Flight 175 plane speed challenged

[leftysergeant]

Nelson's role in any crash investigation was apparently as a maintenance officer. It was his job to identify recovered parts and to determine whether they showed any signs of unusual wear, improper maintenance or assembly or parts failure due to metal fatigue or impact. ALL Air Force officers with credentials in relevant AFSCs, when I was active duty, participated in rotation in such investigations.

Nelson shows himself to be less than brilliant in his conclusion that there was something attached to the bottom of the aircraft. Butr then, photo analysis is out of his AFSC anyway. That would be more a military intelligence (which would seem an even greater oxymoron, were he working in that capacity) or criminal investigations function. He further shows his incompetance by stating that the Flt93 crater is only twenty feet wide, thus dismissing totally the span of the prints made by the wings and tail.

Would it surprise you to find a political crank among the ranks of a profession that attracts a few more than the average number of people with odd authoritarian personalities who might like to participate in the re-ordering of our whole society?

That such people exist in the military is not a slam against milkitary people. I have, myself, served in both the Army and Air Force. There are a lot of such people in both services, but, luckily, most of them do not rise to particularly high rank. Most, like Eric May, get sorted out rather easily.

 

[Mercutio]

We have primary evidence in various forms, tracking UA175 all the way from departure at the airport to impact at WTC2. There was point at which a "swap" of aircraft could have occurred.

UA175 hit WTC2.

-Gumboot

Are you missing a "no"?

 

[Corsair 115]

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...

See, that's no good because the NTSB is part of the evil government. It doesn't matter that there are hundreds of folks working there; it doesn't matter that the organization has been investigating air crashes (along with other transportation accidents) for many, many years; since the NTSB is a government agency, conspiracists will automatically discount anything it has to say because it is part of the government.

 

[DGM]

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.

 

[gumboot]

Are you missing a "no"?

Yes.



-Gumboot

 

[ZENSMACK89]

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

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

Welcome to Ignore.

Modified wasn't the word they used I should have said optimized and I never said anything about mach limit. It talks about optimization of the I believe the fans for either sea level or cruising speed. Which ever one it would be optimized for would take something away from the other.

You truly have no facts to address the identification of flight 175.

As for the ignore well boo friggin hoo. What's that just another way to cry Uncle?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

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.

Video isn't proof I've addressed that already. You've addressed nothing as far as this thread goes.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

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.

My name's Napoleon and I own a mansion and a yacht. Prove me wrong Will you be addressing the identification of flight 175 anytime soon?

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.....

Address what it says or don't bother.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

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.

Then what?

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...

And what are transponder codes for? And what does the radar screen look like for two planes in the same position but different altitudes and only one transponder code? Especially when people aren't noticing things for several minutes at a time.

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.

The flight path of what was assumed to be flight 175. They were also assuming that day about 77 and that something they chased turned out to be phantom flight 77. The object the ATC did see approaching the Pentagon was thought to be a fighter jet because of the speed and maneuvers it performed.

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?

Assumed to be flight 175 not proven. Maybe it was flying erratically because of the speed. What does that prove anyway?

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.

This doesn't prove they made the calls from what hit the towers. The hijackers also claimed to have bombs. Did they have bombs in the official version? One report said someone was shot on one of the planes. Was that in the official version? Someone claimed to make a call from flight 93 and claimed he could see out of one of the windows the plane was smoking. Was that in the official version?

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.

The visual evidence is debated on both what it is and if the source of it is credible. None of it proof of what hit the tower.

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.

Alas you have no proof of what hit the tower and no proof of what you believe hit the tower could reach the speed and perform the maneuvers claimed in the official version. You really don’t even have enough dots to go from point A to point B never mind come to a conclusion.

 

[gumboot]

Address what it says or don't bother.

The "pod" your "expert" sees is pixel burn on a low resolution image due to bright sunlight reflecting off the metallic surface of the aircraft.

Next?

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

The object the ATC did see approaching the Pentagon was thought to be a fighter jet because of the speed and maneuvers it performed.

Um... no.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

Military plane. No mention of it being a fighter. They thought it was military because it was flown in an unsafe way for a civilian airliner.

AA77's turning descent generated less than 1g.

In contrast, on January 22nd, 2002 Icelandair Flight 315 (a Boeing 757-208) was involved in a serious incident during approach to Oslo airport Gardermoen. During a go-around due to an unstable initial approach, the aircraft entered an extreme manoeuvre which exceeded the aircraft’s maximum g-limits, reaching a maximum of 3.59g's. Although passengers were alarmed, the aircraft landed safely.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

-Gumboot

 

[twinstead]

Oh for crying out loud zen what exactly would you accept as evidence that the plane was 175?

 

[Bell]

Alas you have no proof of what hit the tower and no proof of what you believe hit the tower could reach the speed and perform the maneuvers claimed in the official version. You really don’t even have enough dots to go from point A to point B never mind come to a conclusion.

If UA175 did not hit the South Tower, then...

1) What did hit the South Tower?
2) Where is UA175?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

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.

Actually 911myths makes me laugh.

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

How would you know? You never present any.

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?

What are Black boxes for?

Your desperation is obvious.

Your delusion is sad.

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

Not proof of what hit the tower.

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.

Oh poor baby is throwing a tantrum. Don't cry.

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 like jokes? Go read 911myths.

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

They show what they record. Now why do they need to record and survive a crash? Come on you can do it. What are you all dumbed down from reading 911myths?

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

Really? Is that what I intended?

WHAT MIGHT THE BLACK BOXES TELL US?

Come on you can do it I know you can.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

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"

Nope. No facts there.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Oh for crying out loud zen what exactly would you accept as evidence that the plane was 175?

I don't know I'd have to see it. Got anything? Anything at all ?

 

[twinstead]

I don't know I'd have to see it. Got anything? Anything at all ?

You've been shown it and rejected it. Spins did a good job, for example. You disagree. So, the question remains: You obviously are a seasoned investigator to catch things that the obvious idiots who performed the first one missed; what would it take then to convince you?

 

[gumboot]

Nope. No facts there.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

-Gumboot

 

[TjW]

AA77's turning descent generated less than 1g.
-Gumboot

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.

 

[A W Smith]

Burden of proof is on you sunshine

Then what?



And what are transponder codes for? And what does the radar screen look like for two planes in the same position but different altitudes and only one transponder code? Especially when people aren't noticing things for several minutes at a time.



The flight path of what was assumed to be flight 175. They were also assuming that day about 77 and that something they chased turned out to be phantom flight 77. The object the ATC did see approaching the Pentagon was thought to be a fighter jet because of the speed and maneuvers it performed.



Assumed to be flight 175 not proven. Maybe it was flying erratically because of the speed. What does that prove anyway?



This doesn't prove they made the calls from what hit the towers. The hijackers also claimed to have bombs. Did they have bombs in the official version? One report said someone was shot on one of the planes. Was that in the official version? Someone claimed to make a call from flight 93 and claimed he could see out of one of the windows the plane was smoking. Was that in the official version?



The visual evidence is debated on both what it is and if the source of it is credible. None of it proof of what hit the tower.



Alas you have no proof of what hit the tower and no proof of what you believe hit the tower could reach the speed and perform the maneuvers claimed in the official version. You really don’t even have enough dots to go from point A to point B never mind come to a conclusion.

Produce the missing flight 175 aircraft then. Including the passengers. You can't.because you have no facts. You FAIL. Only an ***hole Internet troll would conclude that the passengers where whisked away and murdered elsewhere or perhaps flown to gitmo. Or ignore all evidence and facts presented on a thread and continue an argument from ignorance. Only an ***hole Internet troll would ignore all evidence to the contrary to promote an agenda or just a debating game of jaqing off.