• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 175 plane speed challenged

ZENSMACK89 said:
Nope. No facts there.
Click to expand...

Saying that doesn't make it true. If simply denying all evidence that is contrary to your position without further comment is your debate tactic then I suppose you can't loose, huh?
 
Jesus Christ this smug act is getting old.

Zen, I've asked twice, and several other people have asked these questions, and still you dodge them:

1) What do you think hit Tower 2, if not a 767?

2) What do you think hit Tower 1?

This is perhaps the most important one, so pay attention:
3) Instead of smugly and obnoxiously scoffing at us for having "no facts" or "no evidence" that Flight 175 hit WTC2, can you show us your evidence that what hit was NOT Flight 175, and more importantly, can you explain why it is more rational to believe in whatever your hypothesis is, than to believe that Flight 175 hit WTC2?

I await your response so that I can smugly laugh it off with "Oh, I see you have no facts. Where are your facts? Any facts at all?" ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
 
Bell said:
If UA175 did not hit the South Tower, then...

1) What did hit the South Tower?
Click to expand...

Something else.

Bell said:
2) Where is UA175?
Click to expand...

Somewhere else.

Lest anyone forget it still has not been proven what hit the tower but if for argument sake it is ever proven it was flight 175 it still doesn’t solve all the problems with the official CT. Because remember children proving one CT wrong or at least asserting you proved it wrong does not make another CT anymore true.
 
Last edited:
TjW said:
Minor nitpick -- steady state flight won't get below 1 g. Less than 1 additional g, certainly. 45 degrees of bank (as per the flight recorder) will give about 1.4 g.
Click to expand...



I used Google Earth and the FDR data positioning to calculate out the additional g's. The speed was about 300KT however as it varied during the turn I used a constant speed of 350KT (higher velocity = high g-force).

Based on that and the size of the turn circle I got a lateral g-loading of 0.82 g's. Correct me if I am wrong, but when not turning lateral g-loading is 0 isn't it?

I didn't calculate vertical g-loading because the turn actually involved a very minor rate of descent (about 5,000ft in something like 3 minutes) so the vertical negative g-force would be very small.

-Gumboot
 
DGM said:
Zensmack:
You a confused again (still). The excepted belief is it was United Airlines Flight 175 that impacted the south tower. If you don't like it the burden of proof is on you to prove it wasn't. Until then it's "status quo". So get with it, we'll wait.
Click to expand...
"excepted belief "? LOL
 
stateofgrace said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because after they hijacked Flight 175, they realized that it wasn't capable of flying into the tower fast enough, so they staged some high-tech sleight-of-hand to replace Flight 175 with "something else" mid-flight, divert Flight 175 "somewhere else" to be disposed of somehow, and then carry on their grand Machiavellian plan as usual.
 
maxpower1227 said:
Because after they hijacked Flight 175, they realized that it wasn't capable of flying into the tower fast enough, so they staged some high-tech sleight-of-hand to replace Flight 175 with "something else" mid-flight, divert Flight 175 "somewhere else" to be disposed of somehow, and then carry on their grand Machiavellian plan as usual.
Click to expand...
Many flights were diverted and instructed to land on 9/11 what would be so hard about it?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Something else.

Somewhere else.

Lest anyone forget it still has not been proven what hit the tower but if for argument sake it is ever proven it was flight 175 it still doesn’t solve all the problems with the official CT. Because remember children proving one CT wrong or at least asserting you proved it wrong does not make another CT anymore true.
Click to expand...

Wow. Just wow.
Edited by chillzero: 
Edited for civility
For some twisted reason known only to yourself, you don't actually want to accept that UAL 175 hit the WTC. Yet you refuse to state what DID hit the tower. Absent any concept from you that you have a clue, I'm at a loss to understand why this thread's still going.

If nothing else, you are a poster boy for the difference betwixt JREF and LC. Over there, you would've been banned in a heartbeat. Here? Despite 5 pages of obtuse posting on your part in this one thread alone, people still try to get a straight answer out of you. And you wonder why twoofers are held in such contempt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZENSMACK89 said:
Many flights were diverted and instructed to land on 9/11 what would be so hard about it?
Click to expand...

The real question is "what's the point of this charade"? Would not Flight 175 have made a perfectly serviceable missile? What do you imagine the conversation was among the conspiracists who hatched this plot?

Conspirator 1: Ok, so we're going to hijack Flights 11, 175, 93 and 77, and fly them into...

Conspirator 2: Wait a second. Why don't we use "something else" to hit the towers instead?

Conspirator 3: What for?

C2: Well, I don't think a 767 can fly fast enough.

C1: What do you mean "can't fly fast enough"?

C2: .....

C1: .....

C2: Ok, so anyway, we hijack these planes, then we hit the towers with some other kind of aircraft that looks similar, giving the illusion that it was indeed 767s that hit.

C1: So what do we do with these planes?

C2: Take them "somewhere else"

C3: How do we keep ATC, FBI, NTSB, and other investigators from finding this out?

C1: Oh, we'll figure that out when we get to it.

C2: So wait... why can't we just use the planes again? Isn't this unnecessarily complicated and thus more risky?

C1: .....
Click to expand...
 
fitzgibbon said:
Wow. Just wow.
Edited by chillzero: 
Edited for civility
For some twisted reason known only to yourself, you don't actually want to accept that UAL 175 hit the WTC. Yet you refuse to state what DID hit the tower. Absent any concept from you that you have a clue, I'm at a loss to understand why this thread's still going.

If nothing else, you are a poster boy for the difference betwixt JREF and LC. Over there, you would've been banned in a heartbeat. Here? Despite 5 pages of obtuse posting on your part in this one thread alone, people still try to get a straight answer out of you. And you wonder why twoofers are held in such contempt.
Click to expand...

I'm not the idiot who asked if flight 175 didn't hit the tower.

Let me put it to you this way genius. People are sometimes found innocent of murder. Does that mean the person they were accused of killing is not dead? If the person accused is proven innocent does that mean they know who did it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZENSMACK89 said:
I'm not the idiot who asked if flight 175 didn't hit the tower.

Let me put it to you this way genius. People are sometimes found innocent of murder. Does that mean the person they were accused of killing is not dead? If the person accused is proven innocent does that mean they know who did it?
Click to expand...


Wow.. Reach much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom