The best site for 911 research

[femr2]

The second to last point on your image still shows it at 31 000 feet.

Yes. According to the following image, it should be ~22000ft.

 

[little grey rabbit]

femr2, just hypothetically to suppose the utterly incredible was true and a flight N 175 F did come in, could point E "changes beacon codes twice" be a suitable point for the 2nd flight to take over the identity of the official UAL 175 flight?

As I already said, this is a technology of which I know nothing

 

[Dave Rogers]

My own personal view, to the very minor extent that I pay attention to 911 issues, is that the flight paths the planes took just prior to striking the two towers are psychologically puzzling for two pilots who had never flown an aircraft before. In as much as both planes seemed to have banked suddenly before turning to strike the buildings perpendicular to the face of the building.

Neither flight behaved as you've described them here, though. Flight 175 didn't hit WTC2 particularly close to perpendicular, and flight 11 didn't bank suddenly just before hitting WTC1. In fact, flight 11 behaved in a way best described by:

If I imagine myself a suicide pilot, I think I would just visually line up the buildings and make a straight line for them.

Flight 11 seems to have made a relatively straight run-in and simply crashed straight on into WTC1, whereas flight 175 was looking like it wouldn't hit the building at all until the pilot made a sharp turn to correct his aim. That suggests to me that Atta was a better pilot than al-Shehhi, because he didn't nearly screw up.

But it's easier to find inconsistencies in the 'official story' if you're allowed to make them up for yourself, isn't it?

Dave

 

[Oystein]

...The coolness to be able to do those last minute bank and turns surprises me

I occasionally play a little MS FlightSim for recreation. I am not a good or talented sim pilot, but I have done a few take-offs and landings. And crashed some, too.

Usually, when I am aiming for a target - whether it is an airstrip or I try to pass between two buildings in Chicago, because I am a mediocre (read: bad) pilot, I am liable to a lot of last second banking - it is much more a sign of lack of coolness.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Flight 11 seems to have made a relatively straight run-in and simply crashed straight on into WTC1, whereas flight 175 was looking like it wouldn't hit the building at all until the pilot made a sharp turn to correct his aim. That suggests to me that Atta was a better pilot than al-Shehhi, because he didn't nearly screw up.

Its been along time since I looked at the impact videos and I am not going to do so again any time soon. From my recollection both planes were angled on impact and both hit perpendicular. If one plane turned less, then it was due to less turning being required to make a perpendicular strike.

However, you are wrong that this means al-Shehhi was a poor pilot. A poor pilot just lines up the building and makes the tiny adjustments to hit - angled strike, so what? Everyone in the plane and on that floor dies.

An excellent pilot, if his approach does not take him perpendicular to the building face, flies just to one side and then makes a sharply banked turn to strike at 90 degrees.

An excellent pilot or a plane on a GPS controlled flight path.

However, when you have Allah on your side, who knows what you can achieve?

 

[femr2]

femr2, just hypothetically to suppose the utterly incredible was true and a flight N 175 F did come in, could point E "changes beacon codes twice" be a suitable point for the 2nd flight to take over the identity of the official UAL 175 flight?

As I already said, this is a technology of which I know nothing

Hypothetically, yes. It could also be that following transponder changes the FAA simply mixed up two flights that were in a similar position.

(Stands back before the inevitable rush of flame)

I think it wiser to focus on the data, though as I've said I had no joy getting extra information out of the FlightExplorer company.

I don't think there is a *ghost* aircraft, so what I'd like to know is...

a) If the flight marked UAL175 50km NE of WTC is NOT UAL175, what flight was it, and what was it's full flightpath ?

b) If the flight marked N175F is UAL175, how did it end up named N175F ?

c) If it's a simple mix-up between flight ID's, and therefore assuming that the indicated position for UAL175 is actually N175F, what was N175F ? Commercial airliner ?

 

[Oystein]

...and both hit perpendicular...

No, UA175 did not.

If one plane turned less, then it was due to less turning being required to make a perpendicular strike.

AA11 had the easier approach path, coming from the north and along the East river. Much easier to line up nicely many miles in advance.
UA175, coming from the south, had a more boggled approach and was struggling till the last second to hit at all.

...
An excellent pilot, if his approach does not take him perpendicular to the building face, flies just to one side and then makes a sharply banked turn to strike at 90 degrees.

An excellent pilot or a plane on a GPS controlled flight path.
...

All in your imagination.

A GPS-controlled flight path would simply go straight, which UA175 did not. Not nearly.
A GPS-controlles flight path could by the way miss the building altogether - GPS isn't so very precise in-flight.

 

[MRC_Hans]

My own personal view, to the very minor extent that I pay attention to 911 issues, is that the flight paths the planes took just prior to striking the two towers are psychologically puzzling for two pilots who had never flown an aircraft before. In as much as both planes seemed to have banked suddenly before turning to strike the buildings perpendicular to the face of the building. I have seen in Baghdad that this is the way the military program cruise missiles to strike buildings; I assume to make sure the explosive payload is delivered to the center of the structure.

If I imagine myself a suicide pilot, I think I would just visually line up the buildings and make a straight line for them. The coolness to be able to do those last minute bank and turns surprises me

As has been discussed at some length years ago, the simplest way to fly a plane into something is to place a marker on the front screen (a magic marker cross will do nicely) and maneuvre to keep it over the target. Eventually, you will hit the target.

The Japanese WW2 Kamikaze pilots did the same, using the gunsight in the plane.

Hans

 

[Dave Rogers]

Its been along time since I looked at the impact videos and I am not going to do so again any time soon. From my recollection both planes were angled on impact and both hit perpendicular.

Then your recollection is incorrect. Both planes were banked at impact, but flight 11 was not turning and flight 175 was not perpendicular. But you say you're not interested in checking this. So, since you have so little interest in 9/11 that you can't be bothered to check your own recollection of something you consider suspicious, how come you're nevertheless interested enough in the subject to demand a debunk of a very little-known point of suspicion? Your attitude reeks of insincerity.

Dave

 

[little grey rabbit]

AA11 had the easier approach path, coming from the north and along the East river. Much easier to line up nicely many miles in advance.
UA175, coming from the south, had a more boggled approach and was struggling till the last second to hit at all.

Its boeing, not bucking bronco.

A GPS-controlled flight path would simply go straight, which UA175 did not. Not nearly.
A GPS-controlles flight path could by the way miss the building altogether - GPS isn't so very precise in-flight.

I dare say you are correct and my terminology all wrong. All I know from studying the impact hole and burnt out exteriors of buildings in Baghdad, it seems to me that the military have technology that allows missiles approaching from any angle to make last minute adjustments to strike perpendicular.

In fact, you can easily see why it would be very important to do so.

So if GPS is the wrong term, my apologies, it is whatever the military uses to guide missile strikes.

 

[little grey rabbit]

As has been discussed at some length years ago, the simplest way to fly a plane into something is to place a marker on the front screen (a magic marker cross will do nicely) and maneuvre to keep it over the target. Eventually, you will hit the target.

The Japanese WW2 Kamikaze pilots did the same, using the gunsight in the plane.

Hans

Exactly.

 

[MRC_Hans]

A GPS-controlled flight path would simply go straight, which UA175 did not. Not nearly.
A GPS-controlles flight path could by the way miss the building altogether - GPS isn't so very precise in-flight.

In this scenario, GPS would be used to get within visual distance of the building, then simply make for it. You could see it with the Pentagon plane: Navigating till they had visual contact, then finding they were way too high, and having to make nearly a full circle to burn off altitude. Obviously, the Manhattan skyline is visible from a much greater distance, so there was more time to line up.

Hans

 

[little grey rabbit]

I think it wiser to focus on the data, though as I've said I had no joy getting extra information out of the FlightExplorer company.

I don't think there is a *ghost* aircraft, so what I'd like to know is...

Which is why an in-depth knowledge of Holocaust denial and studying the dynamics of both the debunkers and Her Majesty's loyal opposition (aka "respectable" denial) makes an excellent apprenticeship for looking at 9/11.

The tactics don't really change, its just the content.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have never known quite what to make of it, [...]

I don't have any idea.

I have no particular theory about 9/11 [...]

I have no knowledge of either the system or software, [...]

Again I don't know the software, so I can make no comment.

The issues are completely outside my knowledge base, so I have nothing informative to add.

As I already said, this is a technology of which I know nothing

I dare say you are correct and my terminology all wrong.

Given the quite remarkable level of modesty displayed above, I would just like to comment that:

Which is why an in-depth knowledge of Holocaust denial and studying the dynamics of both the debunkers and Her Majesty's loyal opposition (aka "respectable" denial) makes an excellent apprenticeship for looking at 9/11.

... seems rather an odd statement. It seems that you feel your apprenticeship has left you with no relevant knowledge or understanding whatsoever. In your place, I'd be looking for a refund.

Dave

 

[little grey rabbit]

Mr Rogers, I do not study 9/11, I study you.

Bless

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mr Rogers, I do not study 9/11, I study you.

Bless

Ahh, that explains why the title of this, your thread, is "The best site for 911 research"

Very weird angle from which to study people.

Take care lest you happen to disclose more about yourself than about the rest of us.

Hans

 

[funk de fino]

Ahh, that explains why the title of this, your thread, is "The best site for 911 research"

Very weird angle from which to study people.

Take care lest you happen to disclose more about yourself than about the rest of us.

Hans

Too late.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Mr Rogers, I do not study 9/11, I study you.

I'll look forward to your presentation of your findings. Uninformed speculation is always amusing, especially when I know the subject matter so intimately.

Dave

ETA: By the way, you've got one thing wrong already. Good work so far.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Take care lest you happen to disclose more about yourself than about the rest of us.

Hans

Hans, please, I have no secrets. I am so transparent you can read a newspaper through me.

 

[Oystein]

Its boeing, not bucking bronco.

Ae you saying an inexperienced pilot would fly smooth as a pro and [eta]not[/eta] struggle? Wow...

I dare say you are correct and my terminology all wrong. All I know from studying the impact hole and burnt out exteriors of buildings in Baghdad, it seems to me that the military have technology that allows missiles approaching from any angle to make last minute adjustments to strike perpendicular.

This is very fascinating. It just doesn't seem to have much to do with 9/11 since, you see, neither flight 175 nor flight 77 hit their targets perpendicularly.

In fact, you can easily see why it would be very important to do so.

So if GPS is the wrong term, my apologies, it is whatever the military uses to guide missile strikes.

Well, your argument seems to prove that no missile guiding technology as used by the US military in Bagdad was used on 9/11, since the planes didn't do what those cruise missiles do.

We knew that already