CBC documentary shows 2nd hit approach - boeing dive

I just found this clip as well,it's not very long but shows no rapid decent.Hate to say it but there is something about the CBC clip that seems fishy to me,It's probly just the angle but who knows nowaday's.

www.youtube.com...

And finally I found this clip , this one pretty much seals the deal.

www.youtube.com...



Although I do find it strange that there were 2 camera's set up in nearly Identical spots.They both seem to be on tripods as well.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Samblak]

There is an interview on video with the air traffic controller of Flt.175, that hit the south tower WTC and he describes the last minutes of the flight including a sharp climb of 3000 feet, a near collision with another aircraft and then a descent of over 10,000 feet per minute in the last part of the flight. Link is here:

www.youtube.com...

Just came across this thread. I would've posted earlier obviously.

[edit on 12-6-2007 by ipsedixit]

Yes I realise that but the original clip you are reffering to is bogus,like I said it's either the camera angle or it was tampered with.The further we get from the day this event took place the more that these original video's are going to be tampered with.

[edit on 12-6-2007 by Samblak]

Hate to tell you, but no plane hit either tower..

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Hate to tell you, but no plane hit either tower..

I won't even go there.

Originally posted by Samblak

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Hate to tell you, but no plane hit either tower..

I won't even go there.

By saying you won't even go there, you went there.

What happened to the no plane theory thread? I think this footage debunks or at least explains the first question, "Why did the plane suddenly appear?" It makes sense that we would not have been able to see the plane when the camera zoomed in as it was still at high altitude. Now all I have to do is explain the nose out part and it will be fully debunked.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
There is an interview on video with the air traffic controller of Flt.175, that hit the south tower WTC and he describes the last minutes of the flight including a sharp climb of 3000 feet, a near collision with another aircraft and then a descent of over 10,000 feet per minute in the last part of the flight.

[edit on 12-6-2007 by ipsedixit]

props to ipsedixit this is a brilliant little clip and probably one of the best contributions to the thread so far. Thanks for posting this, its more startling confirmation that flight 175 was pitched in to a nose dive and how extreme that maneuver was.

I agree with the previous, (except for the props to me part). If what this air traffic controller is saying is true, and I think it is, then more than ever it looks to me like the plane was remote controlled. No amateur like the 19 "aces" of legend is going to hotrod that bird and hit a bullseye like the controller of Flt.175 did.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by ipsedixit]

I heard a few people say landing is the hardest part. I must disagree. Navigating is crazy. Landing isn't a piece of cake, but navigating using the controls requires so much knowledge. You not only need to know how to read the instruments, but knowledge about the areas, aiports, coordinates, etc to input all the info into the computer.

Assuming 9/11 was pulled off by terrorists, their greatest feat was putting the plane at the correct flight path to hit their targets.

Originally posted by Sublime620
I heard a few people say landing is the hardest part. I must disagree. Navigating is crazy. Landing isn't a piece of cake, but navigating using the controls requires so much knowledge. You not only need to know how to read the instruments, but knowledge about the areas, aiports, coordinates, etc to input all the info into the computer.

Assuming 9/11 was pulled off by terrorists, their greatest feat was putting the plane at the correct flight path to hit their targets.

Totally with you on that, I have been into flight simulators since the dawn of spectrum. I have more difficultly navigating and setting up a good approach rather than the actual landing and i heavily rely on the GPS. If you have your approach sorted the landing is pretty easy, its just getting a decent approach which can be tricky.

I will admit that last year I downloaded models of the WTC for flightsim 2004 (pm me if u want a copy) and I actually managed to crash into the towers first go with no navigation other than visibility, but I took a totally different approach and was at the correct altitude well in advance. However, I think if I was to try and make the maneuver like hijackers did I most likely would of failed, i didn't nose dive 10,000 feet to level off at the correct altitude whilst banking the whole time into position. That would require some kind of pre programmed flight path imo, or the agility of an f-16.

I could be wrong tho, I might have to check the approach again and see if i can pull it off just to be sure

[edit on 17-6-2007 by VicRH]

Just as an aside, I've seen some of those videos of airliners landing in strong crosswinds. Some of the regular airline pilots have jaw dropping skill. I rember one where the plane approached the runway from a sharp angle, so much so that in the last four or five seconds from touchdown it appeared to be almost perpendicular to the runway and then touched one wheel down, made a sharp lefthand turn and rolled down the runway safely. You had to see it to believe it and these guys seem to do this sort of thing regularly on windy days. I used to think of them as glorified bus drivers. Maybe that's a testimony to their skill too.

Just digging in the dirt. This whole doc. is interesting includeing the footage at around the 59min mark.

Hard to believe a crack pilot could pull this off in one try.