Originally posted by Skibum
This is not true, the area hit was done being renovated not under construction.

Sorry, yes it wasn't 'under construction it was 'under renovation'


ok back to the global hawk. On this picture you can see more clearly the two 'landing gear' that I can see poking out the under belly.



Here you can see that the Global hawk outline (done crudely) does fit pretty much within the boundaries. You can see the shape of the jet at the back. Thats pretty scary.














[edit on 4/9/2004 by earthtone]

[edit on 4/9/2004 by earthtone]

Originally posted by earthtone
You can see that although the shapes are obviously both distorted through the images i have used, the actual shape and curve of the objects design in the CCTV footage does look the same. The distinct nose shape is there. The back landing gear is in the correct place. You can see the slight bulge underneath which the hawk has. Also the back fans out and gets large which is consistent with the jets on the global hawk at the back.


i mean its a rough outline I did in paint, with terrible quality images capturing an object traveling at over 400 miles an hour. I think this one is a good contender.

And so this drone is what dozens of witness described as an airlliner?

I'm sorry, but none of these theories pass the parsimony test. It's all too twisted and complicated when a far more simple ruse could have been used to give the US an excuse to go after Islamist militants. I mean we're talking about a Republican administration here. Why would they destroy the WTC, which was a lot more than an icon, it was the home of hundreds of businesses. Do you remember the skies over New York on 9/11 filled with millions of sheets of paper. Those were business documents. The attacks crippled the airline industry and the economy in general. Is this the kind of thing Republicans want to do to accomplish their nefarious imperialist agendas? I think not.

Some one asked the question, "When does denying ignorance become mental illness? I would say that this debate is a perfect example of when that fine line is crossed.

[edit on 04/9/4 by GradyPhilpott]

Exactly how much skill do you thing is involved in flying an airplane?
I will agree they may not have been very good pilots, and may have not had the skill to take off and land but maneuvering an airplane that is in the air is not difficult at all.
I have absolutely no training as a pilot, but yet I have flown an airplane.
My sister used to date a pilot , he took me up for a flight. He let me fly the plane for over 20 minutes without any intervention from him.
I would imagine flying a 757 ,aside from being much larger than the plane I flew , Is pretty much similar to flying any other plane. The controls are quite similar, sure the plane may react differently but the basics are the same. Just because someone is said someone doesn't have the skills to do something doesn't make it impossible.

Exactly how much skill do you thing is involved in flying an airplane?
I will agree they may not have been very good pilots, and may have not had the skill to take off and land but maneuvering an airplane that is in the air is not difficult at all.
I have absolutely no training as a pilot, but yet I have flown an airplane.
My sister used to date a pilot , he took me up for a flight. He let me fly the plane for over 20 minutes without any intervention from him.
I would imagine flying a 757 ,aside from being much larger than the plane I flew , Is pretty much similar to flying any other plane. The controls are quite similar, sure the plane may react differently but the basics are the same. Just because someone is said someone doesn't have the skills to do something doesn't make it impossible.

Flying 2 feet off the ground at 500+ mph while keeping the plane from hitting the ground (despite turbulence) WOULD require amazing skill, however.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by Cutwolf]

Or lots of luck and a suicidal inclination.

IMO it would have been much more difficult to remotely pilot a plane to do the same thing.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Some one asked the question, "When does denying ignorance become mental illness? I would say that this debate is a perfect example of when that fine line is crossed.

[edit on 04/9/4 by GradyPhilpott]

I'm sorry Grady, I hear what you're saying there but seriously friend, you don't like it then go to another thread. I am trying to figure out what that white object is. I'm not ranting about conspiracy. However finding out what that object is is really important seeing as the government have all the other footage and the frames removed from this one.

Show me the airliner. I already know about the whitnesses. If you look hard enough I think you will find some quite contradictory testimonies. Icluding those who claim tha they saw other planes flying low over the pentagon area just before the attacks.

Originally posted by Skibum
Or lots of luck and a suicidal inclination.

IMO it would have been much more difficult to remotely pilot a plane to do the same thing.

Not with a highly trained remote pilot.

Originally posted by slank
to earthtone

Hey Slank. I have read what you are talking about and I found it very interesting. It certainly would be a sure fire way to get rid of the planes.

edit: spelling

[edit on 4/9/2004 by earthtone]

Upon impact, the plane was shattered into millions of pieces and spread across the bottom of the sea.

but not all of it would sink. There would be much debris that would float.
You remember the seat cushions that can be used as a floatation device.
Some of the luggage would have floated. Numerous other parts would have floated. Eventually some of this debris would have washed up on shore somewhere. Where is it?

.
The global hawk is much larger than i was thinking. I guess i have been thinking of a predator UAV. The hawk could i believe be easily confused with regional/commuter jet.

That pentagon video looks EXACTLY like the profile of the global hawk.
Also in the color video I would expect some of the red stripe of a 757 to show up in at least a few pixels. The tape is completely colorless, no clue of a red stripe.

to skibum, that was after you high in midair right? Not flying 2 FEET OFF THE GROUND at 530 MPH along with local surface air turbulence.

You believe that an Arab can be SO possessed with an idea that he can fly BRILLIANTLY, but that maniacal right-wing ideologues some of whom hear VOICES FROM GOD would never STOOP do anything out of the ordinary. [This is of course not withstanding the reams of ROTTEN CORPORATE CORRUPT legislation they continue passing all the time]

Maybe the 3-piece suit fools you, it doesn't fool me.
.

Originally posted by Skibum
Where is it?

I agree there would be floating debris, sure. If they just ploughed a plane into the ocean anywhere of the coast then sure you may have somethin goin on

But i mean, if done correctly in an isolated and deep area of the atlantic, it would most probably work. Just not near the coast.



[edit on 4/9/2004 by earthtone]

Global hawk:

Dimensions
Length: 44.4 feet
Wingspan: 116.2 feet
Height: 15.2 feet


757:

Wing span 38.05m (124ft 10in), length 47.32m (155ft 3in), height 13.56m (44ft 6in). Wing area 185.3m2 (1994sq ft).


Yes the global hawk is bigger than you would think but other than wing span its size is nowhere near a 757

Thanks for the specs. It is hard to see how this plane could be mistaken for a commercial airliner, but it is still amazing that the footage does apparently show a global hawk, or something that is not a 757. Why the hell else would the government supress the footage of this? They didn't hold back on any on the WTC footage.

.
Skibum you will remember there was a no fly policy after 911 for i believe 5 days. That would give them almost a week to clean up what little debris didn't sink.

. . . they need to salvage clues from the hundreds of thousands of pounds of wreckage lying over 180 feet below on the ocean floor. It's a Herculean task.

(note: I'm a tightwad and also offer the less likely, if less economically wasteful, idea that they landed the actual passenger airflights somewhere and painted over the original planes and perhaps got rid of all the serial numbers and stuff)
.

Originally posted by Sauron

that's an easy one, the gov would have to admit they did it and flight 77 is in the ocean

Thats what I was hinting at There is no conclusive proof here but i still don't think that the CCTV footage is capturing a 757.

I'm not sure about the other two planes. There is clear footage of them hitting. However radar contact was lost with both planes that hit the WTC so that does leave potential for a switch.

Originally posted by slank

Officially the 'plane' was travelling at 530 MPH 2 FEET OFF THE GROUND. Yet somehow it went above the 4 FOOT HIGH construction spools on lawn in front of impact, left no burned lawn like in most plane crashes.

That means Hani managed to hit EXACTLY the side of the pentagon on the ground floor below intact windows on the 3rd floor above the impact. That is just too insane for me to believe.

Take into account a NEAT CIRCULAR hole punched into the inner wall of the third ring of the pentagon. That is 6 WALLs of REINFORCED CONCRETE that an airliner managed to penetrate.

Can you really believe all that?

Could you link to some offical information that said the plane was only 2 feet above round? And at what point was the plane reported to be doing this at impact or miles out from the pentagon?

I love how so many people now what a large plane hitting the worlds largest building is "suppose" to look like. Perhaps the impact looks strange because something like that had never happened before?

Take into account a NEAT CIRCULAR hole punched into the inner wall of the third ring of the pentagon. That is 6 WALLs of REINFORCED CONCRETE that an airliner managed to penetrate.



Six feet thick on an inner ring, LOL

None of the walls in the pentagon are 6 feet thick. The outer wall is only two feet thick. The wall in the photo with the circular hole is probably only 12 inches thich at most.