18 votes

On 9/11, Flight 175 was Supersonic?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The maker of the video in the OP

Got a lot of his info from the documentary "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" by Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Description from official site": "The long awaited release from Pilots For 9/11 Truth analyzing the events which took place in New York City on the morning of the 11th of September 2001. Analysis includes Black Box Recovery, Radar and Speed data analysis, Aircraft Control, and "Hijacker" Pilot Skill. Includes interviews with United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11."

SteveMT's picture

Thanks for this video. In depth analysis.

Appreciated.

So is that supposed to help

So is that supposed to help the story? Do they explain how thousands of people mistakenly seen the plane or multiple people filmed it or how Boeing 767 parts were found burnt up and strewn around the area along with United and American airlines items?

SteveMT's picture

Were the planes reconstructed like

Were the planes reconstructed like all of the other air disasters and every piece of plane wreckage identified from each plane? And those crash proof black-boxes seem to have vanished while the terrorist passports seem to have survived.

SteveMT's picture

Excellent video about Fl 175

Thanks.

Good one!

.

At this point I really don't

At this point I really don't want to watch another whole documentary that I am sure is going to be over half repeated information. It starts out very similar to many I have seen. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that you could find different accounts of what kind of plane it was and what it looked like to eye witnesses. Every crime or incident that ever happens around alot of people has many different accounts of the specific details from eye witnesses. They always seem to leave out all the people who did see a commercial plane or a United airlines plane though.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/nyregion/12VIGN.html?ex=11...
Could you tell me what is different about this documentary than the rest? What evidence does it provide that the others don't?

If you consider 13 minutes a documentary

Then I suggest you have a short attention span.

Here's a 2 minute segment from the so called documentary, that shows actual visual proof that the ejected engine was from a 747, not a 767. I'm anxious to hear your explanation of this too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPO3TqQyZsU

Without having the aircraft

Without having the aircraft records you can't really know what engine was on the aircraft (neither can the producer of the video, who relies on VENDOR information that has no definitive relevance to the effectivity of parts on the engine).

"Each 767 is powered by two high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines, which are interchangeable with 747 engines with only minor modifications."
http://www.boeing.com/paris2011/pdf/bck-767Family.pdf

Inside the United Airlines Engine Shop
"The Pratt & Whitney PW4000-94 powers Boeing 747-400 and 767-200/300 models."

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Now you are grasping at straws

 

Yeah lol, for some reason I

Yeah lol, for some reason I thought that original video said it was part one of nine. But yeah ok I hear some claims being made but I see no proof of them. Claims being made from 'independent investigations' of pictures taken at the scene of part of an engine that is badly damaged.

So what I do is weigh that evidence, claims from 'independent investigations' of pictures taken at the scene of badly damaged engines and I weigh it against evidence like these:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175...
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/aircraftpartsnyc911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=814rcm4KC5w
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2601518&postcount=30
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275258/Phillip-Mars...
http://911blogger.com/node/20232
look at the bottom of this thread with a picture of the fuselage with N6 on it and a pic of the N612UA on the United 175 plane
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/319016/1/

And then as a rational reasonable human being I conclude that United flight 175 is the plane that hit the WTC on 9/11.

You mistake your rationality for

cognitive dissonance. The cooling ducts are not from United flight 175 and your claim that you're siding with the experts lacks in substance and experts.

I don't know where you see me

I don't know where you see me claim that I'm "siding with the experts", I am siding with the evidence and that's all I claimed. I just think that being told by I don't even know who, that 'independent investigations' determined from pictures that couldn't be the cooling duct from United 175, is far from enough evidence to dismiss all the evidence that it was. From that video you don't even know WHO did the 'independent investigations', and they tell you the cooling duct couldn't be on a 767 and show some diagrams but they don't actually prove that it couldn't be. I mean if that dismisses the flight manifest,fuselage parts, DNA from passengers, ID cards from passengers, landing gear, eyewitness accounts, ata recordings, phone calls by pax, radar tracking, etc. for you then that's where the disagreement here is.

By the way, do you think American Airlines flight 11 was not the first plane to hit the towers as well? What do you think did hit the towers then?

AA Flight 11 is not under the scope of this argument

I have no opinion about it. I am in no way making a no plane argument here so drop that aspect.

You are jumping to erroneous clonclusions

You responded to me within 10 minutes of my post, meaning you haven't even had time to watch the documentary. If you'd actually watch it you'd see that it does NOT claim that a plane did not hit the south tower. That is your incorrect presumption. Again it is a video of professional pilots explaining that the officially reported speeds are beyond what is physically possible for a stock 767 at or near sea level.

Being that there are many videos and witnesses to the plane impact, this means:

1) The officially reported speeds are a fraud.

2) The plane that hit the south tower was not a stock 767, i.e. not Flight 175, but another. This possibility is expanded upon in Pilots for 9/11 Truth's follow-up film, 9/11: Intercepted. It would mean that this aspect of the 9/11 operation was similar to an operation proposed by the Joint Chiefs in 1963, revealed decades later in the declassified Operation Northwoods documents, in which they suggest just such a plane swap as part of a false flag operation to be blamed on the Cubans. From p. 13-14:

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

That is an old documentary

That is an old documentary that I have seen already. I argued this very thing with a friend of mine for a long time and have researched it very well, I do not need to rewatch documentaries.
Of the people arguing that it wasn't or might not have been United flight 175, only Paul_S has even tried to answer my questions about the plane parts. I don't buy his argument at all, but at least he tried answering it. You totally ignored my questions altogether and jumped to the conclusion that I had not seen that documentary before.

Uh no

If you've seen the documentary, why would you ask:

"Do they explain how thousands of people mistakenly seen the plane or multiple people filmed it...?"

That indicates that you either have not in fact seen the documentary, or worse yet you HAVE seen it, know what it does and does not say, and yet are deliberately trying to mislead people into thinking that it advocates the notion that no plane hit the building when it does no such thing.

Do you contest the fact that the officially reported speeds for the plane that hit the south toward are well above the max operating speed for a stock 767 at or near sea level, as explained and documented in the video? If so I'd love to see what you base that on. If not it seems you are basically just making an argument from incredulity. Given that *a* plane crashed, there would be debris. The debris does not prove that the plane was in fact Flight 175, and meanwhile the official speeds indicate that it could not have been.

What in my statement alludes

What in my statement alludes "people into thinking that it advocates the notion that no plane hit the building"? All I was and am asking is how does anyone explain the Boeing 767 parts and the United and American airline items? or the thousands of witnesses and many, many videos from different angles?
I see no reason to dwell on estimations of speeds or what they effects of a 767 hitting the towers would look like, as that is all they are, somebody's estimation. Nothing in the many videos I've watched of the second plane hitting the towers makes me question it was anything other than the alleged plane, I will say that.

Wow you're really gonna just keep going with this huh?

Again, given than neither I nor the pilots who made the video that I posted claim that no plane hit the south tower, there is no reason for you to ask me or them to "explain" why so many people saw and filmed a plane hitting the south tower. A plane hit and many people saw and filmed it. The end.

The question is, was it Flight 175? You say you don't want to "dwell" on "estimations of speeds", but I think most people would disagree given that the speeds were not just provided by "somebody", they were provided BY THE NTSB, allegedly based upon the official radar data. The speeds OFFICIALLY reported by the NTSB, 500-520 knots, are well above the max operating speed for a stock 767 like Flight 175 at or near sea level. This means the data is a fraud or the plane seen and filmed impacting the south tower was not in fact Flight 175, implying that 9/11 was a false flag operation involving an Operation Northwoods-style plane swap. This is worth "dwelling" on.

You say you also don't want to dwell on "what [the] effects of a 767 hitting the towers would look like", but neither I nor the video I posted have raised that issue. That issue is usually raised by people who think the videos are faked, many of whom doubt that a plane impacted at all. That is not me nor the professional pilots who made the video I posted, yet you out of nowhere you misleadingly bring this "no planer"-type strawman up in response to me. Very odd.

What I said: "All I was and

What I said:
"All I was and am asking is how does anyone explain the Boeing 767 parts and the United and American airline items? or the thousands of witnesses and many, many videos from different angles?"

Where's the strawman argument or no plane claim? I am saying that there are Boeing 767 parts, United and American airline parts/items/papers, and many, many witnesses and videos where people said they saw a commercial airliner or even United airliner.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/aircraftpartsnyc911
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/nyregion/12VIGN.html?ex=11...

"speeds OFFICIALLY reported by the NTSB" So you're telling me to take this official stat as gospel but all other official stats are lies, is that right?

The other point I was making is that there are experts on both sides of the "impossible speed" and/or estimated speed argument, which indicates there is no definitive answer. Since it cannot be definitively determined and since I have no other credible reason to question whether it was the alleged 767's or not, I do not waste time questioning that issue. The 9/11 truther pilot I linked to below didn't question whether it was the alleged 767 or not. The Licensed Avionics Aircraft Engineer that TxRedneck linked to below did a simulation and determined it was the alleged 767's. I know there are going to be people who no amount of evidence will be legit to or suffice. I rest my case, you can argue with SteveMT and Paul_S on the specifics because y'all don't seem to be on the same page other than believing that it wasn't the alleged 767's. Because SteveMT does want me to look at the effects of 767 crash videos and Paul_S does think videos are photoshopped. Have fun!

object

If the plane was over-speed, just leveling it out, from a dive, could cause it to start breaking apart, before it reached the second building. I watched it happen, live. It, even, stunned the reporters behind the cameras. It was, obviously, a large aircraft.

I don't know. Real funny to

I don't know. Real funny to me how poor quality every video trying to point out how something in the crash isn't right though.
How did the Boeing 767 parts get there SteveMT? Can you answer any of my questions?

No commercial airline parts were found in the street.

The alleged turbine engine, at most 4 foot tall and 3 foot in diameter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_CF6 is an engine that is 6 foot in diameter at the small end and twelve foot tall at the big end is about 24ft diameter and 6 foot tall.

The Landing gear with a 4 foot tire came from a small plane not a commercial airliner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Continental_Airlines_Boein.... The tires on an SUV are bigger than the one in the photo.

It was the dumpster marked FBI marked Airplane parts that made me laugh.

Here the kind of work professionals do when collecting parts from 200 feet below sea level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

Plus NORAD never tracked any planes on September 11, 2001.

It is also is more convincing if the photoshopped plane enters at the same angle and cause similar explosive blast patterns.

Still waiting for credible evidence.

Free includes debt-free!

I have provided the evidence

I have provided the evidence that they did sir. There not only are Boeing 767 parts, there are American airlines and United airlines items found. I mean are you saying all 30+ videos I provided from different people, from different angles and different cameras are all photoshopped?
NO ONE out of the thousands of people standing there in NY looking up at the tower when the second plane came in and hit has a REAL video of what actually flew into the building? Is that what you are saying?

Why else would they strike at different angles

And produce different blast effects.

What Federal office has logged these so-called aircraft parts in as evidence and verified the source vehicle? FAA has responsibility for commercial aircraft. Do they have it?

Free includes debt-free!

Certainly objects coming out

Certainly objects coming out the other side of the building after impact would be no surprise. Would be interesting to have the original footage shown in this video, slow it down, and see it the object is there in the original footage or if it has been added by someone doing a little "editing".

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

SteveMT's picture

No Windows on Flight 175. No windows = go faster.

No windows = NOT Flight 175 either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRC4lCQuBmc

https://sites.google.com/site

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/k2.jpg

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence