Flight 175 plane speed challenged

[Cl1mh4224rd]

http://www.amics21.com/911/imags/approach2.jpg
http://911wideopen.com/pics/UA175-star.jpg

Shape and color scheme are consistent with a Boeing 767 owned by United Airlines.

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/767_front_specular_reflection.jpg

 

[R.Mackey]

The links I provided in post #8 I believe claim that they can be modified so yes you would have to prove it was flight 175.

"Modified?" You mean modified to have a higher Mach limit??

You truly have no idea what you're talking about.

Welcome to Ignore.

 

[funk de fino]

I didn't claim it was before 9/11. You asked who uses 767's. Can you follow?

This thread is about 911 and I asked where they would have got another 767 to crash instead of the real one. You posted this ridiculous quote to back you up unfortunately it has just made you look stupid because you got it all wrong again. Where did they get the plane you claim hit the tower?

None of this is proof of anything nor identification of flight 175. Why do you bother?

You made a claim, and it is false, should I just let you carry on doing that?

LOL

Nice, you accept it is not Boeings official stance then?

Still nothing. Congratulations on your goose egg batting average

Thanks for the apology for saying I had claimed something when I had not... Oh wait a minute you never...

Dodge? Who's dodging? How was flight 175 identified? Come on answer it.

You are dodging the question you were asked which is relevant to the thread about why did they use other planes when it would have been easier to use the already hijacked ones? You are avoiding it like you avoided the car analogy.

Flight 175 was identified by DNA, by aircraft parts, by passenger personal effects, by video, by eyewitness and by the fact that UA now have a missing plane

What else would you like to see?

 

[apathoid]

Why don't you ask the expert who is not my expert but Boeings. Just don't be surprised if they hang up on you.

Boeings expert? Expert no-planer, retired software engineer Joesph Keith?

Did you miss my post above?

This guy is no aerospace engineer - he is a software engineer. He is also a member of a 9/11 truth group......and a no-planer. So much for "Boeing states the planes could not reach the speeds claimed".

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=no_planer_resigns

A No Planer Resigns from S.P.I.N.E.
Morgan Reynolds — August 1, 2006
Printer friendly copy of this article available here.

Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer who worked in the aerospace industry and just resigned from a professional group known as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) founded by Canadian scientist, A.K. (“Kee”) Dewdney.....

 

[Terry]

Why don't you ask the expert who is not my expert but Boeings. Just don't be surprised if they hang up on you.

Well I don't need to. You see, I understand at least something about aerodynamics. I showed you my workings, remember? Aerodynamic forces in cruise are higher than those at sea level at 220 mph. This is demonstrably true using simple physics. So again, what does this say about the credibility of your "expert"? Or alternatively, why is he right rather than me?

 

[funk de fino]

The links I provided in post #8 I believe claim that they can be modified so yes you would have to prove it was flight 175.

No they do not

I suggest you go and read them again, if you even read them at all first time that is

It speaks about the design stage of the engine, not any modifications that could have been done to these aircraft

What is it that makes you or your moms car go faster downhill Zen?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

I'm well aware of that, but I think it needs to be pointed out to you - still - that the US government doesn't own a single 767 airframe....

So you know for sure everything the US government and military own and what they use it for.

I know for sure what it was....as would most people aviation people. Go over to pprune or airliners.net and you'll quickly learn that there is no question about what type of aircraft it was.

Maybe but not all...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4147958.stm

In December, 2005, The Power Hour interviewed aircraft experts about the South Tower crash aircraft:

Col. George Nelson USAF (ret.), who has 30 years of experience identifying aircraft and aircraft parts stated, “The plane that hit the south tower on 9/11 was not United Airlines (UA) flight 175”. After reviewing numerous video clips and photographs of the 9/11 attacks, he concluded, “That was not a commercial airliner. The planes were substituted.”

Glen Standish, an airline pilot for over 20 years stated, “The plane seen in various video clips of the attack could not have been UA flight 175, due to the extra equipment that appears to be attached to the bottom of the fuselage”.

Nila Sagadevin, a seasoned airline pilot of over 20 years, examined photos of the engine that was found at the Trade Center site. He stated, “The engine found at the Trade Center was a CFM-56, which is not utilized on a Boeing 767”, confirming that the south tower was not hit by flight 175, but by another plane that had taken its place.

How do we know it was Flight 175? Process of elimination, radar, DNA, the fact that 175 didn't land anywhere, etc.....

Process of elimination only works if you are aware of everything to eliminate. Passengers remains from flight 175 are not even claimed to have been found and I believe only only DNA from 12. You don't know that flight 175 didn't land or have something else happen to it you are guessing. It's not proof.

 

[maxpower1227]

ZenSmack, where on earth are you going with this thread? By that I mean:

- If you think what was identified as Flight 175 was not a 767, what do you believe it was?
- What do you think hit the OTHER tower?
- Why is the scenario you espouse more plausible than the prevailing theory that 767's was piloted into the towers?

Not sure if this was missed or simply ignored, but I still want answers to these.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The flight was tracked on RADAR, passengers on the plane confirmed the hijackings, the planes were found at the scene, eyewitnesses saw the plane, the hijackers had left notes talking about their plot, the planner confessed to it, even before being caught, there are hundreds of paper trails from the hijackers.

yet not one single piece of evidence to show an alternative scenario Zen. Isn't that kind of interesting? Gosh, we wouldn't be trying to play childish games here would we? We wouldn't be trying to avoid the fact that we have no evidence of foul play what so ever by trying to skirt around the issue now would we?


here's one for you. You can't prove the WTC towers were destroyed. There is no proof. We can both play absurd games.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Not sure if this was missed or simply ignored, but I still want answers to these.

I answered this.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So you know for sure everything the US government and military own and what they use it for.



Maybe but not all...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4147958.stm

In December, 2005, The Power Hour interviewed aircraft experts about the South Tower crash aircraft:

Col. George Nelson USAF (ret.), who has 30 years of experience identifying aircraft and aircraft parts stated, “The plane that hit the south tower on 9/11 was not United Airlines (UA) flight 175”. After reviewing numerous video clips and photographs of the 9/11 attacks, he concluded, “That was not a commercial airliner. The planes were substituted.”

Glen Standish, an airline pilot for over 20 years stated, “The plane seen in various video clips of the attack could not have been UA flight 175, due to the extra equipment that appears to be attached to the bottom of the fuselage”.

Nila Sagadevin, a seasoned airline pilot of over 20 years, examined photos of the engine that was found at the Trade Center site. He stated, “The engine found at the Trade Center was a CFM-56, which is not utilized on a Boeing 767”, confirming that the south tower was not hit by flight 175, but by another plane that had taken its place.



Process of elimination only works if you are aware of everything to eliminate. Passengers remains from flight 175 are not even claimed to have been found and I believe only only DNA from 12. You don't know that flight 175 didn't land or have something else happen to it you are guessing. It's not proof.

That's funny, because the airline itself identified the plane form the video footage and knew immediately that it was flight 175. And they also knew that the comical attachments that these so called "experts" you present is simply pixelation caused by digital zoom.

The fact that your so called experts mention an attachments, proves they clearly have no competence in the matter. Oh but look, they're part of the Woo movement. What a coincidence eh?

Obviously what you mean by proof is anything that supports a conspiracy theory.

 

[Swing Dangler]

What it means is airlines are not the only ones who have a use for 767's which was the question I was answering.

Now how do we know for sure it was a 767 and flight 175?

Anyone?

The only empirical evidence is photographic evidence or debris evidence showing the tail number of flight 175 entering the tower or in the wreckage.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I answered this.

You mean avoided.

 

[apathoid]

So you know for sure everything the US government and military own and what they use it for.

Remember when I mentioned that I'm a plane spotter? I have a checklist of every 767 ever built on it. None have ever been operated by the government......feel free to prove me wrong.

Maybe but not all...

Col. George Nelson USAF (ret.), who has 30 years of experience identifying aircraft and aircraft parts stated, “The plane that hit the south tower on 9/11 was not United Airlines (UA) flight 175”. After reviewing numerous video clips and photographs of the 9/11 attacks, he concluded, “That was not a commercial airliner. The planes were substituted.”


Glen Standish, an airline pilot for over 20 years stated, “The plane seen in various video clips of the attack could not have been UA flight 175, due to the extra equipment that appears to be attached to the bottom of the fuselage”.

Nila Sagadevin, a seasoned airline pilot of over 20 years, examined photos of the engine that was found at the Trade Center site. He stated, “The engine found at the Trade Center was a CFM-56, which is not utilized on a Boeing 767”, confirming that the south tower was not hit by flight 175, but by another plane that had taken its place.

Ah, more conspiracy kooks.

I'll make this easy for you - they're selling snakeoil. Please take the time to register at pprune.org and you'll find out just how small the minority is that these "experts" of yours are in...

ETA: Stanish is pod person.....

 

[apathoid]

The only empirical evidence is photographic evidence or debris evidence showing the tail number of flight 175 entering the tower or in the wreckage.

Great, all we need now is for the gummint to release the 500 fps 1080i HD camera footage of the aircraft going in. Oh wait......

 

[pomeroo]

The only empirical evidence is photographic evidence or debris evidence showing the tail number of flight 175 entering the tower or in the wreckage.

Is that all? Are you sure you might not be forgetting about the remains of the passengers? A minor detail, to be sure, but highly inconvenient for your fantasies, Swingie.

Your evil movement is dead.

 

[Spins]

Well I could do that but someone will have to prove it was a 767 in the first place and flight 175 or what's the point?

Air Traffic Controller's were in normal radio contact with Flight 175 from take off right up until it was hijacked, see the NTSB report here.

At 8:47 the first indications that Flight 175 had been hijacked occurred, the transponder code was changed twice but was never turned off. Unfortunately these transponder changes went unnoticed for several minutes by a New York controller because at the time he was focused on trying to find Flight 11 which they knew (at that point) had been hijacked. At 8:51 the controller finally noticed the transponder change from Flight 175 and immediately tried to contact the aircraft; he made repeated attempts...

8:51:42 - United one seventy five recycle your transponder and squawk code of one four seven zero.
8:51:53 - United one seventy five New York.
8:52:09 - United one seventy five do you read New York?
8:52:20 - United, United one seventy five do you read New York?
8:53:52 - United one seventy five New York.
8:54:33 - United one seventy five do you read New York?

At 9:01, two minutes before impact, as Flight 175 continued its descent into Lower Manhattan, New York Center alerted another nearby Air Traffic Facility responsible for low flying aircraft. As the flight neared the WTC, ATC was able to monitor the flight's impact path.

In fact Flight 175 almost collided with Delta Airlines Flight 2315 in midair minutes before crashing into the South Tower, why would the plane be flying so erratically and almost endanger the plot?

Three passengers, Pete Hanson, Brian David Sweeney, and Garnet Bailey aboard Flight 175 made phone calls, all from GTE airphones. Flight attendant Robert Fangman called a United Airlines office in San Francisco, and spoke with Marc Policastro. He reported the hijacking, and said that both pilots had been killed. He also reported that a flight attendant was stabbed, and said that the hijackers were flying the plane. The call was disconnected after a minute and 15 seconds.

Then, as other people have mentioned, there is all the visual information that is available that shows a United Airlines Boeing 767 hitting the South Tower and all the subsequent wreckage found is all consistent with a 767.

Connect all the dots, like people who live in the real world do, and you have all the evidence you need to prove it was Flight 175, alas I fear it's something you'll never do.

 

[SDC]

The only empirical evidence is photographic evidence or debris evidence showing the tail number of flight 175 entering the tower or in the wreckage.

You are confusing physical with empirical evidence. From RefDesk: em·pir·i·cal (

m-pîr

-k

l)
adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

By these definitions, everything cited is "empirical" (including phone calls and "we can't find that plane.")

Actually, photography and debris are somewhat different kinds of evidence. I speak as a historian, not as a lawyer, by the way. But heck. I've told you this before, I think.

 

[pomeroo]

9/11 myths has no credentials .

Translation: 911myths.com presents the available evidence in a dispassionate, objective manner. The site's rigorous devotion to reason infuriates me and my fellow conspiracy liars.

Is there a fact in there somewhere?

Yes. You flee from facts. You're a conspiracy liar, remember?

Why do they have black boxes and what's in them? The Black box part itself, what's it made to do? C'mon pomeroo any facts at all?

Cute, but obvious. Your attempted deceptions always founder on your lack of intelligence and knowledge.

To repeat, WHAT WOULD THE BLACK BOXES HAVE TOLD US, ZEN?


Your desperation is obvious.

How was it identified?

Hmmm, that would be, 1) by the wreckage; 2) by the videos of the crash; 3) by the remains of the passengers.

You are delussional and you have nothing and that's not funny it's sad.

Next

Look, the moderators are correct in insisting on civility, but, frankly, you clowns don't merit it. You slander innocent people by accusing them of heinous crimes they obviously didn't commit and you don't know a goddam thing. Your idiotic fantasies get torn to shreds regularly. You and your fellow liars are exposed as fact-free, hate-filled fools, and yet you persist in endlessly recycling discredited rubbish. There appears to be a contest to see who can be the most ignorant and obnoxious fantasist peddling his snake oil on this forum. You're in the finals.

Now, you're reduced to babbling about the black boxes. You've read nothing on the subject, except fabricated nonsense churned out by other charlatans. You can't even tell me the punchline to your own joke.

YOU raised the issue of the black boxes. TELL US WHAT THE BOXES MIGHT SHOW.

Why do they have Black Boxes pomeroo? What is this OP about? Get a clue.

This OP, like so many others, is about exposing yet another empty-headed conspiracy liar.

WHAT MIGHT THE BLACK BOXES TELL US?

 

[gumboot]

We have primary evidence in various forms, tracking UA175 all the way from departure at the airport to impact at WTC2. There was no point at which a "swap" of aircraft could have occurred.

UA175 hit WTC2.

-Gumboot

ETA. a "no"