9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

reply to post by jmdewey60


Uhhhhhhmmmm....

Off topic, but.....you do know there is a three hour time difference between the East Coast and West (where LAX is) right?

Think about it.....(because these sorts of "arguments" don't contribute to the narratives...)

And, think about it some more: I've spent a LOT of time at airports, and unless it's in Podunk someplace and the holiday travel season, rarely rarely are there tons of people meeting loved ones at the airport.

When reviewing the passengers of those flights destined to LAX you see that most either didn't live there (were on business, so no "loved ones" locally), or lived there and probably had their own transportation already arranged or planned. Leisure travelers who had no "loved ones" there would go to hotels...on hotel shuttles.

But, aside from all the above....THREE hour time difference!! Think about it. (and think about, oh.....CNN for one example...)

reply to post by weedwhacker


your explaination of no people there to meet the arriving passengers does not prove sound.
you think about it weed wacker.

whether they are on business, family visit, returning home from visit, returning home from business, whatever, a third would have had someone waiting.

reply to post by slugger9787


A third? That's a fully complete WAG, really. It doesn't wash, anyhow. Remember, I've spent a LOT of time at airports. My job. Try it yourself.

Here's a recent story....I wasn't working, but I know a friend was coming from Atlanta. To DCA. But, not sure of time, nor airline. Two options on this route: Delta and AirTran. Of course, I couldn't go past security, but didn't matter....I was there a bit early, watched the FIDS screen (Flight Information Displays) and just went to where they'd exit, as each flight was scheduled to arrive. Did this for FOUR flights...he showed up on the fifth one.

Each time, I hung around watching.....I saw, for each flight, maybe three-four people waiting too. Out of those, maybe two or three passengers were greeted, this is IN the terminal I'm talking about (so outside, curbside? Don't know).

These were normal flights, 737s and MD-80s, with normal passenger loads, judging by the numbers of people I saw exiting. So, don't just take MY word, go see for yourself someday, and take notes.


Anyhoo.....not really important because you may have missed my MAJOR point....the time factor. Guess I'll have to explain (thought it'd be obvious, but hey!)

EDT to PDT = three hours difference. Flight scheduled to depart Boston (for example) at 0800? Westbound is typically when you encounter more headwinds (varies seasonally) over the contiguous USA. So, total "block" ** times are slightly longer, westbound versus eastbound, for same routes. ( **airline term for gate-to-gate time. It includes all the estimated "historical" taxi times and delays expected, for the time period. Important because it's what our pay is based on ! )

So, typical BOS-LAX is ~6:00 to 6:15 block-to-block. Generally inflight about 5:30 to 5:45, but will vary as mentioned.

I just went to look at AAL 25, BOS-LAX for example, on SEP 27 (Monday next). Departure @ 0740, sked arrival LAX is 1100. (That's a "block" time of 6:20...) SO, think about it----at ~0800, about the time it'll first be airborne, it's still FIVE AM in Los Angeles. Still SIX hours before its ETA.

On 9/11, think back to the Eastern time, and when the airplanes hit the Towers, and it was all over the news....and when the flight numbers and companies involved were beginning to be reported. And think about what TIME it was, then, in Los Angeles......

I fly and also am pilot
so planes hit towers in NYY at 0900.
time of day in LA 0600.
time to be at airport in LA to meet plane and pick up ______. 1030-1045
so all this detail about ETD, EA time diferences between EDT and PDT are proving that people dont meet travelers they are interested in at airports?

so all people who were going to meet passengers heard the news and just stayed home?

what kinds of weeds are you wacking?

reply to post by slugger9787


Well....seems like you completely understand...but you're still not getting it???

You said it right there, in example: Meet at (pick a time) say it's 10:30.....four hours earlier, the people in LA (when it's 0930 in NYC) IF they had the TV on, would have seen what was unfolding. FOUR hours before they "had" to be at the airport to "meet" the arriving flight.

Doesn't anyone realize that, given the circumstances, most people would have stayed at home, and watched the news, called the airline, checked on the flights they were expecting to meet FIRST before hopping in their cars and driving to the airport?? In that FOUR hours' time? I mean...four hours...if someone lives THAT far from LAX, and you wish to suggest they had to leave home that early to meet the flight.....then there are other airports more handy....ever been to the LA area? San Diego is only TWO hours away!!!

I hate to waste thread space on this, it's such rudimentary logic, to me.

But....in most cases of tragic airline accidents (historically) they often occur during the approach phase....and, therefore (as would be expected) people are already there, or enroute, to meet the arrival.

Maybe there is something on the Internet about OTHER crashes, ones that occured shortly after take-off, to compare. PanAm in MSO (forget the Flt#). PanAm 103, maybe....it was only a short time after take-off.

Northwest 255, in Detroit...dest. PHX.

Several others to compare.....

reply to post by weedwhacker

rarely rarely are there tons of people meeting loved ones at the airport.

The story as I remember it was that it was expected that people would rush to the airport to find out what happened to their loved ones after hearing the news of the crashes. I don't think it was so much about people having already planned on being at the airport, and arriving to find the news.
The point is, that there was no rush, as if the airport would know more than anyone else, and they were drawn to gather there. No one showed up to ask about the status of passengers on the planes that went down. That would be expected, if the passenger manifests were populated with fictitious people, made up to cover otherwise unexplainable losses for military contractors.
What was pointed out in the old forum post I was referring to, was if you had the list of people and looked at where they worked, all the jobs associated with these names were connected one way or the other to the military, and supporting industries. I don't have the list and never checked it myself, I am just suggesting something that could be looked at, by someone who really wants to know, instead of having "they were real people" as a ready retort to anyone who would make a claim not compatible with the "original" (meaning pre-scripted) story.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Most people in LA are smart enough to not "rush to the airport" to "find out what's going on"....

Sorry, that is a gross misconception, as I've mentioned....an impression fostered, perhaps, from scenes of certain PAST airline tragedies, when in most cases they were ALREADY THERE to begin with! Especially, (and I apologize if this sounds elitist)....in lesser-developed parts of the World.

reply to post by weedwhacker

. . .that is a gross misconception. . .

Not mine. It would be a misconception on the part of the government authorities, if any one's. I'm just telling the story, not that this is my area of expertize, but just trying to steer people into a possible line of research if they wanted to find their own conclusions.
I don't need any convincing myself, because of what I mentioned earlier, about seeing very clearly the plane that flew into the South WTC tower. Close enough to where I feel like if there were people inside, I would have sensed it. That may sound rather subjective, but there you have it and that is the way witness accounts are, and why a lot of people do not give them much credence.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

The point is, that there was no rush, as if the airport would know more than anyone else, and they were drawn to gather there. No one showed up to ask about the status of passengers on the planes that went down. That would be expected, if the passenger manifests were populated with fictitious people, made up to cover otherwise unexplainable losses for military contractors.

This is an observation with only one extremely focused biased reason as to why when there are many reasons to it, and I can easily think of one. Out of the people on those planes how many were actually heading home? I bet no one checked....I bet it was few enough to not have the airport flooded with relatives. So once again what seems like a good point actually is just an interpretation skewed towards one direction of an alternate theory, and once you really look at it there is nothing to it.

I suggest someone needs to ask their relatives, friends, and co-workers why they didn't flood the airport. I would be on your side if reliable data came out suggesting what you say is true in that these people were fake. We have their names so it would not be too hard for a 911 truther group to invest the time to see if they actually had a life or not. Something like an airport observation is extremely weak to say the least when a little, and I mean little, detective work would be definitive.

reply to post by Xtrozero
I went ahead and looked through the names of the passengers of the four planes and not that many seemed to actually live in LA, from what I could find out about them. If there were people headed to the LA airport out of concern for what may have happened to their relatives, they may have been to far away to get there before the place was evacuated due to a bomb threat.
As for the theory I cited, about some passengers being made up, that would account for less than half of the passengers, at best.

What's the story with the pods attached to the belly fairings and the almost un-human final corrections before hitting the towers?

The "terrorists" never did it...considering all but 1 has been known as still living by the CIA.

reply to post by Chordz

What's the story with the pods attached to the belly fairings and the almost un-human final corrections before hitting the towers?

Those "pods" you keep babbling about house the landing gear

Here is shot of underside of 767 - notice the "pods"



Better shot



Also explain what is "Inhuman" about final bank before hitting South Tower

reply to post by thedman


thedman that is a link to a

Picture of the Boeing 767-281(BDSF) aircraft


and a


Picture of the Boeing 767-223/ER aircraft

are those the cagetory and class of airplane you think hit the towers?

reply to post by slugger9787


It was a Boeing 767-222 that hit the north tower (Link)




Also it was my mistake, South Tower was a Boeing 767-223 (cdn-www.airliners.net...)

and a Boeing 757-223 that hit the pentagon (Link)



The aircraft are very similar in appearance

Wee Mad

reply to post by weemadmental


Good job, for the most part.

I have only one thing to add.....and only because I have the experience to, at a glance, see the differences.

The second photo, in your link "Wee Mad", is a Boeing 757. Sorry.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDIT: Oh, I see......you got the picture (at least, the American Airlines livery) correct, but made the mistake in writing that it was a "757" that hit the WTC Tower. NO, it was a 767.

American Airlines 11, originally scheduled BOS-LAX hit first. United Airlines 175, also originally scheduled BOS-LAX was second to hit, the other WTC Tower.

BOTH were Boeing 767-200s. (The Specific designation, the difference with the "-223", versus "-222", versus, say, "-224"??? The last TWO digits specify the CUSTOMER that the airplane is being built for.

The "-224" designation means it's an airplane being built for Continental Airlines, for example. AS THE ORIGINAL orderer, that is. Many airlines will acquire fleets, through mergers, acquisitions, etc. So, it gets complicated.

Example: Continental's fleet of B-757s

(Note the suffix designations).





HOWEVER, the point is the same, since, whether a B-757 OR a B-767, the fairings that enclose the landing gear, when retracted, are the SAME on both, mostly. They are slightly more prominient on the B-767 versus the B-757, though. Only slightly.

I've (already) provided the visual evidence to back up these facts. Must I DO IT AGAIN????

reply to post by weedwhacker


I wasn't doubting you for a minute Weed, i taken the images from google to show the fairings being almost the same in both aircraft due to its shared heritage, and hopefully this will put an end to the moaning on the board, i cannot believe this nonsense has go to nearly 50 pages.

Also it was my mistake, South Tower was a Boeing 767-223 (cdn-www.airliners.net...)

The difference in most part is the seating arrangements inside the aircraft depending on specifications buy the purchaser

American Airlines Flight 11 hit the Pentagon which was a Boeing 757-223 (link

Wee Mad

reply to post by weemadmental


You know, I have no doubt. Mistakes (unfortunately) can be made by anyone. Problem is, when someone who KNOWS facts makes the teeniest mistake, it can be POUNCED upon by the fringe "conspiracy" believers, all too easily.....

Those of us who actually HAVE experience in these matters know better....and try and try to explain.

Images, promoted by the "conspiracy" believers of the airliners, for example. Show a complete lack of understanding (whether intentional, or due to naivete'?) of photography, lighting angles, and pixellations in digital photography/video reproduction, just to name a few.....


The way the light strikes the subject, in photography, is well know to those who take photographs.

Here's an example....I have flown this very airplane, many times, both as a Captain, and as a First Officer:



(It is copyrighted, at the "airliners.net" website, so I cannot embed the image).

It is a Continental Airlines B-767-400, specifically ship # 059. N-number "N69059". (All airlines have a system to identify their airplanes. For a company like CAL, the last three numbers, usually of the "N"-number, suffice. Companies with larger fleets, like American and --- soon to be merged with Continental, United, must use FOUR-digit nomenclature for ID). It varies, around the world, and with various companies as well.....

Note the angle, and creative use of light, in the photograph. The ACTUAL paint scheme, the "livery", is almost non-existent, in the above example.

HERE is the exact same airplane, different day, different angle.....SAME paint scheme, of course (BTW, after the merger with United.....paint scheme will be the SAME. Only change will be the name, on front of fuselage, and in all company propaganda...I mean, business information! Personally, I think this is great.....past, and many, managements at United have wasted too much money re-painting airplanes, over the last decade. Per personal preference, as CEOs shuffle through, it seems... ):




OK...those examples are ALL Boeing 767-400 models. BUT, the -200s have the very same fairings, in the wing-fuselage area, where the landing gear retract.

ANY of the "claims" of "pods" seen on UAL 175 photos? ALL stem from the ignorance of those making the claims, and their misunderstandings of the way that light reflects, and the actual SHAPES of the actual AIRPLANES structure. Simple as that........

Originally posted by weedwhacker
OK...those examples are ALL Boeing 767-400 models. BUT, the -200s have the very same fairings, in the wing-fuselage area, where the landing gear retract.

ANY of the "claims" of "pods" seen on UAL 175 photos? ALL stem from the ignorance of those making the claims, and their misunderstandings of the way that light reflects, and the actual SHAPES of the actual AIRPLANES structure. Simple as that........

I was standing outside the Tower of London a few years ago and just by random took this shot of a British Aerospace RJ 100 passing overhead.



Imagine my shock and awe when I got home and zoomed in on the aircraft - it had the infamous pod! It was probably transporting the destructive device to some secret location, because as far as I knew it wasn't used that day.

Or it was just the landing gear faring.

reply to post by trebor451

Sure that isn't a bae 146, the pod underside of the aircraft is a landing gear failing, by looks of things,I'm on my mobile so picture isn't too great

Wee mad