Missile??

[Sam.I.Am]

At one mile out a one degree error (assuming dead aim at the center of the target at that point) would've meant a complete miss or a wing clip. At 500 mph that gives you less than 9 seconds to recognize the problem and correct it. In this situation any Coriolis Effect you might see (it was not a ballistic object so it's probably not a good idea to use it in this case anyway) would actually work in favor of the pilot aiming a tad (measured as a small fraction of a degree) to the east (which was what he did either on purpose or through shoddy flying). Perhaps he over estimated its effect and that's why he was so far off.

 

[EventHorizon]

Luckily you can't see that dead ahead......better that they never knew.

I remember hearing an interview with one of the victims' mothers who was on the phone with him right up until the plane hit the building. Based on what she said, they must have been coming it at enough of an angle that at least some of them knew what was about to happen to them.

 

[Dash80]

Luckily you can't see that dead ahead......better that they never knew.

Would it have been possible for passengers to see the smoking North Tower at any point? From what I've read it seems those on board were very much aware that the hijackers had control of that aircraft. I really hope they didn't see what was coming, but I have a feeling some of them (unlike those aboard flight 11) realized their fate. A guy who called his family said something like "It will be quick, I think they're going to fly in to a building somewhere like chicago" I think the person was called Brian Sweeney.

 

[Dash80]

I remember hearing an interview with one of the victims' mothers who was on the phone with him right up until the plane hit the building. Based on what she said, they must have been coming it at enough of an angle that at least some of them knew what was about to happen to them.

*shudders* Perhaps the same person I mentioned above? I can't remember exactly.

 

[jaydeehess]

There certainly were people in the towers that were on their phones right up to impact. I know I heard some of them on tape or read transcripts somewhere. There were also people trapped in the towers above the fire floors and speaking on their phones when the towers collapsed.

Perhaps there were people on the phone in the planes as they approached as well. Betty Ong perhaps? I lose track of who was on which flight. however I seem to recall one person saying to someone on the ground that 'we are really low'.

 

[EventHorizon]

*shudders* Perhaps the same person I mentioned above? I can't remember exactly.

That name rings a bell; I'm pretty sure that's the guy I'm thinking of.

 

[Dash80]

There certainly were people in the towers that were on their phones right up to impact. I know I heard some of them on tape or read transcripts somewhere. There were also people trapped in the towers above the fire floors and speaking on their phones when the towers collapsed.

Perhaps there were people on the phone in the planes as they approached as well. Betty Ong perhaps? I lose track of who was on which flight. however I seem to recall one person saying to someone on the ground that 'we are really low'.

Madeline Amy Sweeney an AA11 flight attendant said on the phone to ground operator Michael Woodward "I see water, I see buildings, I see the buildings. We're low, we're flying way too low. Oh my god!" then the plane hit.

Dylan Avery used this comment on Loose Screws... I mean Change. He said she should have recognized New York and said so (what a RULE10).

I find it interesting she said "I see buildings, i see the buildings"

Maybe she realized what was about to happen too.

 

[EventHorizon]

Madeline Amy Sweeney an AA11 flight attendant said on the phone to ground operator Michael Woodward "I see water, I see buildings, I see the buildings. We're low, we're flying way too low. Oh my god!" then the plane hit.

Dylan Avery used this comment on Loose Screws... I mean Change. He said she should have recognized New York and said so (what a RULE10).

I find it interesting she said "I see buildings, i see the buildings"

Maybe she realized what was about to happen too.

I really hate to speculate about this but I have always wondered exactly how aware or unaware the people on the first plane were. Some of them had to realize they were flying very low and very fast over Manhattan and heading south. Even though until that day what happened was unthinkable I wonder if some of them were able to put 2 and 2 together.

 

[Dash80]

I really hate to speculate about this but I have always wondered exactly how aware or unaware the people on the first plane were. Some of them had to realize they were flying very low and very fast over Manhattan and heading south. Even though until that day what happened was unthinkable I wonder if some of them were able to put 2 and 2 together.

Horrifying thing to think about, but it's relevant considering many truther claims.
I think the flight attendants might have realized this wasn't a "normal hijack. They did a fantastic job keeping the passengers calm, telling them there there was a medical emergency. They probably didn't know exactly what was going to happen.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I don't know if anyone's pointed this out, but the plane was indeed carrying an incendiary: its fuel.

 

[tmd2_1]

Ok I'll be clear I was saying perhaps (and notice the word perhaps) the plane fired some sort of incendiary. You guys would just keep going on and on and on about what exactly is a missile...etc. Please don't ask me what type of incendiary, I don't know, I don't even know if there was one. The whole thread was a question. One no one has answered.

Some people have stated that it was as the plane entered the building you see flash, and that caused it. But yet you see a picture of a fully circular flash. How can that be AFTER the plane entered the building?

 

[TJM]

One no one has answered.

Yes, we have answered.

The problem is just because the answer doesn't sit well with you, it doesn't mean the answer is wrong.

 

[Craig4]

Ok I'll be clear I was saying perhaps (and notice the word perhaps) the plane fired some sort of incendiary. You guys would just keep going on and on and on about what exactly is a missile...etc. Please don't ask me what type of incendiary, I don't know, I don't even know if there was one. The whole thread was a question. One no one has answered.

Some people have stated that it was as the plane entered the building you see flash, and that caused it. But yet you see a picture of a fully circular flash. How can that be AFTER the plane entered the building?

Or you could just look at the video and notice there's footage of a giant *********** plane slamming into the *********** building. Hmm... Now let's look at the video and see where the video of the missile is hitting the building. Nope, no missile. Lot's of video of the plane being crashed into the buildings. See that, right there, yeah that's a plane, yep sure is. Now we look for the missile, oh no, it isnt' there. Guess we cleared that one up.

You see the question isn't worth considering because when we look at the video we only see a plane and no missile. Now, you're going to get all smug and say I'm wrong and say there's a cover up about the missile and no one is investigating and it's proof no one wants the truth. You can make that claim all you want. Just understand that you making that claim just doesn't matter.

 

[Athyrio]

Hey...you graced with another post. I mean lowering yourself two times in one thread...must take a lot out of you.

Yes it does. It took me about 2 hours to find the post you made that I made reference to - but I did find it.

You being the astute 9/11 researcher you are I'm sure you realized that there is indeed a flash seen when the first plane hits the north tower. As seen in the below video. It was also mentioned in this thread but I'm sure this is all an over sight on your part.

Sorry - I am no researcher in the sense of debunkers. Debunkers are the guys who do the real work. I just know how to find their work. And, yes - I saw a flash. I just did not see the missile that you thought you saw.

Hmmm...that's the only two we have videos on. I know there's those 5 frames of the pentagon, but who knows what's going on there. But you know maybe if take a look at those other videos we could clear it up. Oh that's right they won't release it.

That's what you say because you saw other truthers say it on the internet.

Let me know when you find that video of the crash in PA. I do look forward to seeing it.

Have no idea what you are talking about. Please, enlighten me.

So let's see the only two there are video of we have flashes.

The purpose of having a missile or incendiary? Oh I don't know they may have wanted to ensure total penetration, we couldn't have any of those parts flying to the ground could we? So we could see it may not belong there, much easier to deny a video than the actual part. It also wouldn't make a bigger explosion would it? You know for dramatic effect?

You didn't think the plane would bounce off, did you? Again - think about it. How many people involved either installing a missile on a regular passenger plane or involved in disposing of the real Flight 175 and its passengers and crew? You decide.

As for Lloyde he said what he said, no one had a gun to his head. I'm convinced you guys just have a certain set of replies to things.

What did he say? He was talking about a monumental event and because a lightpole went crashing through his cab and could have killed him, he became a part of it. Sure - it was a plan. Obviously the events of 9/11 was "A PLAN" - but did he say he was involved in it from its inception, or did he mean he was involved in it as a result of what happened? And did he ever implicate anyone as to an "inside job" or was he just referring to the fact that there were obvious planners somewhere, planners who were bigger than he was?

Look at every post I made anywhere I don't believe I ever mentioned a word about Barry Jennings. But in your case I can understand, you can only grace us once and a while, and can't be bothered with little details like that.

Look at my post again. Carefully this time.

Notice that I said or who provides links that include Barry Jennings being an "eyewitness" to bodies in WTC7 .

I did not say that you directly said anything about Barry Jennings.

Here is your post that includes the link that I referred to. You see what you did now? Your link includes the lying claim that Jennings was an eyewitness to bodies in WTC7.

So tell me - tell us - do you believe Barry Jennings was an "eyewitness" to dead bodies in WTC7? Yes or no.

Maybe you ought to read your links before you post them, pardner. But in your case I can understand. You can't be bothered with little details like that.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What did he say? He was talking about a monumental event and because a lightpole went crashing through his cab and could have killed him, he became a part of it. Sure - it was a plan. Obviously the events of 9/11 was "A PLAN" - but did he say he was involved in it from its inception, or did he mean he was involved in it as a result of what happened? And did he ever implicate anyone as to an "inside job" or was he just referring to the fact that there were obvious planners somewhere, planners who were bigger than he was?

Perhaps Mr. England was the sole perpetrator of 9/11.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The most silly thing about this 'perpendicular hit' thing is that it is total nonsense. Cruise missiles may be programmed like that because they need to penetrate hardened targets. The WTC towers were NOT hardened targets, quite the opposite:

Remember they were said to be built to withstand an air-plane impact? The way that was handled was by making the walls rather thin and soft, with a rigid, open grid structure inside. A plane hitting them would pass through, not in one piece, of course, but it would not transfer all its energy to the building.

Now, if you look at all the pictures and videos, what happens is that the planes go straight into building, then explode out the other side, in a huge fireball and a rain of debris. So penetration was not a problem at all.

- In fact, if they could have achieves less penetration and thus made more of that fireball happen inside the building, it would likely have been even more effective.

Hans

 

[little grey rabbit]

The most silly thing about this 'perpendicular hit' thing is that it is total nonsense. Cruise missiles may be programmed like that because they need to penetrate hardened targets. The WTC towers were NOT hardened targets, quite the opposite:

Remember they were said to be built to withstand an air-plane impact? The way that was handled was by making the walls rather thin and soft, with a rigid, open grid structure inside. A plane hitting them would pass through, not in one piece, of course, but it would not transfer all its energy to the building.

Now, if you look at all the pictures and videos, what happens is that the planes go straight into building, then explode out the other side, in a huge fireball and a rain of debris. So penetration was not a problem at all.

- In fact, if they could have achieves less penetration and thus made more of that fireball happen inside the building, it would likely have been even more effective.

Hans

No-one said penetration was a problem, simply that perpendicular strikes are a feature guided missile systems such as cruise missiles. They do this regardless of whether the building is hardened or not - as my visit to Baghdad ascertained.

I have no opinion whether one ought to strike buildings perpendicular or not - just that is a feature of guided missile strikes.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Madeline Amy Sweeney an AA11 flight attendant said on the phone to ground operator Michael Woodward "I see water, I see buildings, I see the buildings. We're low, we're flying way too low. Oh my god!" then the plane hit.

Dylan Avery used this comment on Loose Screws... I mean Change. He said she should have recognized New York and said so (what a RULE10).

I find it interesting she said "I see buildings, i see the buildings"

Maybe she realized what was about to happen too.

Only if she was in the cockpit. You have to remember that due to the coriolanus effect the pilot nearly missed the WTC.

 

[Harpo]

You have to remember that due to the coriolanus effect the pilot nearly missed the WTC.

The Shakespeare play?

You're really showing your expertise on the subject.

Keep it up.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No-one said penetration was a problem, simply that perpendicular strikes are a feature guided missile systems such as cruise missiles. They do this regardless of whether the building is hardened or not - as my visit to Baghdad ascertained.

I have no opinion whether one ought to strike buildings perpendicular or not - just that is a feature of guided missile strikes.

If penetration was not an issue, why put any weight to whether the hits were perpendicular or not? Why assume that it was intentional? After all, airliners work best flying straight and level, so when they hit a vertical object, the angle tends to be more or less perpendicular.

Hans