CBC documentary shows 2nd hit approach - boeing dive

Ok so the story is that hijackers took control of planes with knifes and then executed what is said to be complicated flight patterns in order to hit the buildings. Not to mention that this process happened to 2 planes.

And also some of the hijackers are reported to be still alive by multiple resources.

That's one heck of a flimsy story we got here.


[edit on 11-6-2007 by selfless]

Why is the part about them taking over the plane so flimsy? Please explain how flight crews DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE TRAINED TO DO is flimsy?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Why is the part about them taking over the plane so flimsy? Please explain how flight crews DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE TRAINED TO DO is flimsy?

Because everything was executed so perfectly for both planes with primitive means of weapons and both planes were flown into the buildings with complex flight maneuvers and both planes succeeded 100% with out failing.

Those were some hardcore super trained hijackers.

So well trained in fact that some of them are still alive.

And you're STILL completely missing the point of the question.

FLIGHT CREWS WERE TRAINED TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANTED, NO MATTER WHAT THE WEAPON THEY HAD WAS. If they were trained to give the what they want, WHY was it so unusual that they took over the plane with knives, razor blades, and pepper spray?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And you're STILL completely missing the point of the question.

FLIGHT CREWS WERE TRAINED TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANTED, NO MATTER WHAT THE WEAPON THEY HAD WAS. If they were trained to give the what they want, WHY was it so unusual that they took over the plane with knives, razor blades, and pepper spray?

I just don't buy it man that both planes were over taken in that manner and both plans didn't fail in any way.

My friend, we can just agree to disagree on this.

So, what you're saying is that you don't believe documented FAA training. I can find the original documents from the FAA that were scanned onto the web.

What DO you believe then? So far I haven't seen you say one single thing that you DO believe.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So, what you're saying is that you don't believe documented FAA training. I can find the original documents from the FAA that were scanned onto the web.

A slight misinterpretation here, probably my fault for not knowing English enough.

I was not talking about the FAA training, I was talking about the official story that I just don't buy.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What DO you believe then? So far I haven't seen you say one single thing that you DO believe.

What I don't believe is the official story.

I don't like the word believe for many reasons that doesn't have to be said in here.

Nothing has been confirm for sure about 911 so far, that's what I believe.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

FLIGHT CREWS WERE TRAINED TO GIVE IN TO HIJACKERS SO NO ONE GOT HURT, AND NOTHING HAPPENED TO THE PLANE. IT DIDN'T MATTER IF THEY HAD A KNIFE, A GUN, OR A BAT.

Flight crews are trained to cooperate with hijackers. This does not include getting out of the seat and letting them fly the airplane regardless of knife, gun or bat. Nor would they ever do so. You were never certificated under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 121 as an airline captain nor did you receive any anti-hijacking training that was required under those regulations. I respectfully request that you stop posting erroneous and false information Zaphod58. Thanks.

Where did I say that they were trained to or that they would get out of their seats and let them fly the plane John? NOWHERE. Find ONE post in this thread where I said that and I will make an apology and retract the statement. You CAN'T, so I DID NOT give out false and erroneous information. I respectfully request you not putting words in my mouth or twisting things I say into something I didn't. Thank you.



[edit on 6/11/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Where did I say that they were trained to or that they would get out of their seats and let them fly the plane John? NOWHERE. Find ONE post in this thread where I said that and I will make an apology and retract the statement. You CAN'T, so I DID NOT give out false and erroneous information. I respectfully request you not putting words in my mouth or twisting things I say into something I didn't. Thank you.

Not to say anything against you Zaphod,

You did make it out to be like it would be easy for hijackers to take over a plane and fly it into the world trade center.

That's what i perceived from your posts.

That is what I was not agreeing with you about.

Or maybe I understood wrong.

I never said or implied that it would be easy for them to do that. In fact in one of the posts I even said "flight crews were trained to give the hijackers what they wanted, and keep people calm, and get the plane on the ground where they could be released through negotiation or them storming the plane." How is that saying it would be easy for them to take over the plane and fly it into the WTC? How is that saying that cockpit crew would get out of their seat and let the hijackers fly the plane?

From your posts, I gathered the understanding that because they put knifes on the throat of people, they were going to be able to take the controls of the planes and fly them into the world trade center.

I guess I will quote one of your posts that demonstrates this understanding on the part of my self and John.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
FLIGHT CREWS WERE TRAINED TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANTED, NO MATTER WHAT THE WEAPON THEY HAD WAS. If they were trained to give the what they want, WHY was it so unusual that they took over the plane with knives, razor blades, and pepper spray?

So, I don't see what John perceived from your posts to be false.

But that's just because I perceived the same message in your posts that John did. Perhaps me and John were both mistaken.


[edit on 11-6-2007 by selfless]

That may be how you took them, but I specifically said at LEAST once that I can think of right now without looking "GET THE PLANE ON THE GROUND" and I NEVER said anything about flying the plane, or flying it into a building. That might be how you took it, and it may be that you both read more into it than I said, but I have never, and WILL never say that it would be easy to get the cockpit crew to give up the plane, because I KNOW that's not true. I've known too many pilots to ever think that, or say that.

I did some searching for a side angle of this dive and found this,the dive does not seem as dramatic from this angle.This video shows aproximately 11 second's of flight before it hit's the Tower and there is nothing extreme about it.

Either the angle at which this extreme dive was filmed made it look extreme or the film was tampered with.The video I'm linking here represent's exactly the same amount of flight time shown, about 11 seconds and there is no extreme dive what so ever.




www.youtube.com...

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Samblak]

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Samblak]

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Samblak]

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Samblak]

Well the CBC documentary is an hour and a half so i chopped out the clip in question so people don't have to trawl through an hour and a half worth of stream to see a 5 second clip i am referring to. I slowed it down some and zoomed in a bit too, here you go:



Watch carefully how the wings are wobbling left and right the whole time, it reminds me of how an autopilot reacts when overspeeding and it can't quite zero in on its programmed flight path.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by VicRH]

But when it is viewed from the side such as the clip I just posted it represents a rather smooth decent unlike that CBC clip. I don't know it's just my opinion.

Originally posted by Samblak
But when it is viewed from the side such as the clip I just posted it represents a rather smooth decent unlike that CBC clip. I don't know it's just my opinion.

I think if we could see the plane a few more seconds before the beginning of the clip you posted the nose dive may be slightly more apparent.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by VicRH]

Yes but if you count the seconds of flight before they hit the towers for both of the clips they almost exactly match.They both add up to about 11 seconds.Both clips are nearly identical in the amount of flight time shown.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Samblak]

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Samblak]

Originally posted by Samblak
Yes but if you count the seconds of flight before they hit the towers for both of the clips they almost exactly match.They both add up to about 11 seconds.Actually the clip I posted seems to be about 1 second longer.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Samblak]

The clip you posted could be a different speed and/or framerate perhaps.
However you do make a valid point. I might have a go at comparing them in a video application a bit later.

I remember another analysis of the very clip you posted and the guy says the plane doesn't come into frame where it should, suggesting it dropped down into the shot rather than gliding down into it gradually.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by VicRH]

I don't know. I think that any pilot or pair of pilots would have needed a great deal of luck to hit the target. But that's not to say it didn't happen. It just means it was horribly bad luck for those poor souls in the towers, if it means anything. Without being able to see the approach to the towers from a greater distance (eg twenty miles or more) it's impossible really to judge the realism or otherwise of the maneouvres pulled in those last few seconds. As others have posted commercial airliners can and have coped with far more severe changes of direction than demonstrated by this video.