| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
redadare
Validated Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 204
Location: France
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:05 am Post subject: Confirmation 9/11 airliners flying after twin towers strike |
 |
|
From Pilots For 9/11 Truth:
Part Two - IT IS CONCLUSIVE - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE WELL AFTER CRASH
More information has surfaced which conclusively demonstrates the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, were airborne well after their alleged crashes. This article supplements our last, "ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH" in which the ACARS system is explained as well as how to determine if a message were received by the aircraft, along with how ground stations are selected through Flight Tracking Protocol based on messages routed to United 175, N612UA.
We now have further evidence which places United 93, N591UA, in the vicinity of Champaign, IL, 500+ miles away from the alleged crash site in Shanksville, PA. This information is further corroborated by a (now former) United Airlines Manager of Flight Dispatch Michael J. Winter.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LON G-AFTER-CRASH.html
_________________
In the end, it's not the words of your enemies you will remember, but the silence of your friends. Martin Luther King |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
And more info re implausability of any airliner striking Twin Towers or Pentagon at speeds claimed, from Veterans Today article, which though dealing with a 'UFO'/US advanced flying machine, states that airliners cannot normally operate at low altitude at speeds of more than 300 mph without starting to fall apart: (the stated 9/11 speeds were much higher than 300 mph):
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/14/exclusive-confirmed-american-u fo-over-korea/
'We then went to intelligence sources in Korea. There we learned an astounding story which we are not able to fully confirm. The aircraft, one that appears to be a “flying saucer,” is one of two American reconnaissance vehicles stationed on the Korean peninsula by the United States.
Forensic examination of the video indicates several key issues:
■This is a vehicle of significant size, larger than a commercial airliner.
■The initial speed is well above the speed of sound though it appears much slower
■The “break away” speed, as noted as the “blur” in the video is this aircraft reaching 16,000 mph within low atmosphere, something normally impossible because of drag in the heavy atmosphere at such low altitudes. Commercial passenger aircraft at such altitudes are generally incapable of reaching more than 300 mph without both engine and structural failures, verified by both engineers and commercial and military pilots.'
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It wasn't me saying 'Forensic examination of the video indicates several key issues...', it was the US UFO article. My point in posting it, I believe, was perfectly clear: the statement from a Veterans group about the implausability of airliners (not years back, and I very much dought if the aircraft that broke up on a British attempt to break the sound barrier was an airliner! - but even if it were, as you say, we have progressed considerably since then) being able to fly at 300 mph (not knots) without serious engine and structural problems.
This is not the only place this kind of info is posted; there are articles on 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth also saying that the Boeings could not have attained the alleged speeds at the alleged altitudes.
Also, oddly for planes supposedly crashed into the Twins or Shanksville:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdXGSefI6pM
(Don't be bothered by the 'Dalek' talk when video is slowed and blown up (expanded); the evidence is in the official plane ID info on the video, and the time it was recorded);
and:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/MORE-ACARS-CONFIRMATION.html
The part of my previous post that highlighted in red and bold was the relevant part of the article I wished to draw attention to.
I've just watched your proffered videos, and sure enough, the plane that broke up trying to break the sound barrier was a fighter, a DH 110.
Regarding the Forum disscussion between non-truthers,
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-535278.html
they were not only non-truthers but appear to be guessing; it doesn't state that any were pilots or had any plane structure knowledge, and the non-truther original questionner was left at the end still worried that the 'Truther' argument could be right.
My video sources are fuelled by pilots, who have a better claim to knowledge than the average Joe in the street.
But your videos of 'video fakery' are very worrying; I'm surprised the 'Evildoers' didn't come up with a convincing pic of Ossama sitting on the nose of the first 'alleged' plane to strike the North Tower, yelling:
!Allah Aqbar'!
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed, Outsider - I did rush out that post too quickly. I was trying to get a slightly contrary view re the airliners breaking up. I know people that personally saw the airliner crash into the 2nd tower. (or at least thought she saw). Even if all the other crashes were "staged" - I just think the second crash must have happened - just far too many witnesses - even if there is other evidence of video fakery by the TV networks...
| outsider wrote: |
But your videos of 'video fakery' are very worrying; I'm surprised the 'Evildoers' didn't come up with a convincing pic of Ossama sitting on the nose of the first 'alleged' plane to strike the North Tower, yelling:
!Allah Aqbar'! |
Yes, this video fakery has made me doubt the first crash entirely. All we have is that one "lucky" video. And yes, why were the Osama fake videos so bad!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scienceplease 2 wrote: | Indeed, Outsider - I did rush out that post too quickly. I was trying to get a slightly contrary view re the airliners breaking up. I know people that personally saw the airliner crash into the 2nd tower. (or at least thought she saw). Even if all the other crashes were "staged" - I just think the second crash must have happened - just far too many witnesses - even if there is other evidence of video fakery by the TV networks...
| outsider wrote: |
But your videos of 'video fakery' are very worrying; I'm surprised the 'Evildoers' didn't come up with a convincing pic of Ossama sitting on the nose of the first 'alleged' plane to strike the North Tower, yelling:
!Allah Aqbar'! |
Yes, this video fakery has made me doubt the first crash entirely. All we have is that one "lucky" video. And yes, why were the Osama fake videos so bad! |
It is perfectly possible planes did hit the Towers, just not the Boeings the US govt. claim. Fighters and drones can reach high speeds at very low altitude. People may well have seen 'aircraft' hitting the Towers; it's then not difficult for them to assume they must have seen whatever type of aircraft the govt. claim.
After all, they could only have seen whatever it was for a fraction of a second.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've just reviewed this youtube video and not really very convinced. Even if the caption did say UA175 it is not a proof of anything. There is no direct connection between a radar blip and the schematic displayed on a computer screen. If the radar does not pick up the blip or even the transponder id pinged back in the radar return it does not remove the graphic from the computer screen. The computer will continue to display the information until told not to. I doubt whether many programmers would test an "aircraft crash condition" in their radar display software - even if they did they'd probably want to know the last reliable known position of the aircraft so that they could direct search and rescue efforts! And this was a feed from an air traffic display - so even less reliable.
The comments below the video made some good points (despite the grinding "idiot" flames) One was the physical evidence that Lisa Frost was found in the GZ debris. His father responds to her death here:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/frost-316519-lisa-daughter.html
And a few other googles about his fund raising and marathon running all check out. This gives lots of indications that a real aircraft was used for the second crash. (Lisa was in UA175)
This is a strange story about her mother's near death experience - "not a suicide attempt" - which I just found...
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-299712--.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I believe some sort of 'aircraft' was used, but not the Boeings alleged.
And have you checked out the ACARS information? According to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, this info is pucka and compelling.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | I believe some sort of 'aircraft' was used, but not the Boeings alleged.
And have you checked out the ACARS information? According to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, this info is pucka and compelling. |
I glanced over it... since Ptech was inserting blips into the air traffic control system it is very difficult to separate what is fact from fiction in this space.
This is the 9/11 timeline entries for this:
| Quote: | (9:01 a.m.-9:04 a.m.) September 11, 2001: United Airlines Dispatcher and Air Traffic Control Coordinator Try Contacting Flight 175
Edit event
Ed Ballinger.Ed Ballinger. [Source: CNN]At the United Airlines System Operations Control (SOC) center outside Chicago, flight dispatcher Ed Ballinger learns that Flight 175 is suspected as being hijacked, and then sends text messages to try and make contact with it. [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 23-24 pdf file] The SOC center has just been contacted by the United Airlines maintenance office in San Francisco, about a call it received from an attendant on Flight 175, who had reported that their plane had been hijacked (see Shortly Before 9:00 a.m. September 11, 2001). [Wall Street Journal, 10/15/2001] Subsequently, around 9:01 or 9:02, a dispatch manager at the SOC goes to Ballinger’s desk and informs him of the details of this call. [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 23 pdf file] Ballinger is the flight dispatcher responsible for United’s aircraft flying from the East Coast to the West Coast, which include Flight 175 (and also Flight 93). [Chicago Daily Herald, 4/14/2004] At 9:03, he sends an ACARS message to Flight 175: “How is the ride. Anything dispatch can do for you.” (ACARS is an e-mail system that enables personnel on the ground to rapidly communicate with those in the cockpit of an aircraft.) At the same time, the United Airlines air traffic control coordinator also sends an ACARS message to the flight: “NY approach lookin for ya on [frequency] 127.4.” Just after 9:03, unaware it has now crashed into the World Trade Center, Ballinger and the air traffic control coordinator re-send these ACARS messages to Flight 175. [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 9 and 23-24 pdf file] Twenty minutes later, Ballinger will remain unaware that Flight 175 has crashed and still be trying to contact it by ACARS (see 9:23 a.m. September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 26 pdf file] All airlines have a staff of dispatchers like Ballinger who, under FAA rules, are responsible for monitoring aircraft in flight. They follow each flight’s progress, relay safety information, and handle any problems that arise. [Spencer, 2008, pp. 14 and 35] United Airlines dispatchers typically monitor up to two dozen flights at once. [Longman, 2002, pp. 68] Ballinger has 16 transcontinental flights taking off early this morning that he is responsible for. [New York Observer, 6/20/2004] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Artificially produced 'blips' do not come into this.
This is a system where messages are automatically routed to nearest transmitter/receiver to the aircraft's actual position, just like a mobile phone.
No matter that the pilot or drone control doesn't answer, the system automatically reads the position the plane is in, just as if you don't answer your mobile, it still tracks your changing position, and routes messages, answered or not, through the nearest transmitter/receiver.
My understanding is, it still does this, even if your mobile is switched off (I know it can still transmit sound if activated by the 'Authorities', and transmit your conversations, even if switched off - this is something people should be aware of; the same for a home phone 'on the hook').
That is what the ACARS info from Pilots for 9/11 Truth is all about: FL 93 was nowhere near Shanksville, and was moving some 500+ miles away after the 'crash'.
Remember 'Operation Northwoods'?. The supposedly 'Mig-downed' aircraft would have been safely tucked up in it's hangar on the military base when the 'Mayday' was automatically broadcast.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | Artificially produced 'blips' do not come into this.
This is a system where messages are automatically routed to nearest transmitter/receiver to the aircraft's actual position, just like a mobile phone.
No matter that the pilot or drone control doesn't answer, the system automatically reads the position the plane is in, just as if you don't answer your mobile, it still tracks your changing position, and routes messages, answered or not, through the nearest transmitter/receiver.
My understanding is, it still does this, even if your mobile is switched off (I know it can still transmit sound if activated by the 'Authorities', and transmit your conversations, even if switched off - this is something people should be aware of; the same for a home phone 'on the hook').
That is what the ACARS info from Pilots for 9/11 Truth is all about: FL 93 was nowhere near Shanksville, and was moving some 500+ miles away after the 'crash'.
Remember 'Operation Northwoods'?. The supposedly 'Mig-downed' aircraft would have been safely tucked up in it's hangar on the military base when the 'Mayday' was automatically broadcast. |
Indeed Operation Northwoods would be a model - probably a starting point - it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't a "spare" aircraft designated UA175 flying around in case the first aircraft missed or was intercepted by a stray fighter. The plan needed a successful crash. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
