It's too awful.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Ignorance is bliss I suppose. But the data is there and all analysis is based on data.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink - comes to mind.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Ignorance would be me dismissing that you do not have any facts. None. All you have is speculation given by individuals who cannot tell me anything specific. Can these people give me specific names of those involved with the conspiracy? Can they tell me where these people met, how they are related, and what they specifically talked about? Is there a money trail, tape recordings between defendant A and B, or anything that can incriminate those involved?

Substantial evidence? Where is it?

Originally posted by Skyline74
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

The CIT doco is good. The witnesses DO confirm a NOC Flight Path. However, it is still possible that a plane hit the building, even with a NOC flightpath-(Check out the thread by Labtop covering this).

BUT, if the real Flight 77 hit the Pentagon - Why did they LIE and release a FALSE flight path (SOC) then stage the light poles and Lloyd with his cab?

This is the reason, I don't believe that the real Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but I do believe a look-a-like plane hit.

Mobius should check it out.

Actually, it is impossible for the aircraft to cause the physical damage at the Pentagon if it were on the NOC path.

Math and physics here.

North Approach Impact Analysis

But we are getting off topic. Feel free to start another thread.

I was just trying to see if Mobuis will go on record, but some people just don't want to think their govt may have had something to do with 9/11, even if what they saw is completely fatal to the govt story.

reply to post by Mobius1974

Promise?

This thread has gone pretty typical for a 911 topic. It seems that some members, like you unfortunately, spend an inordinate amount of time trying to PROVOKE the OP, and that tactic is often successful. I mean, REALLY, you have such a heart rending personal story, and the OP must be heartless to cast an eyewitness aside like an innocent occupant of a building targeted for destruction...
SO successful have these tactics (like YOURS) been in fact, that many in the past have simply thrown up their hands when verbally harassed and said, "eff it", it ain't worth it, these people will NEVER get it. But, the fact that YOU are throwing YOUR hands up is truly inspiring! Please keep your word! Thank you from the bottom of my heart! May you find something more useful to do with your time!

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Ignorance is bliss I suppose. But the data is there and all analysis is based on data.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink - comes to mind.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Ignorance would be me dismissing that you do not have any facts. None. All you have is speculation given by individuals who cannot tell me anything specific. Can these people give me specific names of those involved with the conspiracy? Can they tell me where these people met, how they are related, and what they specifically talked about? Is there a money trail, tape recordings between defendant A and B, or anything that can incriminate those involved?

Substantial evidence? Where is it?

Disinfo Tactic number 14.

www.benfrank.net...

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.

Section31, we don't know exactly what happened. That's what we're trying to figure out.

What we do know is that the govt story doesn't add up and has a mountain of conflicting data and information and 1000's of experts in their fields raising the BS flag on the govt story.

If you want to think it's all speculation, be my guest, but it's all based on data. Data that is used in a court of law all the time. Are you familiar with Flight Data Recorders?

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by ghofer
In the videos, the aircraft that hit the WTC towers sure looked like large Boeings. I can understand the concern about speeds being too high but what is the explanation then,

That is for the govt to explain.

However Deets gives his thoughts on the possibilities in the OP.

I read the articles. They didn't seem to have an explanation. To me it seems much more likely that the planes were unmodified Boeings. Surely the airlines would have noticed if their planes had been modified and surely the pilots would have noticed on takeoff that their planes were different. 510 knots at sea level is only Mach 0.76. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that these aircraft could have survived a short time at these velocities. The early jet aircraft routinely approached speeds close to Mach 1.0 without falling apart. I do fly small jets but I haven't flown airliners before so I guess the pilots would know better, but any alternative explanation to me sounds less likely.

If you were to believe these pilots, somehow these aircraft had to be modified structurally and had to have higher-thrust engines. How would you even be able to structurally modify an airliners without having an entirely new design? How could you install engines with significantly more thrust without them being larger in size?

I can't say one way or another if 9/11 was a conspiracy but this theory is starting to get much too complicated. If it was a gov't job, it would make more sense to me if they used the simplest plan possible that didn't involve extensively modifying airliners and hoping the pilots wouldn't notice or the witnesses seeing the planes crash into the towers... much too risky.

Originally posted by Stewie


This thread has gone pretty typical for a 911 topic. It seems that some members, like you unfortunately, spend an inordinate amount of time trying to PROVOKE the OP, and that tactic is often successful. I mean, REALLY, you have such a heart rending personal story, and the OP must be heartless to cast an eyewitness aside like an innocent occupant of a building targeted for destruction...

But in this case, I'm not trying to cast him aside. I would like him to go on record. His story corroborates many witnesses, the path they all describe and corroborate is fatal to the govt story.

Once Mobius realized this, I guess it was just too emotional. He probably had a chill go up his spine when I pointed out that what he saw implicates a govt cover-up at the very least, and perhaps govt complicity and the most.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Pardon me but , the first link to the map that you claim is an early release is not that , at all .

The first map was not released until AFTER the OFFICIAL flight path contained in your second link .

Here is part of a post I made in another thread , explaining the origin of your first map :


" I found your map here : www.thepowerhour.com...
www.thepowerhour.com...

" Flight Path by a Former Air Force Pilot "

Your map is nothing more than an "Analysis by Steve Koeppel , Palm Springs, CA."

I will now quote directly from his article :

"... I'm surprised that I haven't seen ... ANY map - of the Pentagon airplane's approach ."

" I have yet to see a map showing the route flown by the aircraft that was said to have hit the Pentagon . So I read some of the reports and put together the attached maps ."

" I based my map of the attack path on a description of the attack ... which said the plane was initially picked up on radar east-southeast of Dulles ... heading at high speed toward Washington ."

" Of course , this is all speculations , not facts ."

"This guy admits that this is his analysis and speculation .

The guy copyrighted his page in 2007.

NTSB reports that show an entirely different flight path were published in 2006 . "




[edit on 13-7-2010 by okbmd]

[edit on 13-7-2010 by okbmd]

Originally posted by ghofer

I read the articles. They didn't seem to have an explanation.

Here, let me copy/paste it for you.

(1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200;
(2) the radar data was compromised in some manner;
(3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or
(4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target.

You seem to agree with possibility number 4. Great. Thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by Section31
All you have is speculation given by individuals who cannot tell me anything specific. Can these people give me specific names of those involved with the conspiracy? Can they tell me where these people met, how they are related, and what they specifically talked about?

Look at the Thompson Timeline. A lot of that sort of information is there. Have the perps been broken down in police interrogations and fessed up? No. A lot of very reasonable indicators of the gestation of the 9/11 plot have been discovered though.

Is there a money trail, tape recordings between defendant A and B, or anything that can incriminate those involved?

The story of Mohammed Atta is germane here. His connection to General Ahmad of Pakistan's ISI and his friendship with Wofgang Bohringer of the CIA.

Let me tell ya 'bout Mohammed Atta

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Substantial evidence? Where is it?

Dick Cheney: "The order still stands."

Larry Silverstein: "Pull it."

The spike in the M1 money supply just prior to 9/11.

The first three buildings in the history of high rise steel frame construction to "collapse" from fire damage . . . all on the same day.

The CIT witnesses.

The President and the Vice President testifying to the 9/11 Commission, together and not under oath.

The smell. As Hugo Chavez might say, "The smell of sulpher is pervasive in all things 9/11."


[edit on 13-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

I would like to believe that, but there is a U2U involved that leads me to believe differently, I will leave it at that.
In addition, I just don't trust people who keep coming to the party with nothing. And to often, the OP supplies the entertainment for them for free.
Anyway, good work. I am on your side, mate.

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Pardon me but , the first link to the map that you claim is an early release is not that , at all .

The first map was not released until AFTER the OFFICIAL flight path contained in your second link . Therefore , it is incorrect and in bad taste to equate this with the OS .

The NTSB Flight Path Study was not released until Aug 2006. Geo Wash University was the first to get it. Pilots For 9/11 Truth, second.

The 270 degree turn "Down The River Approach" was offered sometime in 2002 IIRC, by a fighter pilot, analyzing the descriptions from witnesses and Norman Minetta.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Section31, we don't know exactly what happened. That's what we're trying to figure out.

What part of what you saw on live tv did you not understand?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
What we do know is that the govt story doesn't add up and has a mountain of conflicting data and information and 1000's of experts in their fields raising the BS flag on the govt story.

If you don't know what exactly happened, how do you know that the government's story does not add up? You are presenting a double negative.

You are trying to present a case, which is based upon a 'theoretical' set of equations. Nothing presented is factual. It is all hypothetical.

I do want to thank you for an interesting conversation, and I hope someday you can provide me with real substantial evidence. When it comes to 'specifics' such as names, places, and events, facts that can connect seamlessly, I am always open for another interesting debate.

Since I do not see anything of value in the current information presented, I respectfully take my leave until we meet again.

Thank you. You are a very interesting debater.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by Section31]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by ghofer

I read the articles. They didn't seem to have an explanation.

Here, let me copy/paste it for you.

(1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200;
(2) the radar data was compromised in some manner;
(3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or
(4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target.

You seem to agree with possibility number 4. Great. Thanks for sharing.

Yes, I saw all of that. I mean they didn't have an explanation for how they could have accomplished (1) without anyone noticing and the reason for modifying the planes. It sounds like they don't think (2), (3), or (4) were likely.

reply to post by Section31

Why don't you stick to topic Section31? Why are you making personal attacks? Do you have a problem with the facts Tiffany in LA has presented? Afraid of the whip?
What is it?