Brief commentary of a former Air Force fighter pilot who had actually...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

...flown 2 of the actual planes (flt#93 and flt#175) allegedly used on 9-11:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TjQANnrRpdU


Interesting postscript with respect to these two planes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2QAh0rBrew&NR=1

[Sweet Pea]

1. As someone who flies alot these days

am *I* glad that Wittenburg isn't flying anymore.

[leftofthedial]

2. anything other than ad hominem to contribute?

[Sweet Pea]

5. Sure

Wittenburg doesn't know what he's talking about.

"Horizontal and vertical" navigation is a piece of cake - even if all you have are the rudiments of flight experience.

The hijackers weren't looking at a 757 flight deck for the first time when they entered the cockpits. They had, by some accounts, a fair amount of simulator time, and if you have ever spent any time in a major aircraft simulator (I have), you'll know how realistic they are.

Think about what you need to do if you were going to hijack an airliner and fly it on a one-way mission into *something*. Some basic flight experience (check), a knowledge of the important instruments on the 757 or 767 flight deck - transponder, power levers, autopilot, radio (check, check check check). You have hydraulically boosted flight controls on the 757 and 767 (fly by wire or digital flight controls didn't appear in Boeing aircraft until the 777), so the physical act of flying the machine is easy as cake (move yoke right, plane goes right, etc). You know what/where an attitude indicator is, you know where the compass or TACAN or other directional equipment are and you know how to use that (i.e. fly east after you hijack a plane and you WILl hit the coast). You know, from your time in the simulator, where and how to program the Inertial navigation system - and from Google Earth or from a half-hour of paying attention in any high school geography class, you can figure out the latitude and longitude of any place on earth (for example, the tower at Andrews Air Force Base is 38 48'18 N, 76 52'39 W. Plug that into your GPS/INS, engage the auto pilot, set cruising altitude and speed and ba-da-boom, it takes you there.)

As I said earlier, the physical act of flying is a piece of cake, especially if you had any flight experience before. It has been pointed out here and many other places that if all you want to do is crash your aircraft, who the freaking frig cares how to land or takeoff.....powering a 767 into a building - hell, anyone could do it - ESPECIALLY the tallest buildings in New York City. Get a bead on them, fly straight to them, shove the throttles forward when you were 5 or 6 miles ahead, and voila.

Add in the suicidal aspect of a religious fanatic, not to mention something as out of whack as an al Queda devotee, and you have a situation that *very possibly could* happen, and in my mind very definitely did.

Specifically, then, we've dealt with Mr Wittenburg's "horizontal navigation" (yoke left, aircraft go left, etc) and the vertical navigation (yoke back, aircraft go higher!) and whatever other idiotic statements he made about the difficulty of piloting a jet.

As far as the manuevers made by the aircraft, I think the *only* one in question would be the descending turn made by the Pentagon plane, Flight 77, and there's is a video out on You Tube somewhere of some guy, with nothing but Cessna 172 experience, climbing into a Dutch ( I believe) 757 simulator and nailing that turn, if not every try, then just about every try. As far as the WTC aircraft are concerned, againm, hitting the tallest buildings in NYC would have been, in all honesty, farkin' easy.

So, when the good Mr Wittenburg said what he said, I could care fucking less how many hours he has or how many of those aircraft he flew. He is a moron for saying what he said because it is not true and, as far as I'm concerned, has done the world a favor by getting out of the cockpit.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

6. I can't help but notice you bloviate on ad nauseam without ever...

...citing any sources to back up your claims. Why is that Sweet Pea? If you seriously wish to impeach Mr. Wittenburg's commentary, given that he is an experienced pilot who actually flew those two planes, we'll need something a little more credible than a combination of name calling and unsubstantiated claims from an anonymous message board poster known to be a visceral and rabid proponent of the OCT fairytale who calls himself Sweet Pea.

[Sweet Pea]

8. Cite Sources to back up my claims?

Bloviate? Still having trouble with those big words I use, apparently.

Actually, Jeff, I could care less what you think. It doesn't matter what "sources" I cite - you wouldn't believe them. It doesn't matter what "facts" I put out - you wouldn't believe them. It really doesn't matter what I say at all - you wouldn't believe it.

Those who do have an open mind in these matters, however, can read my posts, take those elements I talked about and either accept them or, if they have a problem with any specific part, can discuss them. You, on the other hand, don't seem to understand what I write, so you choose to criticize the entire thing.

Fine. If you want to believe the pilot who speaks bullshit instead of me, you go right ahead. Its your right. Its also your right to bury your head in the sand whenever someone showers you with facts and reality.

Seriously, though, what problem did you have with my post? Do you not believe the hijackers had time in simulators? Do you think they wouldn't have ever seen a 757 instrument panel or cockpit before? Did they not have even the ruminants of flight experience? Do you think they did not know where the compass or GPS/INS or aircraft attitude instruments or radio were? Do the aircraft not have hydraulically boosted flight controls? Is it not a simple matter of moving the yoke (gee...a Cessna 172 has a yoke too! I'll cite sources on this fact a bit later) left or right which makes the aircraft go left or right? Is hitting the tallest building in NYC not an likely easy thing to do?

If you choose to believe a moronic airline pilot who says the opposite of all these things, knock yourself out, bud. I've said it before and I'll say it again - every discipline, from rocket science to garbage disposal, has its fair share of idiots and lunatics and assholes. We just met one from the airline industry.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

35. More bloviating and still no substance -- no surprise either. nt.

[Sweet Pea]

65. Reading a post is obviously a lost art here

As is answering a question. I'll ask again:

"Seriously, though, what problem did you have with my post?"

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

82. Seriously?

...Alright then seriously, check out my post #6.

[catnhatnh]

226. I just got here....

But would the "Ruminants of flight experience" be Elsie and Elmer from the Borden Dairy with a PC and a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator?

[tetedur]

10. Can you tell me if there is a difference between the plane intercom

and the radio used to communicate with the ATC?

I have often wondered why the 9/11 hijackers didn't know they were talking to the ATC instead of the people in the airplane. Thanks.

[Sweet Pea]

66. There is a difference

In the aircraft I flew (Cessna Citation - albeit 20 years ago), the communications button was on the flight control yoke. If the button was shifted away from you (toward the outside the aircraft, so to speak) you were talking on the external radio on whatever frequency you had selected. If you pulled this radio toggle switch back towards you (inside the aircraft, so to speak), you were talking on the aircraft intercom system.

[tetedur]

71. Thanks for your response.

If the comm system is as simple on a B757/767 I guess it would be easy to get a little confused about it. It did seem important because it was the way the ATC knew the plane(s) were hijacked and not just in "trouble."

[seatnineb]

12. Wow.....what a sack of bullshit...

I would rather rely on my book...than your grade A bullshit and anonymouse testimony:

The Air Pilots manual)
The Aeroplane Technical
By Peter D Godwin
Published by AirPilot Publishing
(2006)
ISBN : 1843660683

According to this diagram:



.....parts break off the plane when it exceeds it VNE

[William Seger]

17. You're making a fool of yourself

> "According to this diagram: .....parts break off the plane when it exceeds it VNE"

Considering the title of your post, that's a rather remarkable statement to make about a diagram that shows no such thing. All three planes that hit buildings got to their final impact velocity in shallow dives (so high-speed stall is not an issue, since the way to recover from a high-speed stall is to drop the nose), and none of the three planes had a "sensible pilot" behind the stick.

[seatnineb]

19. Oh I don't think so.....you need to check your eyesight

...failing that...get the book...which U obviously don't have...

BTW...Don't forget those aerodymanmic stresses William...


How Airliners fly
Page 59
By Julien Evans(1999)

[William Seger]

26. Nope, the problem seems to be your serious lack of reading comprehension

The "sensible pilots" who dove those planes into the buildings were not concerned about "protect{ing} the aircraft from excessive aerodynamic stresses." You're trying to claim that the planes should have broken up, but the reason you can't actually find a reference to prove that is because it's bullshit. None of the planes got to the speed where that would have been likely to happen.

[seatnineb]

31. Wrong....U have been proven to be telling a lie.

U say that this diagram:



does not show a plane breaking up......

William Seger
Thu Feb-07-08 09:40 PM

"According to this diagram: .....parts break off the plane when it exceeds it VNE"

Considering the title of your post, that's a rather remarkable statement to make about a diagram that shows no such thing.

U R wrong Segar....



Case closed....U have been caught telling a lie.

[Make7]

37. You almost never fail to entertain.

 

Posted by seatnineb

According to this diagram:



.....parts break off the plane when it exceeds it VNE

So if the V_NE of a plane is 160 kts and it goes 161 kts, what part(s) will break off?

- Make7

[AZCat]

44. It looks like...

the pieces in the back. I know that's a bit technical for an answer - let me know if you need it broken down in layperson's terms.

[seatnineb]

69. Nice description of yourself n/t

[Make7]

127. Clearly not one of your better efforts.

Perhaps the question in my previous post was too complicated. Let me make it easier for you.

According to the FAA's Federal Aviation Regulation:

Sec. 23.1505

Airspeed limitations.

(a) The never-exceed speed V_NE must be established so that it is--
(1) Not less than 0.9 times the minimum value of V_D allowed under Sec. 23.335; and
(2) Not more than the lesser of--
(i) 0.9 V_D established under Sec. 23.335; or
(ii) 0.9 times the maximum speed shown under Sec. 23.251.

Sec. 23.335

Design airspeeds.

Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the selected design airspeeds are equivalent airspeeds (EAS).
(a) Design cruising speed, V_C. For V_C, the following apply:
[(1) Where W/S' = wing loading at the design maximum takeoff weight, V_C (in knots) may not be less than--
(i) 33(W/S)^0.5   (for normal, utility, and commuter category airplanes); and
(ii) 36(W/S)^0.5   (for acrobatic category airplanes).]
(2) For values of W/S more than 20, the multiplying factors may be decreased linearly with W/S to a value of 28.6 where W/S =100.
(3) V_C need not be more than 0.9 VH at sea level.
(4) At altitudes where an M_D is established, a cruising speed M_C limited by compressibility may be selected.
(b) Design dive speed, V_D. For V_D, the following apply:
(1) V_D/M_D may not be less than 1.25 V_C/M_C: and
(2) With V_C min , the required minimum design cruising speed, V_D (in knots) may not be less than--
(i) 1.40 V_C min (for normal and commuter category airplanes);
(ii) 1.50 V_C min (for utility category airplanes); and
(iii) 1.55 V_C min (for acrobatic category airplanes).
(3) For values of W/S more than 20, the multiplying factors in paragraph (b)(2) of this section may be decreased linearly with W/S to a value of 1.35 where W/S = 100.
(4) Compliance with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section need not be shown if V_D/M_D is selected so that the minimum speed margin between V_C/M_C and V_D/M_D is the greater of the following:
(i) The speed increase resulting when, from the initial condition of stabilized flight at V_C/M_C, the airplane is assumed to be upset, flown for 20 seconds along a flight path 7.5° below the initial path, and then pulled up with a load factor of 1.5 (0.5 g. acceleration increment). At least 75 percent maximum continuous power for reciprocating engines, and maximum cruising power for turbines, or, if less, the power required for V_C/M_C for both kinds of engines, must be assumed until the pullup is initiated, at which point power reduction and pilot-controlled drag devices may be used; [and either:]
(ii) Mach 0.05 for normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes (at altitudes where M_D is established); or
[(iii) Mach 0.07 for commuter category airplanes (at altitudes where M_D is established) unless a rational analysis, including the effects of automatic systems, is used to determine a lower margin. If a rational analysis is used, the minimum speed margin must be enough to provide for atmospheric variations (such as horizontal gusts), and the penetration of jet streams or cold fronts), instrument errors, airframe production variations, and must not be less than Mach 0.05.]

Sec. 23.251

[There must be no vibration or buffeting severe enough to result in structural damage, and each part of the airplane must be free from excessive vibration, under any appropriate speed and power conditions up to V_D/M_D. In addition, there must be no buffeting in any normal flight condition severe enough to interfere with the satisfactory control of the airplane or cause excessive fatigue to the flightcrew. Stall warning buffeting within these limits is allowable.]

So clearly the FAA regulations require that a plane is able to exceed its V_NE by some margin without risking any structural failure(s).

Posted by seatnineb:

According to this diagram:



.....parts break off the plane when it exceeds it VNE

Certainly at some point above V_NE a plane will encounter stresses large enough to cause structural failure, however it is also clear that the plane is required by the FAA to be able to exceed the V_NE by at least a significant margin before there is risk of that occurring. What you have posted (as shown above) seems to suggest otherwise.

- Make7

[William Seger]

130. And furthermore

It's a nit, but one thing I learned while searching for some reliable information about the maximum speed of 757s and 767s is that FAA Part 23 only applies to propeller-driven aircraft. Passenger jets must certify to Part 25, which doesn't require any V_NE to be specified. Instead, it requires V_MO and M_MO (velocity max operating and Mach max operating), where "max operating" simply means "known to be safe." The way that manufactures insure that their specified V_MO and M_MO are "known to be safe" is by routinely testing their planes well beyond those. It appears that the reason the maximum speeds of those planes is not well known is that nobody is crazy enough to keep speeding up until the planes fall apart. The argument that the videos must be fake because the planes would have broken up at those speeds is obviously fallacious, because the speed that would require is unknown.

[Make7]

184. Why seatnineb believes diagrams of small planes and Vne speeds are relevant...

... to a discussion about the planes in question on 9/11 is perplexing. It's almost like he is posting snippets of books he thinks that he understands and feel somehow prove something. Although all he seems to be demonstrating is that he doesn't know what he's talking about. What's strange is that he seems to be very purposeful while doing it...

Pointing out that passenger jets would be certified to FAR Part 25 is very relevant to the overall discussion concerning the planes on 9/11, but I was responding to seatnineb's diagram of a small propeller driven aircraft with a V_NE so it seemed to me that FAR Part 23 was more appropriate in this case.

- Make7

[seatnineb]

196. Your post reeks of hypocrisy....

Your friend seagar took that diagram showing a small plane breaking apart ...seriously enough...to deny that the diagram showing the small plane breaking apart.... was showing a small plane breaking apart...

But you did not call him out on that....par for the course......

[William Seger]

202. Wow, you really need to take a break, seat

The first diagram you posted didn't show "a small plane breaking apart" because you screwed up the scan. Your second diagram... is a diagram, and I took it about as seriously as everything else you've posted in this thread: pure nonsense.

You have been caught lying. Case closed.

[seatnineb]

212. No i will stay right here and keep U guys company........

“We saw the second plane".
“Peculiar”.
“Where is this guy going?”.
“HE WENT RIGHT UNDER OUR HELICOPTER”.
“His wings rocked three times banking left and right.”
“I prayed this was a bad dream”.

This is the testimony of Donald T Gromling.
A Pilot of the NYPD aviation unit.
His helicopter was first on the scene after the 1st tower was hit.

This reference can be found in:

LIFE : One Nation:America Remembers September 11,2001
Published By Little,Brown,2001/2002
There is a photo of Gromling posing with Co-Pilot Timothy Hayes on page 147.

Funny......but where is this helicopter in the footage.....

[William Seger]

217. Hard to say..

... since the plane was "in 2 places at once."

[seatnineb]

219. William...your research skills are lacking...allow the NYPD 2 help U

In the words of co-pilot Timothy Hayes:
We continued to circle the towers and about 18 minutes after the first plane hit…I recall looking over to the left…actually over the harbour and we are heading west bound …we’re inbetween the statue of liberty and battery park city …and in the distance I saw an airplane…

and all I remember seeing is the aircraft going underneath our aircraft …you could see him right through the (unintelligible)….he could have been maybe 200 feet underneath us …and I just remember following him …and just turning my head and watching him…watching him pull up…and watching him disappearing right into the south tower


From The :
(Tribute To NYC In Memoriam DVD:2002)

The statue of liberty and battery park are clearly visible in this video.....yet no sign of a helicopter rasing it's altitude to avoid getting hit by the approaching flight 175....



Oh the lies..the lies...

[William Seger]

222. U R 2 funny

Where is the plane when it first appears in that video: out over NJ or somewhere "in between the statue of liberty and battery park city?"

[seatnineb]

223. You missed the point.....it is the helicopter which should be visible between

...battery park city and the statue of liberty:



....aswell as the plane...once it arrives.....instead all we got is the plane...and no helicopter...

[William Seger]

224. Uh, no, YOU missed the point

... and once again, the problem seems to be your difficulty in visualizing three dimensions from a two-dimensional image. In fact, you can't possibly tell from looking at just that two-dimensional frame capture how far away from the tower the plane is when we first see it; you need some more information to infer the third dimension. Just because the plane looks like it might be out over NJ doesn't mean it really is. So here's the point you missed: If the plane is somewhere between the Statue of Liberty and Battery Park when it first enters the picture, then it could have already flown under the helicopter before it enters the frame, and the helicopter is somewhere out of frame to the upper right.

Here's a hint how you can estimate the distance: From the time we first see it, how long does it take to get to the tower? OK, for you, more than a hint: How far would it travel in that time if the "official story" speed is approximately correct? Then, using a map, where do you place the plane when we first see it?

You're been bouncing from one absurdity to the next in this thread, and you've answered every reasoned response by just repeating the same bullshit. So, I intend to ignore any response that doesn't answer those questions.

[seatnineb]

229. Wrong.

We know Flight 175 could have only passed under the helicopter after this descent:





As flight 175 entered it's final shallow descent into the towers.....

it was captured by a japanese tourist.....except there was no helicopter that rose in altitude to avoid flight 175



In other words the NYPD testimony is bullshit.

Just like your 3-d 2-d explanations..

[William Seger]

236. Nope

But I'm going to give you the answer anyway, to make a point.

Looking at the YouTube version of the video, it's hard to get an accurate time because the shot cuts away, but the plane was about 8 or 9 seconds away from impact when it first enters the frame. Call it 9 to put it as far away as is reasonable. At 520 MPH, the plane would travel about 1.3 miles in 9 seconds. 1.3 miles from the towers would be over the water about half way between the Statue of Liberty and Battery Park. So we've solved your Mystery of the Missing Helicopter: If Timothy Hayes was accurate about his estimate of where he was, then he was somewhere above the plane at that instant, out of frame in that video.

You are accusing Timothy Hayes of lying, and also implying that he was an accomplice to mass murder by lying about a plane that you claim is faked in the videos, and you're basing your accusation on idiotic nonsense. Have you no shame at all?

[seatnineb]

243. You forgot or did not know something......

Show me a video where you can see a helicopter rising in altitude......to avoid getting hit by Flight 175...

In The words of Timothy Hayes:
I remember looking over again and I turned to Pat and I said Pat …....you gotta climb…you gotta climb… I said this plane is coming right at our window ….it’s the closest I’ve ever seen a plane come close to my helicopter by accident…and Pat began to climb and John and all the guys in the back…running back and forth watching looking for this aircraft …
In Memoriam DVD

[William Seger]

248. What?!

You accuse Hayes of lying and being an accessory to murder based on your own inability to figure out what one video shows, and then when it's demonstrated that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, you think the accusation is still valid until someone proves he's innocent. No wonder other conspiracists think "no-planers" are disinfo agents. I think there's a much simpler explanation, but the board rules prevent me from telling you what that is.

[seatnineb]

249. Non rebuttal of the year.....congrats...only make7 + Sweetpea can rival U n/t

[William Seger]

252. "Rebuttal"!?

What the fuck do you think you've said that deserves a rebuttal? That Hayes is guilty until proven innocent because you have absolutely no clue what the hell you're looking at in videos? Seriously, dude, you've got your head way too far up your ass. You've got a drawing of plane with pieces falling off and dozens of videos of UA175 with no pieces falling off, and you "conclude" that means the videos must be faked. You've got videos taken from different locations showing the plane in different positions relative to the building, and you "conclude" that means the videos are fake. You've got a pilot saying it would be hard to fly along low to the ground, you completely ignore that Hanjour didn't do that, he dove the plane into the building, and then "conclude" that Hanjour couldn't have done that, either. Now, you've got a helicopter pilot saying the plane flew under him, but you can't see the helicopter in videos that don't show the plane until after that happened, and you "conclude" he's lying. Here's my rebuttal, seat: You're full of shit.

[seatnineb]

254. Yawn. ZZZZZZZZZZZ......next n/t

[seatnineb]

258. You are wrong.

In the crap words of Wiliam Seagar:
Wed Feb-13-08 01:11 AM
If the plane is somewhere between the Statue of Liberty and Battery Park when it first enters the picture, then it could have already flown under the helicopter before it enters the frame,
and the helicopter is somewhere out of frame to the upper right.

The only helicopter that is between the statue of liberty and battery park city that is heading west bound.....is this one:

...which appears after the explosion(to the right of the North Tower antenna):




...too bad that is actually in frame...and flying from left to right across the screen....not out of frame to the upper right

...in other words this helicopter was never directly 150 feet or 200 feet above Flight 175



....in other words the NYPD testimony is bullshit...

[Make7]

204. U forgot 2 explain Y small planes and Vne speeds R relevant

I thought William Seger's first response was essentially correct:

> [Quoting seatnineb] "According to this diagram: .....parts break off the plane when it exceeds it VNE"

Considering the title of your post [Wow.....what a sack of bullshit...], that's a rather remarkable statement to make about a diagram that shows no such thing.

Did you read the text of what you posted, or just look at the partially obscured picture? Let me point out the pertinent sentence: "Any gusts or manoeuvring at speeds higher than V_NE can cause unacceptable load factors."

You claimed that according to that diagram "parts break off the plane when it exceeds it VNE." That is simply not true.

Considering your ability to produce a clear image of the portion of the diagram you were discussing after someone had already commented on the obscured version, I would venture to say that you are being disingenuous in what you have been posting.

- Make7
I doubt if anyone truly takes what you post seriously - you are good for a laugh though.

[seatnineb]

208. Quit the semantics:

"Exceeding VNE" is the same as "higher than VNE".....with the same result...

Look at the diagram:

Speed in Excess of VNE:

[Make7]

227. Your post reeks of hypocrisy.

"Quit the semantics"?  ROFL! Do you even read your own posts?

That's some funny stuff. Keep 'em comin'...

I don't think it matters how many times you repeat your willful misinterpretation of that diagram, your related statement will still be false.

- Make7

[seatnineb]

230. I think i see parts breakin of this plane as it exceeds it's VNE...

What do you see make7...

Is your eye-sight that bad?

[Make7]

238. "Speed in excess of Vne"

Posted by seatnineb:

According to this diagram:



.....parts break off the plane when it exceeds it VNE

1 - "Speed in excess of V_NE" indicates the speed of the plane is exactly:

    a) 161 kts
    b) 178 kts
    c) 320 kts
    d) cannot be determined from information given


2 - At which of the following speeds is the plane exceeding its V_NE:

    a) 140 kts
    b) 160 kts
    c) 161 kts
    d) none of the above


- Make7

[seatnineb]

242. Lets just focus on what happens when the plane exceeds it's VNE

I can keep on showing that diagram to you all day if U want.

[Make7]

245. I thought that's what I've been doing this whole time.

First let's determine "when the plane exceeds it's VNE."

In my previous hypothetical example of a plane that has a V_NE of 160 kts, if it accelerates from 144 kts up to 176 kts, when exactly does it exceed its V_NE?

- Make7

[seatnineb]

256. Who needs your hypothetical example.....

Clear enough for you.

[Make7]

260. I thought you did.

Just to be perfectly clear, for the airspeed indicated below...

... you believe the following will happen to the plane?

- Make7

[seatnineb]

265. I see no reason why not...

Is this still not clear enough for you?....


Better Take Offs And Landings
By Michael C Lowe
Page 17

[sabbat hunter]

247. do you think

that at 300MPH the plane would be ok if that was its designed operating speed but that at 305MPH it would start to break apart?

[seatnineb]

257. Why don't you consider this:

Your friends
Make7,Sweepea and Seagar are completely insignificant compared to Julian Evans who is a 767 pilot:

...who says:

How Airliners fly
Page 59
By Julien Evans(1999)

Now the official story is that flight 175 flew........

at a speed of about 590 mph into the south side of the South Tower of the World Trade Center, crashing through the 77th and 85th floors. By this time, several media organizations are covering the first plane crash and millions see the impact live.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911...

According to this web site:
http://www.militaryfactory.com/conversioncalculators/speed_knots_to_miles_per_hour.asp

590mph is 512 knots....

If a plane incurs aerodynamic stresses at 360 knots...then what is going to happen to it at 512 knots....

[sabbat hunter]

263. according to boeing

the max recommended cruising speed is 568MPH. That does not mean at 570 it will start to break up. so your numbers for Boeing 767 max speeds are faulty.

the take off speed is 360 knots. but once it is level it goes much faster. granted at a higher altitude, but it can still go that fast without breaking up.

[seatnineb]

267. But You R refering to True Air Speed......and at higher altitudes...

Aerodynamics of a 767 are related to the Indicated AirSpeed (IAS):


570 mph at cruise altitude(37000 feet) refers to TAS(True Indicated Airspeed).....not the IAS:

Anywhere below 25000 feet and IAS is the standard aerodynamic barometer...

And according to Julian Evans(767 and 757 pilot) the plane may experience aerodynamic stresses at 360 knots(and above)....anywhere below 25000 feet...

[sabbat hunter]

268. maximum stress

occurs on takeoff as the plane is trying to become airborne. once it is airborne, even just off the ground it rapidly increases in speed. I encourage you to track a flight on jet blue from start to finish and watch how rapidly the plane increases in speed.

Additionally, since the terrorists at the helm of the plane were unconcerned with maximum recommended speeds and stress levels, they pushed the planes past their design limits. Which probably shows that large passenger jet planes are wisely over-engineered

[seatnineb]

269. Yeah....but if the pilots themselves were overstressed...

...how could they control an already overstressed aircraft...

Remember...Flight 175 dived down.....





And this what happens when you dive down at a steep angle...

[sabbat hunter]

270. good thing

the were not in a steep dive then. you need to think spatially.

a couple thousand feet dive over a couple of miles is not a steep dive.

[seatnineb]

271. I would not be so sure about that....

Looks like a pretty steep dive to me...

By 8:58, the plane was heading towards New York City and descended from an altitude of 28,500 feet over New Jersey. From the time al-Shehhi completed the turn toward New York (approximately 8:58) to the moment of impact (9:02:40), the plane went into a sustained POWER DIVE, descending more than 24,000 feet in 4 minutes 40 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute.<5> New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues "were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175

This is how a power dive is defined......

power dive

pow·er dive (plural pow·er dives)

noun

Definition:

steep dive by aircraft: a steep dive made by an aircraft with its engines at high power to increase the speed

pow·er-dive transitive and intransitive verb
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861737550/power_dive.html

[seatnineb]

143. U forgot to make the distinction between MMO and MDF

Stability deteriorates and controllability can become very limiting under some circumstances on some types of jet transports.They all have satisfactory stability and control UP TO THERE SCHEDULED MMO VALUES but some get into trouble ON THE WAY TO MDF

Handling The Big Jets
By D.P Davies
Page 153
Published by the Civil aviation authority
(2006)

[Make7]

164. That's more like it.

Let me ask you a easy question. Do you think the following picture shows a jet transport?

My previous reply was discussing your claim that "According to this diagram: parts break off the plane when it exceeds it VNE." According to FAA regulations a plane must be able to exceed its V_NE by at least a certain amount without any risk of structural failure.

Case closed....U have been caught telling a lie.

- Make7

[seatnineb]

172. U R not makin sense Make7....me ..caught telling a lie.. where?

U posted FAA regulations...and I posted an aeroplane technical manual...

The diagram showed a small plane breakin up after EXCEEDING IT'S vNE...

Seagar denied that the diagram showed a plane broke up and I showed him up for it...

As for a jet transport......

[Make7]

183. You didn't answer the question.

1 - Do you think the following picture shows a jet transport? YES or NO

Posted by seatnineb:

According to this diagram:



.....parts break off the plane when it exceeds it VNE

Let's take a hypothetical situation and I'll ask you some questions about it.

A plane similar to the one in the diagram above has a V_NE of 160 kts. Let's say the plane is flying level at 144 kts and it accelerates to 176 kts and maintains that speed and altitude.

2 - When does the plane exceed its V_NE?

1. 160 kts
2. 161 kts
3. it doesn't exceed its V_NE

3 - At what speed do parts break off the plane?

1. 160 kts
2. 161 kts
3. according to FAA regulations structural failure should not occur

Posted by seatnineb:

According to this diagram:



.....parts break off the plane when it exceeds it VNE

- Make7

[seatnineb]

189. I don't need to......you on the other hand......have deal with this...

767 pilot Julian Evans says that:


360 knots is 414mph.....

Yet flight 175 flew at :

at a speed of about 590 mph into the south side of the South Tower of the World Trade Center, crashing through the 77th and 85th floors. By this time, several media organizations are covering the first plane crash and millions see the impact live.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/timeline.html

590 miles per hour is 512 knots
http://www.militaryfactory.com/conversioncalculators/speed_knots_to_miles_per_hour.asp

767 are subject to aerodynamic stresses above 360 knots........yet flight 175 was controlled by an Arab with a box cutter at 512 knots.....

Any comments..

[Make7]

205. Take a look at this diagram and the accompanying text:

 

Which one of the following statements is FALSE:

1. Any gusts or manoeuvring at speeds higher than V_NE can cause unacceptable load factors.
2. parts break off the plane when it exceeds it VNE

- Make7

[seatnineb]

207. Why ask stupid questions 2 which U already know the answer? n/t

[Make7]

228. I'm trying 2 figure out if U R capable of answering a simple question correctly. ( n/t )

[seatnineb]

231. If you are trying to figure that out...U can't be 2 clever can U?! n/t

[Make7]

239. Does that mean U R capable of answering but do not 4 some reason? ( n/t )

[seatnineb]

241. All it means is that you are capable of askin only stupid questions.n/t

[Make7]

246. R U frustrated because U can't determine teh correct answers? ( n/t )

[seatnineb]

250. Not really mate.....I think we already both know the answer n/t

[Make7]

261. R U frustrated because U did determine the correct answers? ( n/t )

[seatnineb]

266. No n/t

[William Seger]

46. Ouch, you got me

Yes, I clearly saw that the smudges in the gray blur on the edge of your diagram were supposed to be airplane pieces, but decided to lie. There goes my NWO shill bonus. :eyes:

I just did some searching for some more definitive information about the maximum speed of a 757/767, and it turns out that there doesn't really seem to be any. But one thing I found is that all this has been discussed with you before, seatnineb:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=175931&mesg_id=175931

I don't think one mo' time is going to make any difference. On the one hand, we have three empirical tests of the maximum speed of 757s and 767s -- on 9/11. On the other, we have "no-planers" who claim all the videos were faked and all the eyewitnesses are lying. Case closed.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

81. "YU"?

C'mon, U R almost there, one more keystroke won't kill U.

[seatnineb]

93. You R down and out for the count mate.....

I see you failed to answer the question...

How could this plane be in 2 places at the same time:

[William Seger]

118. You're kidding, right?

It's called parallax. Figure out where the cameras were, and your mystery disappears.

[seatnineb]

120. No I ain't kidding....and U really R out of your depth....

The pictures speak a 1000words...and destroy your pathetic beliefs...at the same time....

[hack89]

123. They actually confirm my beliefs

a straight in run with a low g descent. Very basic airmanship - certainly well within the capabilities of a licensed commercial pilot.

[seatnineb]

124. It confirms that you don't know what U R talkin about....

Mechanics Of Flight
By AC Kermode
Published by Prentice Hall
1996

Some dive huh?....

[hack89]

126. How many degrees? How many Gs?

have any real facts - surely a truther "scientist" has actually analyzed this.

[seatnineb]

139. Ask this MIT proffessor....

The above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC close to the ground at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal altitude of 10km (33,000 ft). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots that the terrorists were could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on. Also, consideering that the air at low altitudes is much denser than that at the normal cruising height, the pilots greatly exceeded VNE (“never exceed velocity”) and thereby risked disintegration of the aircraft by air friction.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20 ...

[hack89]

148. "Risked" does not mean impossible or inevitable

especially for the short time of the final run in.

I don't understand your point - are you saying this proves no-planes?

[seatnineb]

150. No ......it means it could have happened....n/t

[William Seger]

152. Oh really?

I really want to help you understand this, seat, and since an inability to understand simple perspective seems to be a common problem among "no-planers," I've taken a Google Earth model of the WTC and added an approximation of the UA175 flight path. It isn't perfect, but I think it's close enough to help you work out your perspective problems here.

Here's what it looks like from approximately the viewpoint of the "Park Foreman video":



And here from approximately the location of the "Brooklyn Bridge video":



But from a high angle (e.g. from a helicopter), looking over the top of the towers in the direction of the approach, it looks like the plane is doing a steep dive, goes to the left of the tower and then swings back into it:



However, from a different angle (still from the north, but lower angle), the dive looks shallower and if flies right into the tower:



As I said, figure out where the cameras were in your images and your mystery will disappear. Here's the Google Earth model, if you want to play with it yourself. It could use some fine tuning, so I'm not going to be much interested in whining about it not being perfect. I may spend some time later to match it up with other videos and get the path a little closer.

http://opendb.com/images/wtc-ua175.kmz

[seatnineb]

156. Yeah really....

you claim that this angle is from above....



When in fact it is either level...or from below....



Nice try at deception...but it does not wash.....

Which means that one or both these videos must be fake...





case closed.

[William Seger]

158. Good freakin' grief...

OK, here's a view from level with the top of the towers:



Happy now? I gave you a link to my model so you could do your own experimenting with different camera positions, OK?

[seatnineb]

160. Your link to the model does not work....

It's a shame William...cos' you got talent.....but u need to use it in the right way...


this hypothetical angle


....... bears more of a resembelance to this shot from a helicopter


(although more looking from straight north than your north easternly diagram)


I don't think you have gone low down enough with this one...but better..


but this shot(where you can't see the horizon):


is definetly the from the north east and level:


and this shot is also from the north east but slightly lower down:



You can believe in a real plane....but even you should at least concede that whatever reason....the techmach video is a fake ...and a poor one at that.

[William Seger]

168. OK, You've ALMOST convinced me...

... that there's a 0% probability that you will ever understand this, but since we've come this far, I'll give it one more try: When you move the position of the camara, the relative 2-dimensional position of everything changes depending on their relative 3-dimensional positions. Here's a view from well below the top of the towers, but if I turn to a different angle on the building, the flight path still looks like it's diving onto the roof, goes a bit to the right of the tower, and then turns back into it. That does not mean that's what it's really doing; that's just how it looks from that position:



However, from a lower position, farther to the right but still NE of the tower, the flight path looks like a much shallower dive, straight in:



And again, I'm not saying that my flight path is 100% accurate or that either of my captured images is identical to those video positions. (Unfortunately, Google Earth doesn't allow you to set a fixed viewpoint height and just change the viewing angle.) All I'm trying to do is explain to you why it's just your misunderstanding of perspective that's making those videos so confusing to you.

And sorry about the link -- it appears that server doesn't want to download a kzm file -- so here's a zip file with the Google model in it:

http://opendb.com/images/wtc-ua175.zip

[seatnineb]

169. Oh i understand the perspective issue only too well....and U know that..

Don't make it any harder on yourself than it already is:

You know a one plane cannot be in 2 places at the same time....

[William Seger]

171. Now you're resorting to fraudulent pictures?

Maybe you ought to stop and consider just why you're doing that, before you post any more.

[seatnineb]

173. I'll post them to show how much crap U R propagating...

I see you have nothing but a load of innacurate poorly concieved google images as a response

[William Seger]

174. ROFLMAO!

[seatnineb]

177. Thank you 4 showing that at least one of the videos is fake.

[William Seger]

180. Oh, bullshit

You asked how a plane could be "in two places at once." I showed you: It just looks that way because the cameras were in different places. Let it go, seat; you'll feel better.

[seatnineb]

182. I ain't lettin anything go......your trajectories are flawed....

Just like the videos U believe in....

[Sweet Pea]

67. Good Point

I can just see the hijackers saying "Brother Hani! Remember not to fly the aircraft above the never-exceed speed! It might break!"

[seatnineb]

76. How can Hanjour control the plane IF it exceeds it VNE? n/t

[Sweet Pea]

133. Easy

He keeps two hands on the control yoke and flies the airplane. Easy as that.

[seatnineb]

140. No I don't think it would be that easy...

Dovrei metterci veramente tanto tanto impegno perche non e' una cosa semplice dal mio punto di vista....credo che chi ha fatto questa attivita possa capire cosa vuole dire stare a 10 metri a terra 5 metri a terra con un aereoplano che pesa 110 120 tonellatto lanciato 900 km al ora...........basta toccare la cloche.......e schizza via.......ma schizza facendo variazioni 100 metri......non di 10 metri.....

I would have too work really really hard because it is not an easy thing from my point of view.....I believe whoever did this understood what it it means to stay 10 or 5 metres off the ground with an aeroplane that weighs 110 or 120 tonnes going at 900kmh......
it would just need a touch of the yoke ........and you would go off course....but you would go off course by a 100 metres or so.....not 10 metres....

Claudio Galavotti(2/20/06)
Alitalia pilot
Italian State TV

Galavotti also flew fighter jets before becoming a comercial pilot....I'll take him over you...anytime.

[William Seger]

153. Why is that both Galavotti and Wittenberg

... don't seem to know much about the actual flight path? That would be important in evaluating how difficult the flying would have been, but they both have nonsensical versions of it. Flight 77 didn't "stay 10 or 5 metres off the ground." After making the turn to descend, it just dove into the Pentagon. Sorry, but the same as with Wittenberg, Galavotti's experience is irrelevant if he's talking about an imaginary flight path.

[seatnineb]

157. You need to get a reality check with the bullshit that u believe in...

It was the witnesses who claimed Flight 77 was close to the ground:

Frank Probst a Pentagon renovation worker and retired Army officer, he was inspecting newly installed telecommunications wiring inside the five-story,
SNIP
The plane seemed to be accelerating directly toward him. He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away. The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer "like butter," Probst said. The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart.

Maybe the witnesses were imagining an "imaganary flight path".

[William Seger]

159. What the hell are you trying to say now?

Yes, it was "close to the ground" when it hit the building -- after diving into it -- and we don't need any witnesses to verify that. But Galavotti said, "I believe whoever did this understood what it it means to stay 10 or 5 metres off the ground." Well, I can believe that -- there's a good chance you'll hit something, huh? Jeez, are you purposely being dense?

[seatnineb]

161. Yeah....Galavotti just punctured the whole pentagon bullshit

Claudio Galavotti:

Mano mano che ci si avvicina a terra piu si va in zona di aria perturbata......vento vicino a terra non ha una direzione predeterminata .....ma ruota in funzione degi ostacoli........quindi ci sono tutta una serie di turbulenza che fanno si che si e' molto difficile stare veramente appiccicata per terra.

Little by little as you get closer to the ground the more you go into a zone where the air is "unsettled"....the wind close to the ground does not have a pre-determined direction....but circulates in accordance to the obstacles.......so there is a lot of turbulence that makes it very difficult to remain so close to the ground.

You keep believeing in your anonymouse pentagon chum ....sweet pea

I'll take Galvotti....

[William Seger]

170. Wow

I don't think Hanjour was concerned about "remaining so close to the ground." It's clear that Galavotti either just doesn't know that the plane hit the building in a shallow dive, or he's talking bullshit to bolster his own CT delusions. There's no need to figure out which it is, however, because either way, he's not saying anything relevant to the reality of the flight path.

[seatnineb]

175. Wrong...here eat some more....

In the words of Claudio Galavotti:
Ma basta toccarli e fare una spostamento di 100 metri in quota....quindi sull asse orizontale........e veramente ridicolo.......cioe' bisogna avere tutta una serie di condizioni particolari di volonta di restare attacato al terreno......io credo che non e ' una cosa semplice.

It just needs a touch and there would be a movement of 100 metres at altitude.....on the horizontal axis...it is just ridicolouse....you would need a set of particular circumstances to remain so close to the ground....I believe that it is no easy thing

The question is how hanjour could control the plane so close to the ground...not whether he cared about stayin close to the ground....

As I said..if i had to make a choice between U and Galavotti....he wins....easily.

[William Seger]

176. No thanks, that stuff gives you gas

[seatnineb]

178. No I'm sure you can U can swallow some more....

These are the kinds of things sweetpea does not tell you.......

In the words of Claudo Galavotti:
La prima difficolta sarrebbe quella di volare attacatto a terra...e lo so per esperienza dirretta avendo fatto volo milatare a bassa quota...........quindi si deve vincere la reazione instinta di "alzarsi"....

The 1st difficulty would be to fly so close to the ground itself.... and I know having flown at low altitude during my time in the military....so you have to overcome the instinctive reaction to "raise"(the plane)........

[William Seger]

187. You "ain't lettin anything go," are you

That seems to be the recurring theme in your postings in this thread. Another one that's popped up in several threads is that you seem to have trouble visualizing things. Hanjour did a shallow dive into the building; he didn't fly along at low altitude, so what Galavotti is saying is irrelevant because that's not what happened. Coincidentally, irrelevancy is another recurring theme in your posting.

[seatnineb]

188. U did not even see the program where galavotti was interviewed..

Yet you have the temerity to suggest he is not familiar with the flight plath.

The program 1st analised the trajectory and flight path of flight 77....

then asked for the opinion of Galavotti....



And his opinion was:

Claudio Galavotti:
La prima difficolta sarrebbe quella di volare attacatto a terra...e lo so per esperienza dirretta avendo fatto volo milatare a bassa quota...........quindi si deve vincere la reazione instinta di "alzarsi"....primo.....secondo

The 1st difficulty would be to fly so close to the ground itself.... and I know having flown at low altitude during my time in the military....so you have to overcome the instinctive reaction to "raise"(the plane)...first....second.....

Roberto Olla(interviewer):

il terreno corre.......

because the ground passes.....

Claudio Galavotti:

..... il terreno corre via ad una velocita incredibile........propia la reazione ancora di alzarsi
secondo......ce la turbulenza indotto dal terreno

... the ground passes by at an incredible speed...so the reaction to raise (the plane)....second...there is the turbulence induced by the ground....

[Sweet Pea]

201. You Are Ignoring The Mindset

of the kamikaze or suicide pilot. Do you really think they gave a damn about any "reaction to raise (the plane)"? Do you really think they gave a damn about adhering to FAA regulations or aircraft structural or speed limitations, such as they were? Do you really think they cared a whit about what *might* happen to the aircraft if they aimed at a building and tried to get as much speed as they could before crashing into it, since that was exactly what they wanted to do?

Galavotti was opining as an experienced airline pilot, one trained to do all the aforementioned things and to make the ride for his airline customers as smooth as possible. He was not speaking for someone who 1) didn't give a flying frig about operating the aircraft at a safe speed or at a safe altitude or in any way as an airliner should be flown or 2) had a sole purpose in life to crash the aircraft into whatever target they were trying to hit.

[William Seger]

203. Well, maybe you need a diagram

Galavotti is correct: Flying close to the ground is very dangerous because of turbulence:

[Sweet Pea]

206. Oh yes.....

the infamous DU Diagrams:



Forgive me.

[seatnineb]

210. Try doing it at higher speeds..... but that would be "ridiculouse"

Dovrei metterci veramente tanto tanto impegno perche non e' una cosa semplice dal mio punto di vista....credo che chi ha fatto questa attivita possa capire cosa vuole dire stare a 10 metri a terra 5 metri a terra con un aereoplano che pesa 110 120 tonellatto lanciato 900 km al ora...........basta toccare la cloche.......e schizza via.......ma schizza facendo variazioni 100 metri......non di 10 metri.....

I would have too work really really hard because it is not an easy thing from my point of view.....I believe whoever did this understood what it it means to stay 10 or 5 metres off the ground with an aeroplane that weighs 110 or 120 tonnes going at 900kmh......it would just need a touch of the yoke ........and you would go off course....but you would go off course by a 100 metres or so.....not 10 metres....


Ma basta toccarli e fare una spostamento di 100 metri in quota....quindi sull asse orizontale........e veramente ridicolo.......cioe' bisogna avere tutta una serie di condizioni particolari di volonta di restare attacato al terreno......io credo che non e ' una cosa semplice.

It just needs a touch and there would be a movement of 100 metres at altitude.....on the horizontal axis...it is just ridicolouse....you would need a set of particular circumstances to remain so close to the ground....I believe that it is no easy thing

[seatnineb]

209. A kamikaze still needs to be able to control the plane 2 fly it into te target....

So kamikazes don't care do they Sweetpea....

I think they do...

“Daley, who was flying over ground zero in New York City on September 11, showed the audience a gripping video taken in the cabin of his NYPD Bell 412 during the attacks. At one point, his helicopter was about 150 feet from the hijacked Boeing 767; indeed, the commandeered commercial airliner DOVE TO AVOID Daley's helicopter.”

http://www.defensedaily.com/sar2001/wrap3.htm

Very considerate of the hijackers to avoid hitting the helicopter don't ya think.....not bad for an Arab who can't control or cares to control his plane.

[Sweet Pea]

213. Couple of comments on this statement

1) Sure would be nice to see that video - it would go a long, long way toward finally driving a stake in the myth of the "no planers". A video from a helicopter where the hijacked plane passes a mere 150 feet from it would be golden. Funny that hasn't made the rounds at all nearly 6 years later.

2) Guess that quote kills your belief that all this was faked and that hijackers cannot control an aircraft at that speed/altitude.

Or are you going to retract that post and state, for the record, that Daley was lying and that no "hijacker pilot" could control the aircraft in that manner?

Did I say that a hijacker will not exercise some discretion - whatever discretion - regarding his "mission"? I suppose "avoiding" a mid-air could be considered adhering to FAA regulations, but to use that as an example that a "hijacker/kamikaze/suicied pilot" was not at the controls is bullshit, at best.

So, for the record, can a hijacker pilot control an airliner at those speeds and altitudes or not?

[seatnineb]

214. Couple of answers

1) Sure would be nice to see that video - it would go a long, long way toward finally driving a stake in the myth of the "no planers". A video from a helicopter where the hijacked plane passes a mere 150 feet from it would be golden. Funny that hasn't made the rounds at all nearly 6 years later.

Yeah...funny is'nt it!

2) Guess that quote kills your belief that all this was faked and that hijackers cannot control an aircraft at that speed/altitude.

Well...seeing as there is no helicopter that is above flight 175 after it descends....in this video...maybe that helicopter testimony is complete bullshit....



Or are you going to retract that post and state, for the record, that Daley was lying and that no "hijacker pilot" could control the aircraft in that manner?

Find me a video featuring flight 175 diving out of the way of this helicopter and I might......

happy hunting...

3)Did I say that a hijacker will not exercise some discretion - whatever discretion - regarding his "mission"? I suppose "avoiding" a mid-air could be considered adhering to FAA regulations, but to use that as an example that a "hijacker/kamikaze/suicied pilot" was not at the controls is bullshit, at best.

So, for the record, can a hijacker pilot control an airliner at those speeds and altitudes or not?

I think this diagram buries your beliefs....the videos and that helicopter testimony all in one go...

[Sweet Pea]

216. Are you always this confused?

I mean, when debating complex things like this? You posted that little snippet about Daley and the helicopter as, I assume, evidence that a kamikaze/suicide pilot could/might/is going to exercise some discretion in his flight path as opposed to a balls-to-the-wall attitude in crashing his hijacked airplane, and in THIS one you contradict yourself by saying the helicopter video/account could be bullshit and the kamikaze/suicide pilot di dno such thing.

Do you really have any idea what you are talking about or where you stand on things?

And as far as that diagram you keep posting, I think its pretty clear you don't understand it and you post it as som ejustification for overdue library book fees or something. I'm not certain what you think you get from posting random charts and diagram shere.

Let me give you a nickel's worth of advice - take it or leave it. Grabbing a library book off the shelf and scanning random charts or diagrams from it and throwing them up in defense of a specious argument that you will never win does not bode well for your side.

Oh...I know what your response will be - a dismissive comment about my "supposed" expertise and an attached diagram or chart of....what next?...probably the take-off roll of a generic aircraft on a standard day at sea level.

Let me ask you this, Mr. Aeronautical Wizard - what do your charts say about take off when the field temperature is above 150 degrees F? There's no trick question here and it is not related in any way, shape or form to any of the 9/11 flights. Let's just say its a query about your credibility in these matters.

[seatnineb]

220. For u to field the question must mean I have your respect...

I guess the library books cause you a bit of a problem....

You have no proof when you say the following...I see Make7 tried the same pathetic tactic up thread....

And as far as that diagram you keep posting, I think its pretty clear you don't understand it and you post it as some justification for overdue library book fees or something.

If you understand the diagram...... My anonymouse Ex pentagon/military jet experienced friend.....



Then perhaps U would care to explain what it is showing....I have the book here which actually gives a very succinct description of what the diagram is showing....

But I bet U don't have the fuckin balls...

[Sweet Pea]

197. If Galavotti made pizzas before...

you'd still probably take him over me - for no other reason than he agrees with your take (or you with his) on this whole thing.

And for the record, while not a commercial pilot, I do have 1250 hours special crew time in military jets, so I am not making this shit up or relying on some library book for the opinions and comments I make here.

[seatnineb]

198. Galavotti has flown both military and commercial airliners...

U on the other hand have only flown military planes(so we are led to believe ....but there is no real proof that U have)

On that count alone..he is more qualified than you....

BTW the Pizza remark is pretty lame....

Talk about stereotyping.....

[Sweet Pea]

200. Revised...

If Galavotti made lemon meringue pies.....

The fact remains - his position on these issues mirror yours, so you would still take his statements over mine.

[seatnineb]

211. No his position takes into account aerodynamics...yours takes in fantasy n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

38. And in the amazing crash impact videos which you would have us believe are authentic...

...we're treated to an amazing suspension in the laws of physics just for that one day in September of 2001 as we see that nothing breaks off, bends, crumples, or deforms in any discernible way when, not one, but two large aluminum commercial jetliners slam into the side of steel reinforced concrete skyscrapers...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2lOcEOsmAtA

What other fairytales can you share with us, William?

[William Seger]

49. Well, since you accept YouTube as the definitive reference for everything

Watch this "amazing suspension in the laws of physics" as a plane is completely destroyed when it crashes into a very solid concrete wall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY

Unlike the towers, this was indeed a very solid wall (like that used for nuclear reactor containment) so the debris couldn't go into the hole as it obviously did at the towers, so it has to fly out to the sides. But watch the fuselage of the plane: "nothing breaks off, bends, crumples, or deforms in any discernible way." What would that video look like if the plane had knocked a hole in a less substantial wall, so the debris could go forward instead of being forced to go to the side? Maybe like a "knife though butter?"

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

60. Absolutely astounding that anyone would post that video..

...trying to argue for the 9-11 OCT fairytale.

How dense do you have to be not to realize that this video does just the opposite. It shows what actually does happen in the real world -- the aircraft crashes AGAINST the concrete wall, as opposed to being swallowed whole by it as the fake plane videos show.

Compare the two:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2lOcEOsmAtA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY

One is real world and one can only happen in a cartoon.

You must be all of 12 years old.

[William Seger]

74. "How dense do you have to be..."

I'm completely speechless.

[leftofthedial]

48. wittenburg is not the only pilot--experienced 757/767 air line pilot--

whom I have heard say they don't think the flying done by the OTC hijackers in the OTC planes on 9-11 was possible

especially the Pentagon plane, but really all three planes that hit buildings

[William Seger]

50. But are they talking about...

... the actual flying done by Hanjour, as recorded in the FDR, or are they reacting to the highly distorted version served up by the "truth movement." I think it's clear that Wittenberg (if he's actually an experienced pilot) must be talking about the latter.

[leftofthedial]

51. some were talking about what they read in the 9-11 commission report

others were talking about what they saw on TV in the days following 9-11

others were talking about 9-11; I have no idea what their frame of reference was, though the point was they did not believe the OCT

[William Seger]

53. Well, watch the NTSB animation

... and tell me if you think it looks like a highly skilled pilot doing a difficult maneuver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3EMnCx4yI

[leftofthedial]

55. the animation.

THAT tells me plenty . . .

like a fundie "proving" a theological point by referencing the bible.

I used to fly a little, though nothing as big as a 757. I did fly an Air Force B-52 simulator once and even that was NOT easy. Just trying to align the plane on the same axis with the target was bitchingly difficult. Maneuvering a very large plane at high speed--nearly or in excess of its envelope--is not as trivial as playing with your MS flight simulator.

[William Seger]

56. The animation is just a graphic representation of the FDR data

... showing the yoke controls that were applied and the orientation of the plane at 1-second intervals.

I asked if that looked like a highly skilled pilot doing a difficult maneuver, but I don't really see any answer in your reply.

[leftofthedial]

62. a cartoon representation, with a nice, smooth, easy, little cartoon Cessna

Steering a 757--a *real* 757--through that maneuver, with the "look" and the feel of the real multi-ton behemoth instead of the cute little cartoon would create a different impression.

[William Seger]

72. Is that a "yes"?

You do believe that, with a real 757 instead of the graphic, that would look like a highly skilled pilot doing a difficult maneuver?

OK ...

[leftofthedial]

83. I'm saying the animation has almost nothing to do with the real difficulty

of flying a plane that large, that fast, into that target.

All the panes on 9-11, most extremely the one said to hit the Pentagon, were flown extremely skillfully.

[AZCat]

84. No, it wasn't.

Please read up on this before making such stupid statements.

[leftofthedial]

87. yes, it was

Please read up on this before making such stupid statement.

[AZCat]

88. Fortunately for me, I have.

That's why I know you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[leftofthedial]

89. neener neener

tool.

[AZCat]

90. Whatever.

Why don't you try looking into this shit before making an ass of yourself next time? It would benefit you much more than me - I get a kick out of reading the stupid shit the "truth movement" thinks is true.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

91. Looks like AZCat just won another debate...

...he got the last word as evidenced by post #92 and that proves he won.

[AZCat]

92. I can't win if you keep responding.

Please stop - I'm trying to accumulate enough NWOPoints to win a new car.

[leftofthedial]

97. and the last word is "stupid shit."

[leftofthedial]

96. You can keep calling it "stupid shit" and insisting that only you know what

you're talking about all you want, but it's not convincing me or anyone else. Your name-calling post is utterly unclear as to what it is that you disagree with. That, without knowing me or anything about me, you think I am "stupid," on the other hand, is perfectly clear.

I know a little about and have read much about the topics of flight animations, flight simulations and the 9-11 OCT planes. My father, family members and several close friends fly or flew big jets for their military and civilian careers. None of them thinks that the flying done by the "terrorists" on 9-11 was simple, trivial or likely, most especially in the case of the Pentagon.

You can flap your gums, fling your spittle and call what I say "stupid shit" all you want and it adds nothing to this discussion. THAT is stupid shit.

[AZCat]

99. I think I'm doing a pretty good job...

considering that I'm multitasking right now. Alt-tabbing between my equipment cut sheets and this forum can be quite confusing. I'm lucky I haven't accidentally pasted a bunch of garbage in any of these posts.

I'm not here to convince you (or anyone else). Long ago I realized that the true believers (like you) don't listen to reason or facts, and there is no point to me spending the time to make a technical argument. If you have talked to people with experience who think what you say they do, then either they haven't thought much about this or they are idiots (not unusual among the flight community).

[leftofthedial]

100. a) what is it you think I'm a "true believer" in?

b) you calling experienced men about whom you know nothing "idiots" is an expression of your own ignorance


Have you ever flown a large jet aircraft at a speed higher than its recommeded ceiling and tried to align it with anything on the ground?

[seatnineb]

101. Well said! n/t

[AZCat]

102. I'd stop discussing this if I were you.

You're just looking like a bigger idiot.

[leftofthedial]

103. now *that's* a compelling argument . . .

[AZCat]

104. So you don't mind?

It must be a frequent occurrence for you.

[leftofthedial]

105. no,

but this is.

[AZCat]

106. Then maybe you should know what you are talking about.

Then it won't be so frequent.

[leftofthedial]

107. at least we're keeping this thread kicked

[AZCat]

108. Shhh!

Don't let the others know... (it's a secret)

[leftofthedial]

109. I think they know

[AZCat]

110. Really?

Then I might as well give up - my job at the NWO southwest branch is moot. I guess it's back to overthrowing Central American governments for me!

[leftofthedial]

111. try the mojitos!

:thumbsup:

[AZCat]

112. Usually by the time I start posting in the afternoon...

I'm well into my cups. Beer is the typical afternoon beverage, but I have sampled mojitos before - my friend makes good ones. It's just easier to drink beer at work - I don't have to mix anything.

[leftofthedial]

113. and you can get really wasted

drinking them through a straw

[AZCat]

114. Eh. Not much of a straw-drinker. n/t

[leftofthedial]

116. ever tried vodka

in the kool aid?

[Ghost in the Machine]

129. Why is that you OCTers can NEVER answer a simple question?

In case you forgot, here's that very simple question again:

"Have you ever flown a large jet aircraft at a speed higher than its recommeded ceiling and tried to align it with anything on the ground?"

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. You don't have to elaborate or spin off into anything else. Period. Just a simple yes or no.

Again:
"Have you ever flown a large jet aircraft at a speed higher than its recommeded ceiling and tried to align it with anything on the ground?"

[William Seger]

131. Well, in this case, it's just a dumb question

... but my answer is, yes, I've done it many times in Flight Simulator. I don't quite buy Microsoft's hype that that's "as real as it gets" -- commercial simulators, like the type the hijackers trained in, are almost certainly better -- but it's considered to be a very good simulation of real-world aerodynamics. The commercial training simulator that the Dutch amateur pilot used for his 3-out-of-3 successes in duplicating Hanjour's skill is probably better. But the question asked is inherently irrelevant to anything whatsoever. It doesn't matter how difficult you perceive the flying to be, or whether or not anyone here has done it; the clear evidence is that the hijackers accomplished it. "No-planers" are trying to argue that the hijacking story must be a fraud because what they did was too difficult for their skills, and then offer nothing but their own subjective judgment about both of those as the "proof." It's an idiotic argument.

[Ghost in the Machine]

132. Ok, thank you... now let's go a little deeper...

but my answer is, yes, I've done it many times in Flight Simulator. I don't quite buy Microsoft's hype that that's "as real as it gets"

Alright... you admit that the Microsoft Flight Simulator isn't the best source to base your argument on. Do you think it was much easier to do, or just a tiny bit easier to do, with the software you have? I mean, I've done a triple somersault on a 4 wheeler on my kids XBOX 360... does that mean I can go outside and do it for real now? I've done it hundreds of times on the game, so I *should* be able to pull it off... right? (ok, that was snarky, but I had to say it or I was gonna bust)

Now... in your own mind, would you, or could you, be willing to believe that maybe the hijackers were duped, or double crossed, and that the auto-pilot and or controls of these planes, especially Flight 77, could have been hacked and been controlled by a remote source? Is there *any* possibilty of that happening?

PEACE!

Ghost

[William Seger]

134. Deeper into what?

> "Alright... you admit that the Microsoft Flight Simulator isn't the best source to base your argument on."

Excuse me, but I was simply answering your totally irrelevant question, not basing an argument on that answer. I'll answer your next irrelevant question, too, but not before restating my actual argument: It doesn't matter what anyone here has or has not done in a simulator or a real plane. The evidence is that four hijackers did manage to hit three buildings, which can't be dismissed with nothing but conspiracy-biased subjective opinions about how difficult that would be and their lack of sufficient skill. There is no evidence that the hijackers did any of the complex, difficult "5, 6, 7 G" maneuvers that Wittenberg imagines. I have read many pilots who have the experience necessary to offer a knowledgeable opinion say it wouldn't be all that hard to do what they did. The only part my experience with Flight Simulator plays is that it seems obvious to me that if FS is anywhere near realistic, the people who say it wouldn't be very hard are far more probably correct.

As for your question, I'd say it's technically a "possibility" but just not very plausible. You can speculate all you like, but regardless of any "possibility," you have offered nothing resembling evidence to support that theory, nor have you established the need for any such theory.

[Ghost in the Machine]

136. Deeper into your mind, Mr. Seger...

Do you ever think outside the box? Let your mind wander a little bit? Explore the "what ifs"?

It doesn't matter what anyone here has or has not done in a simulator or a real plane. The evidence is that four hijackers did manage to hit three buildings, which can't be dismissed with nothing but conspiracy-biased subjective opinions about how difficult that would be and their lack of sufficient skill.

To follow along with my last question: Do you have 100% positive proof that the hijackers *were* in control of the planes at all times after their initial takeover? 'Empirical proof'... isn't that what some posters here call it?

In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical reasons.

Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft.

Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means. From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane.

Just sayin'...

[William Seger]

137. That seems to be a comon misconception

> "Do you ever think outside the box? Let your mind wander a little bit? Explore the "what ifs"?"

I'm sure you prefer to think of it that way, but to me the issue here is really the ability to objectively evaluate the evidence and the plausibility of the various possible explanations, and then order them according to their probability of being true. It's an imperfect way to get at the "truth" but I don't know anything that works better. That's what we ask juries to do when we ask them to decide whether or not someone is guilty of a crime, and as imperfect as that is, nobody has invented anything better. It's sometimes possible to get the right answer by jumping to conclusions; it's just a highly unreliable method.

> "To follow along with my last question: Do you have 100% positive proof that the hijackers *were* in control of the planes at all times after their initial takeover? 'Empirical proof'... isn't that what some posters here call it?"

Nope, not 100%, but on the other hand, I have 0% proof of anything else. If some should surface, I do believe I'm capable of changing my mind. It's happened before.

[Ghost in the Machine]

138. It's not that I prefer to think of it that way, that's just how it is with me, personally..

I like exploring both sides of the issue and weighing them for their merits. I feel comfortable delving off the deep end, looking in the dark corners because I know I can always come back.

but to me the issue here is really the ability to objectively evaluate the evidence and the plausibility of the various possible explanations, and then order them according to their probability of being true.

To objectively evaluate the evidence, you would have to go down that path into the darkness. You have to delve into the criminal mind and know & understand their mindset amd/or world view.

Given everything that has happened since 9-11... the patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, illegal invasion & occupation of a sovereign nation, torture, extraordinary renditions, suspension of habeas corpus & posse comitatus, erasing 5 million emails, outing an undercover cia angent and exposing her whole front operation, US Attorney firings, refusal to answer subpoenas, hampering investigations of 9-11, refusing to testify to congress about 9-11 unless it was closed door, off the record, no transcripts and darth cheney had to be holding his hand... after ALL of this, how can anyone take anything from this misadministration at face value? What, in your mind, would it take to convince you to look more into those deeper, darker corners in search of the truth?

Who has gained the most from the attacks? Bush, Cheney & their cronies in the MIC, right? It's all of these things combined that makes me ask the dark questions. Some people keep trying to push the "incompetence theory" and label this misadministration as bumbling fools... but how can they be bumbling when they have gotten everything that they they've wanted and desired? What about the "coincidence theory"? Is everything that's happened *since* 9-11 just one big coinkydink?

Nope, not 100%, but on the other hand, I have 0% proof of anything else. If some should surface, I do believe I'm capable of changing my mind. It's happened before.

I understand what you're saying about 0 proof, but how do gain that proof if you're unwilling to delve that deep into those dark corners? They had zero proof that the Earth was flat, yet declared it for years, until someone was finally brave enough to set out to "go over the edge". Sometimes going over the edge isn't such a bad thing... it can open up whole new worlds for you and change your world view.

I just feel that every lead MUST be exhausted to get to the absolute truth. We owe that to everyone who lost their lives that day, and the ones who continue to lose their lives. We need that truth, where ever that truth resides.

Thanks for letting me pick your brain a little bit here. I'm not trying to change your mind on anything, nor am I trying to convince you of anything... I just like floating possibilities with someone with a different viewpoint than mine. Thanks for being civil, Mr. Seger..

PEACE!

Ghost

[William Seger]

119. Then that's a "yes," right?

I don't quite understand why you are complicating a simple question with things like "the animation has almost nothing to do with the real difficulty of flying a plane that large." You are saying that in your opinion, making a turn while descending is a very difficult thing to do in a 757, so that turn looks to you like an extremely skillful pilot, right? And on the basis of your judgment that it looks to you like an extremely skillful pilot performing an extremely difficult maneuver, you don't think Hanjour could possibly do it, right?

[leftofthedial]

98. I watched "Spiderman" the other day

I think it would be no problem for any of us to swing at 60 or 70 miles per hour hanging by a silk thread through the length and breadth of Manhattan. I mean watch the movie. It looks easy, right?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

63. "Watch the animation..."

...We just can't seem to get you off the cartoons. What is it about the real world that frightens you so?

[BeachBaby]

135. What source of information are you using.....

when you refer to the pilots of the aircraft as being "a religious fanatic, not to mention something as out of whack as an al Queda devotee"? What ever gave you THAT idea?

You keep telling us to open our minds as you claim you have; yet you're the one whose mind is addicted to the 2001 fairy tale. Hell, even the FBI doesn't buy it anymore.

[William Seger]

3. Try again

" I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

I'm pretty sure they couldn't do that, either. I'm also pretty sure they didn't do that, and I'm pretty sure that the only people making claims that they did are the "truth movement." The major tactic of this "truth movement" is to attempt to make their own highly implausible hypothesis appear to be the only possible one by making the "official story" appear to be impossible, even if they have to use distortions and lies to do it. It's no surprise that people who accept that distorted version of reality become "truthers." The mystery to me is why they call themselves "truthers."

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. I notice you were careful not to clarify the OCT narrative...

...If Mr. Wittenberg's remarks are somehow misleading or mischaracterizing your sacred OCT fairytale, please feel free to point out and correct where he is in error, and please do provide your source(s).

[William Seger]

7. Why do you ask?

Would you like another opportunity to demonstrate your ability to ignore it? Fine, let's start with the staff report to the 9/11 Commission: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/911comm-ss4.pdf

To summarize: Wittenberg's claim that the pilots only trained in a Cesna 172 is completely false, and in a pinch, even you could learn the navigation system using Microsoft Flight Simulator. Flying a plane at 100 mph over the safe design speed is extremely dangerous, but if your objective is to dive into a building anyway, it doesn't require a great deal of skill. Wittenberg's claim that any of the planes were "pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's" is also totally bogus: Flights 11 and 175 flew almost straight into the WTC towers, and Flight 77 (as shown by the NTSB animation made from the flight data) did a fairly slow and sloppy 270-degree turn to lose 7000 feet of altitude to hit the Pentagon, which was well within the capability of a 757 and did not come close to requiring the amazing skills that "truthers" imagine. (Diving straight into the building from 7000 feet without overspeeding and losing control would have required skill that Hanjour probably didn't have.) Then Hanjour damn near hit the Washington Blvd bridge and then just barely managed to level out enough to avoid plowing into the Pentagon lawn, but "truthers" don't have any problem assuming that's exactly what he was intending to do, so to them, that sloppy flying actually proves that extraordinary skill was required.

[Sweet Pea]

9. "Wittenberg's claim that any of the planes..."

...were "pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's" is also totally bogus" is enough of a bullshit comment that someone should check this guy Wittenburg's background and see if he's lying.

That is such a stultifyingly stupid comment, to assume and state something like that based on all the evidence of the flight plans and flight paths of the aircraft.

[screembloodymurder]

15. Actually I've heard from a number of commercial pilots

that the plane that hit the Pentagon, "Could not have been flown by an inexperienced pilot."

[AZCat]

23. Apparently you and I didn't talk to the same pilots.

Of course, there's always the chance that the ones you talked to are idiots.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

34. Please don't question AZCat -- he's an expert on everything...

...and he's never wrong, and remember, AZCat get's the last word -- that means he wins the argument for those of you who may be wondering.

[AZCat]

40. Your reading comprehension gap is showing again.

Please reread my post and point out where I claimed to be an expert either on everything or aviation. Oh wait, I didn't. Get a fucking clue first next time.

[William Seger]

27. Well, I certainly wouldn't have trusted Hanjour to land that plane safely

But that wasn't the intent, was it. Hajour was a crappy pilot, not an "inexperienced pilot." He had a commercial ATP license.

[AZCat]

29. Minor nitpick...

A commercial license and an ATP license are two separate licenses. The former is necessary for (and supersedes) the latter. (Wiki reference)

[William Seger]

52. Sorry 'bout that, you are correct

Hanjour had a commercial pilot's license and was attempting to get an ATP. (He had completed initial training at Pan Am International Flight Academy on a 737 simulator, but he had not done well.)

[AZCat]

78. The 500 hrs of cross-country time...

is tough for a lot of people to get, unless you're working for a company as a pilot. Little jaunts around the city in your 172 don't count.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

42. Again no source documentation or links of any kind...

...I guess will just take Sweet Pea's word over an experienced former fighter pilot who flew both of these two planes -- after all, Sweet Pea claims Mr. Wittenberg's a moron so that pretty much settles that.

[seatnineb]

11. You do talk fuckin grade A bullshit...

Flight175 flew straight into the WTC?

....not before doing this descent:

[William Seger]

13. Here, I'll read it to you: "Flights 11 and 175 flew ALMOST straight into the WTC towers,"

And the context was Wittenberg's claim that the planes made "high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's."

Was there some particular reason you misquoted me and took the misquote out of context? And more to the point, are you claiming that Flight 175 was "pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's" in that descent?

[seatnineb]

14. And you think that descent is "almost straight"?!!!

The plane is descending and turning as it approaches the WTC



Hardly what you would call" a straight line"

You really are clutchin at straws dude....

[hack89]

16. How many G's? - thats the issue. nt

[seatnineb]

18. R U not keen to tell William Segar that he is wrong 2 say that

...flight 175 flew in an almost straight line?

Did not think so....why am I not surprised..

[William Seger]

21. Jeez, you JUST POSTED the pics that show I'm right!

:eyes: No-planers...

[seatnineb]

22. No William...you are not right...U R deluded...

Flight 175 did not fly in a straight line....

It descended and turned to fly into the WTC:

[AZCat]

24. There's never a dull moment. n/t

[seatnineb]

25. Maybe your eyesight is as bad as Williams n/t

[AZCat]

28. Maybe you need to get a fucking clue. n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

32. Don't worry AZCat, we're gonna let you have the last word...

...because that means you win the argument.

[seatnineb]

33. I gotta clue pal....unlike you...

What you got...apart from empty invectives..

[AZCat]

41. I have a good couple of laughs reading your posts.

That's about the best anyone's going to get from you.

[seatnineb]

70. Yawn...is this the best that DU debunkers have to offer? n/t

[AZCat]

80. Responding substantively to you...

became pointless many, many posts ago.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

85. Go AZCat, you GO BOY!!!! You made the last post...

...and got the last word -- that means you win the argument!!! Hooray!!!!!!

[AZCat]

86. No I didn't.

You responded to me. Oh wait, I'm responding to you again. Does this mean I get a cookie?

[seatnineb]

94. Pathetic...u never had anything substantive in the 1st place....n/t

[William Seger]

58. Clue?

You've got a drawing of a plane with pieces falling off, and numerous videos of Flight 175 with no pieces falling off, and you conclude that this proves all the video must be fake. Yes, that's probably a clue...

[seatnineb]

73. You definetly don't have a clue...

You claim flight 175 flew in an almost straight line....when the videos show that flight 175 descended and turned into the WTc:





Quite a manouvere for someone who never flew a BOEINg for real before...

[Sweet Pea]

64. So a......

Cessna 172 is the same as a Boeing 767 with regards to structural integrity.

Oooooookay.

[William Seger]

75. I don't think I can ever get in a 767 again

... after looking at that terrifying drawing.

[seatnineb]

77. Principles of Flight apply to all planes...

Mechanics Of Flight
Page 334
By A.C Kemode(1996)

R U really a pilot...

[Sweet Pea]

79. I reference a Cessna 172...

and 9B posts a photocopy passage from his library book on the speed of sound and the accociated mach shock wave.

However, I wil grant 9B this one - if a Cessna 172 were to encounter the aeronautical dynamics associated with airspeed in the vicinity of mach or mach transition, then yes, the aircraft would definitely get ripped apart.

[seatnineb]

95. You did...without realising it's implications...

Atta and Alshehhi started their flying lessons on July 6th, 2000 in a Cessna 172, N734EE with flight instructor Thierry Leklou.
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/flight-schools/house-testimony-rudi-dekkers.txt

Question is Pea....

If Alshehi trained in a cessna....

then where the fuck did he learn to this DOWNWARD DESCENT manoevere in a BOEING 767.....



I know it is too hard for you....

[hack89]

115. After getting their commercial pilot licenses, they bought time on a 727 simulator nt

[seatnineb]

122. Jee...don't you think the flight instructor would have been a little miffed

...why a cessna pilot would be practising steep descents in a simulator....

[hack89]

128. How steep was it? How many degrees? nt

[seatnineb]

142. R U sure U really wanna know...I don't think U do

A colleague who earlier had been standing at the window of an adjoining conference room saw the second jet as it approached the south tower from a distance much further out than is commonly seen on videotapes shown on TV. He told me with great emphasis how at first glance the jet's port wing was pointing almost straight down to the ground while the starboard wing pointed almost straight up. As the jet homed in on the south tower it leveled its wings horizontally just before impact.
http://70.86.59.150/forum/thread28283/pg3

Gee...that would mean flight 175 was flying like this:



Quite a few G's...don't ya think...

[Flatulo]

144. Are you arguing for 'no-planes'? If so, it's odd that you would

cite a witness who saw a plane to bolster your argument.

If you are not arguing for 'no-planes', could you tell me what you are positing?

[seatnineb]

151. A witness who saw the plane flying at a 90degree angle.....

....depite the fact the vidoes don't show the plane flying at a 90 degree angle.......

So either the videos are fake or the witness is wrong or fake......

Or all the above.

[Flatulo]

162. And which do you think it is...?

[hack89]

145. Only if it was in a steep turn.

A steep bank while flying level or in a shallow turn does not generate a lot of Gs. So again - do you have any actual facts?

[seatnineb]

149. U really don't know what you are talking about....

A steep angle.....like an 80 or 90 % bank....

Which would require the wings to produce at least 6 times the lift.....

I.E 6G

BTW you also forgot about the potential for stalling...

[hack89]

155. I would love to see where that calculation came from

I can't imagine you are pulling it out of your butt.

[seatnineb]

190. Got it from here.....

Airplane Technical
Published by Air Pilot
By Peter R Godwin
Page 136

[Flatulo]

147. You can't calculate the G forces unless you know 'r' in the equation you cite.

Do you know what 'r' was?

[seatnineb]

154. R= radius.......

the plane that hit the WTC flew:

According to this witness:

A colleague who earlier had been standing at the window of an adjoining conference room saw the second jet as it approached the south tower from a distance much further out than is commonly seen on videotapes shown on TV. He told me with great emphasis how at first glance the jet's port wing was pointing almost straight down to the ground while the starboard wing pointed almost straight up. As the jet homed in on the south tower it leveled its wings horizontally just before impact.
http://70.86.59.150/forum/thread28283/pg3

...at a 90 degree angle...

Which would be the equivalent of 6-7 g's....pretty high don't ya think....

It also descended and turned into the WTC....which meant that in order to lose height...the pilot/hijacker must have left the thrust on idle.....which would have allowed the plane to lose that height(converting potential energy to kinetic energy)

[Flatulo]

163. I don't know how you got the flight path radius of curvature from that witness

account. The witness seems to be describing only the roll angle of the plane.

The radius needed to compute the Gs is the radius that is analagous to the length of rope connected to a rock that you are swinging in an arc over your head.

Please show me exactly how you came up with 6-7 Gs.

You need to calculate mv^2/r.

What did you use for r and where did it come from? You cannot possibly get an answer without assuming some value for r.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flatulo]

166. I remain an incurable optimist...

Must be the Paxil.

[SDuderstadt]

167. If you have any extra Paxil...

maybe you could send some my way. I've given up on ever reasoning in any measurable way with a "truther" who, when confronted with evidence that demolishes their claim, simply states their claim with even more resolve. It's a very strange dynamic.

[seatnineb]

179. U obviusly are not familiar with the load factor........enough said n/t

[Flatulo]

185. You're right, I am not familiar with it... be right back...

OK, now Im familiar with it. And I now understand how it is used. I got it here. I apologize for my misunderstanding of how the term is used.

http://pilotsweb.com/principle/load.htm

My assumption is that an object traveling in a curved path undergoes an acceleration equal to mass*v^2/radius of curvature. This is always always always true, but is a little more complicated for airplanes.

Since there is no string attached to provide the equal and opposite force for an airplane banking, the lift produced by the wings must provide it. The greater the bank angle, the greater the verticle component of lift has to be to balance the weight of the plane. This additional lift is known as load factor, and is expressed in terms of the weight of the plane, where 1 G equals the weight of the plane.

However, this is NOT the same thing as the G loading experienced by the passengers. This is still exactly equal to m*v^2/r.

So seatnineb is correct to state that a plane banking at a steep angle would see a load factore of 6-7 Gs, this is not related to the centrifugal acceleration the passengers would see. It just refers to wing loading.

Since the load factor is inifinity at a 90 deg roll angle (impossible), and airplanes can clearly roll through this angle without banking, then load factor cannot be the whole story of how planes fly.

Having said all that, the hole in the building shows that the plane struck at a much smaller bank angle, like 20-30 degrees.

[seatnineb]

181. Do some research on load factors then get back to me...n/t

[Flatulo]

186. I did - I understand how it is used now.

The load factor is not the same as the centrifugal force that the passengers see. This is what I was referring to when questioning the G loading.

When discussing the load factor, one refers to the additional lift the wings must create in a steep bank so that the verticle component of lift can balance the weight of the plane. It is expressed in multiples of the plane's weight.

My apologies.

[seatnineb]

191. Here is a diagram.....

Airplane Technical
By Peter R Godwin
Page 136

[Flatulo]

192. Yep - notice that the load factor goes to infinity at a 90 deg bank angle,

which says that planes cannot maintain this roll indefinitely.

I'd say your witness was either in shock (I know I would be if I saw a jumbo bearing down on me) or was embellishing for effect.

[seatnineb]

195. OR

Yep - notice that the load factor goes to infinity at a 90 deg bank angle,
which says that planes cannot maintain this roll indefinitely.

I'd say your witness was either in shock (I know I would be if I saw a jumbo bearing down on me) or was embellishing for effect...OR ........was lying completely.

[Sweet Pea]

193. Interesting.

Take a look at your chart - would a 90 degrees angle of bank at 350 knots and at 1 g be possible?

[seatnineb]

194. The witness who claims to have seen flight 175 fly at 90 degrees

....is not backed up by the videos:



At 90 degrees flight 175 would have had no vertical lift....to balance it's weight....and it would have lost height...

[Sweet Pea]

199. I'll be more specific.

Regarding the diagram you posted above concerning angle of bank and g-loading, can an aircraft enter into a 90 degree angle of bank at 350 knots (or whatever airspeed) and maintain 1-g?

I wasn't asking about Flight 175 in particular. I have no idea about your witness's credibility or if they really knew what they were talking about. The plotted flight paths of Flight 175 that have been made public by various organizations (FAA, 911 Commission, etc) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf">show the aircraft making a 90 degree turn to the northeast approximately 55 miles south west of Manhattan on the New Jersey-Pennsylvania border (page 32 of the link.) How that witness saw the aircraft in a 90-degree angle of bank turn thhat far away, I do not know and won't speculate on, but the majority of evidence shows the aircraft flew straight into the tower on a northeasterly heading after a long straight in approach to the target.

[seatnineb]

215. So will I....

Is this the 90 degree turn you mentioned:



Funny...Barry Mawn(FBI assistant director )saw that U-turn from New York.......55 miles away(if not more)

We were observing the evacuation when we actually saw
the second plane come down, flying NORTH TO SOUTH,
ACTUALLY TURN AROUND. And then we lost it momentarily
behind the buildings, and then the next time we saw
it, it was headed straight for the south tower
http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/18/lt.17.html

Love how the laws of physics got suspended on 9/11...even funnier...is that there R people out there like U..sweetpea...who defend this bullshit.

Between the witness testimony ,the videos....and the radar tapes...the whole 9/11 charade is one fuckin joke.

[Sweet Pea]

218. 767 is a big airplane

But nobody could see those types of maneuvers from 55 miles away. I'd say your witness is confusing two different events. Where do you come up with these guys? People seeing aircraft 55 miles away, helicopters that videotape a 150 foot near-miss from a hijacked airliner that nobody seems to haev seen. You need to start vetting the people you quote more.

What do you mean "laws of physics got suspended"? If you have trouble understanding them that is one thing, but no laws of physics were suspended on Sept 11th. Airplanes took off (a fairly well established law of physics), were hijacked, flown into buildings (another fairly well established law of physics) and crashed on purpose (yet another fairly well established law of physics), end of story (well, end of the aviation aspect of the story). No "laws" were suspended anywhere.

Again, if you need help understanding these things, I'd be glad to offer my services.

[seatnineb]

221. I see you have evaded answering the question:

This witness actually filmed this U-Turn from New york.....the same and only possible u-turn that Flight 175 could possibly have done.......55 miles away....

At this point I was still under the impression that this was an accident and after watching and filming this other plane make a U turn and head back towards the towers nothing in the world could have prepared me for what would happen next.I dont recall that feeling I got when I filmed that plane hitting the second tower,
http://forums.ebay.com/db2/thread.jspa?threadID=58174&start=200
(scroll down to the 5th post)

Face it Pea....either the witness is bullshit...or the radar reading is bullshit...probably both

[Sweet Pea]

225. Talk about evading a question....

I asked specifically - twice - if an aircraft can enter into a 90 degree angle of bank at 350 knots (or whatever airspeed) and maintain 1-g.

You chose not to answer either time. How about now?

[seatnineb]

233. The diagram already answered your question.......

[Sweet Pea]

234. You and that diagram

Are you picking curtains out with it? Got a date tomorrow with it? Made it to first base with it yet???

I asked *you* a question, not your pet diagram, a question that asks whether or not you a) understand that diagram and b) if that diagram is correct in its display of an aircraft's ability to enter into a specific angle of bank, maintain that angle of bank, and maintain 1 g throughout the duration of that angle of bank.

*You* are not answering my question, and are instead posting your favorite diagram and saying "Here's the answer!", which means as far as I'm concerned you a) don't understand what that diagram is displaying (as generic as it is) and b) you can't answer the question because you don't know, which is a perfectly valid answer (as long as one's ego doesn't preclude answering in that manner).

I'll let that question about angle of bank and g loads sit for ONE MORE TRY!

[seatnineb]

235. In fact it shows that U don't understand the diagram....

Tell me somethin' Pea....

How do you get a 90 degree bank....without increasing the load factor(G units):


Aeroplane Technical
page 135
By Peter D Godwin

Answer it...if you can.....but I don't think you can.

[Sweet Pea]

237. You can always get a 90 degree angle of bank

without increasing the load factor - or any degree of angle of bank. Aircraft do it all the time at air shows - its called a knife-edge pass.

Angle of bank is simply measured long the longitudinal axis of an aircraft, referenced from level flight. Roll the aircraft to a 90 degree angle of bank, kick in a bit of top-side rudder to keep the nose of the aircraft above the horizon, do not apply any back stick but add just a tad of forward stick pressure to maintain straight and level flight (wing design emphasizes lift on an aeronautical body, so the aircraft would have a tendency *to* enter into a horizontal turn, which *would* increase the load factor) and you have the aforementioned 90 degree angle of bank while maintaining 1 g.

You do not incur g-loads unless you apply back stick pressure, "loading" up the aircraft, where you start to get positive g's, or eyeballs-in g forces. If you apply significant forward stick, you begin an outside horizontal loop with negative g forces, or eye-balls out g. If you don't apply *any* stick forces along the lift-vector, you maintain 1 g (albeit in a horizontal flight regime, so you slide down the seat until you hit the side of the cockpit).



You need to understand what your beloved diagrams are saying before you start pretending you understand them. Your "diagrams" age fine for a generic discussion of basic aircraft maneuvers, but that is all they are good for. Your beloved "g-load" chart doesn't address specific load factors which are determined from speed and radius of turn and the number of degrees of turn in relation to time. In the aforementioned knife edge pass, you do indeed have a 90 degree angle of bank (or close to it - the above picture is probably 85 or so) while maintaining 1 g, making your diagram bullshit if you want to determine exactly what load factors are the result from a specific flight maneuver.

G forces (or load factors) generated in a turn are a factor of speed - the faster you go, the more g-available is there - but only to a certain point. After that, you max out on g-available to the point where you are not turning as much as you are arcing across the sky. Every aircraft, as part of its developmental evaluations, have load-factor charts developed based on flight-test data, and it is these charts you use when determining the ideal turning or cornering speed your aircraft has.

Trying to make definitive determinations from the Sept 11 aircraft maneuvers using your generic library book charts is absurd, at best, and really underscores the fact you don't really know what you are talking about and are using some chart cherry picked from a book you found to make points for you. You don't know the speed, the altitude nor the altitude changes, the heading changes, the distances, nor any of the aeronautical factors involved here, yet you claim all these absolutes ("It COULDN'T have done this or it COULDN'T have done that, because the diagrams in my book of a generic aircraft say it can't!") without the proper data.

I have no doubt you will come up with some pithy potboiler of a quote - a possibly even anOTHER diagram - to post in response, but knock yourself out, Ace. It'll just add more humor to the stew of absurdity that is you and your library book.

OH....and mucho thanks to whomever it was who passed on the hearts! Perhaps I was able to reciprocate!

[seatnineb]

240. I'll take the books over U anytime.my anonymouse fighter pilot/ex-pentagon friend..

Page 135 and 136
Aeroplane Tachnical
By Peter D Godwin

Some angle Flight 175 is flyin' at...don't ya think....

[Sweet Pea]

244. What did I tell you!

"I have no doubt you will come up with some pithy potboiler of a quote - a possibly even anOTHER diagram - to post in response,"

I'm a freaking Karnack, I tell you!

That's fine, 9B. Go ahead and believe whatever you believe. This whole no-plane bullshit is hilarious, anyhow, and your nonsensical aeronautical brainiac buffoonery merely adds to and confirms it, yet again and again and again.

[seatnineb]

251. If it is so "hilarariouse and nonsensical"...then who is going to believe it?...

....I mean...who is going to believe the "no-planes" bullshit anyway?...apart from lunatics like me?........

.....is that why u R trying to convince me...and anyone-else who would be so gullible enough to believe in such a "nonsensical and hilariouse" scenario like "no-planes" on 9/11.......

Very considerate of you SweetPea...to invest so much time in thread that is now nearly up to 4000 reads....

Or is the real reason is that i am showing you up to be nothing more than an anonymouse internet poster who propagates bullshit....

[Sweet Pea]

253. Its fun

Engaging in a discussion of things aeronautical with a no-planer is really a fun thing to do. Something about that "shooting fish in a barrel" kind of thing.

And no, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. To keep from have your no-planer bullshit hit the airwaves without the appropriate bullshit flags being thrown is the only thing I am trying to do. People can make up their own minds. I'm just not going to let your aeronautical ignorance (no pejorative intended) bullshit go unchallenged.

I am always amazed (and get a great chuckle) at people who, in an argument, simply make shit up to cover areas where they are intellectually deficient. I see that often in the previous coupla hundred (plus) posts. Again, 9B, knock yourself out. I look forward to your NEXT diagram and quote displaying your aeronautical prowess!

[seatnineb]

255. Time to kick your lame ass.....

...by applying your crap to Flight 175....the one thing you were too afraid to do...

So the only way to fly at a 90 degree angle is to have the fuselage with a slight upwards inclination

In the words of SweetPea:
Thu Feb-14-08 01:27 AM
Angle of bank is simply measured long the longitudinal axis of an aircraft, referenced from level flight. Roll the aircraft to a 90 degree angle of bank, kick in a bit of top-side rudder to keep the nose of the aircraft ABOVE THE HORIZON,

Too bad that Flight 175 was in a descent.....





....and remained in a desent until it hit the building....



So...with it's nose pointed downwards....how could flight 175 fly at a 90 degree angle?

A colleague who earlier had been standing at the window of an adjoining conference room saw the second jet as it approached the south tower from a distance much further out than is commonly seen on videotapes shown on TV. He told me with great emphasis how at first glance the jet's port wing was pointing almost straight down to the ground while the starboard wing pointed almost straight up. As the jet homed in on the south tower it leveled its wings horizontally just before impact.
http://70.86.59.150/forum/thread28283/pg3

...unless the above witness is just talking pure and utter bullshit.....just like you SweetPea

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

232. Sweet Pea offering his services to help understand...

...the events of 9-11 -- and maybe later Jack the Ripper will drop by with some important dating tips.

:rofl:

[Sweet Pea]

117. Can you tell me.....

what the hell is so difficult about any "downward descent" maneuver in ANY aircraft?

You move the yoke slightly *away* from you to descend. Near the very end of your shallow dive you pull back on the yoke to arrest any descent. "Downward descent maneuver"? Are you suer you don't want to call it a "negative vertical speed equation" instead? The damn aircraft descended a few hundred feet at the terminal end of its flight. In your words, what the fuck is so difficult about that?

And no, it wouldn't be hard for anyone to do that. I understand you and most troofers, though, seem to think you need a doctorate in aerospace engineering to merely sit in the cockpit of an aircraft and that you need a lifetime of training to know where a) the throttles are and b) the inertial navigation system is and c) where the transponder is and d) where the attitude gyro is and e) what the basics of flying an airplane is.

Sorry, you don't.

[seatnineb]

121. Sure I can let the ATC tell you....

In the words of Air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia:

So, you can actually countdown how quickly he was descending on his last couple (inaudible). He was doing 10,000 feet a minute, which is actually unheard of for a commercial airline

So the descent you are seeing here is "unheard of for a commercial airliner":


Not bad for someone with a bit of cessna and flight simulator experience...

What U believe in is a joke...

[Sweet Pea]

125. When will you Troofers

learn to understand the difference between a maneuver that could be said to be "unheard of" in an airliner and the reality that there is absolutely no difficulty in doing said maneuver? In addition, there is absolutely no problem for an airliner to execute a 10,000 fpm descent, nor is there any difficulty for a pilot, with whatever basic training, to enter into that maneuver.

I'll ask again - what is so freaking difficult about pointing an airliner's nose down when all you have to do is push a hydraulically-boosted control yoke *away* from you and start going down?

"Unheard of for a commercial airliner" doesn't mean anything different from "never done" because you *usually* have passengers in the back who would obviously be distressed/injured by such a maneuver. Does it mean it can't be done" Hell no! It just is *never* done except in extremis, as in avoiding a midair, or (as in this case) when you have a pilot who has no concern whatsoever for either the aforementioned passengers or the structural integrity of the aircraft.

I have no idea what the level of knowledge/experience you have with regards to aircraft or flying (aside from you library book), but if I put ANYONE with the basics of flight training and especially with a couple hundred hours in something like Cessnas, in a 767 simulator at 25,000 or 30,000 feet, flight steady at 350 knots, and said "get into a 10,000 fpm dive and level off at 10,000 feet", I have no problem betting the farm that they'd be able to do it.

Personally, though, I'd say the ATC was engaging in a bit of exaggeration since all they had was raw radar data at that point - a 10k fpm dive would be an approximation, at best.

Thew bottom line is that this even involved nothing difficult from an aeronautical perspective, especially with someone who has a basic level of experience, which is what all the hijacker pilots had.

I understand, though, that this is all exotic and complicated rocket science for you and pretty difficult for you to grasp and that is why you have to rely on other people's comments to bolster your Troofer case, but the simple fact of the matter is flying an aircraft for the simple matter of crashing it into the tallest building in NYC is an easy thing to do.

[seatnineb]

141. I rely on the facts from library books..rather than on your anonymouse advice

This diagram blows apart all your ****

[Sweet Pea]

262. Relying on facts

from a checked-out library book is great only if you *understand* those *facts* that you keep trotting out.

Its clear in this case of the g-loading of an aircraft and the actual application of force-loads on an aircraft body, you don't know shit and are content to try and fool the masses by regurgitating printed material that is no more than in the same county as the subject at hand.

Next question - what is the wing-load (i.e. with regards to wing area) of your generic aircraft i.e. is it a high wing-loaded aircraft or a low-0wing loaded aircraft and how does that relate to pulling g's?

Tell you what - I'll give you a few days to head to the library and get another book.

[seatnineb]

264. I am 2 steps ahead of you each time pal....

And quit the concescending "you know nothin crap"....it makes your posts look stupid...

Eat this and enjoy....




Mechanics Of Flight
Page 250 +251
By A.C Kermode

Lets apply that to Flight 175's steep dive.....





You..Sweete Pea and the official story you believe in...are one big fuckin joke.

[screembloodymurder]

20. Here's an issue for you.

Why was Charles Frank Burlingame's daughter murdered?

[hack89]

45. It was an accident

She was living in the building with boyfriend Kevin Roderick, also a recent resident.

According to Hudson County Prosecutor Edward DeFazio, the fatal fire apparently started "on or under the bed" in the 10th floor apartment in Building One of the Galaxy Towers complex.

Roderick was able to escape the fire unharmed, but Burlingame wasn't as fortunate.

When the fire began, possibly from a candle that was lit in the bedroom, both Roderick and Burlingame apparently tried to use water from a nearby sink to put it out.

But when the fire intensified in a hurry and the apartment began to fill with flames and smoke, the couple abandoned the attempts to put the fire out and looked to escape.

Roderick, who leased the apartment for the last six months, told officials that he went out the front door and thought Burlingame was right behind him, but didn't realize she wasn't there until the apartment door had closed and automatically locked.

Roderick apparently told investigators that he tried frantically to re-open the door, but couldn't do it.

http://www.hudsonreporter.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17564069&BRD=1291&PAG=461&dept_id=523589&rfi=6

[Flatulo]

146. Are you confusing 'straight' with 'horizontal'?

This flight path looks pretty friggin' straight to me. It's descending and rolling, but nothing that even remotely looks like a high-G maneuver.

[seatnineb]

259. What you showed was the end of the manoevre...but here is the beginning:

And this is what happens to planes in steep dives:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

30. Now you're going to cite Zelikow's fairytale work of fiction...

...to bolster your credibility? That's rich. The laughs just never stop -- keep 'em coming.

:rofl:

[William Seger]

36. And gee, as predicted, once again Jefferson's got nothing but a ROFL

The report I linked to was prepared by the commission's staff, not by Zelikow, and it's really just a compilation of information that's either in the public domain or in government documents that you can obtain for yourself with a FOIA request.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

39. Interesting you would seek to distance yourself from...

...Zelikow -- are you now acknowledging that his role was to suppress rather than get at the truth?

[William Seger]

47. Mabe this will help.

"The report I linked to was prepared by the commission's staff, not by Zelikow, and it's really just a compilation of information that's either in the public domain or in government documents that you can obtain for yourself with a FOIA request."

Can you read it now? Or perhaps you just lost the plot? This was a reply to your lame attempt to dismiss the staff report as "Zelikow's fairytale work of fiction."

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

54. Oh NO!!! Please, not the big font -- anything but that...

...now what am I gonna do? You must be all of 12 years old.

:rofl:

[William Seger]

57. Just trying to be helpful

And once again, you've got nothing but a ROFL smiley.

[SDuderstadt]

43. Here's an inconvenient question, CTers....

How do you know the guy in this video is a "former AF fighter pilot who had actually flown 2 of the actual planes allegedly used on 9/11"? Because he says so??? Pathetic.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

59. Is that the best you've got?...

...And you're calling the OP pathetic? What a joke you are. Are you sure the video wasn't too grainy? Or maybe the foam got in your eyes again.



Google "Russ Wittenberg" he's given plenty of interviews to plenty of organizations.

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot, over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Had previously flown the actual two United airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

61. I see...

we're supposed to believe it because "truther" websites say so?