911 'planes' - impossible speed

Reply button never works...

reply to thedman

How come on November 22, 2004 a plane clipped a light pole and crashed, killing 3? Why didn't that light pole come out of the ground?

The cause of the crash -- just south of Hobby airport -- was not immediately known. Television station KHOU reported that the plane had apparently clipped a light pole prior to the crash.

www.cnn.com...

It does matter because if the plane was actually the cause, we would have seen parts of a wing(or both wings) scattered across the highway and/or the Pentagon lawn.

reply to post by Niobis



NTSB report of accident - shows plane making ILS (instrument landing)
in poor weather. Crew below glide slope and descending too fast when hit
light pole


www.ntsb.gov...

As for wings falling off - numerous cases of aircraft colliding or striking
objects without losing parts of wing and still being able to fly.

Depends on object struck and where.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The fact that the planes all achieved those speeds and were witnessed plus recorded on video doing it speaks volumes against those who claim it impossible.

Show me one eyewitness who could accurately guess the speed of either the alleged AA11 or UA175?

The videos of those planes are hardly conclusive and are full of holes, as has been shown on many threads. I don't trust those videos to show real planes, as there is some clear interfering with the 'live' broadcasts on that day.

Besides, the videos do not positively identify the alleged planes that were allegedly used. Furthermore, the data recorders were not recovered to determine any alleged speeds of the alleged planes that impacted the towers.

There is no way to determine the alleged speeds of the alleged planes, it's all a fairy tale.

could you point to the evidence (and please, not from some sort of 911truth.org site...I can't take it anymore, I've tried to be open minded on this but these 911 conspiracy sites make a lot of assumptions and take a lot of leaps in logic to get to their conclusions) that the live broadcasts were interferred with in the way you are implying? I've tried to find it, but I can't find a single reliable, verifiable source that says the videos I was watching on that day were faked in any way. I'm trying to get on board with this 911 conspiracy stuff (especially after the Jesse Ventura interview on Stern the other day) but I can't make the leap because I just can't find actual evidence...thanks in advance.

Originally posted by White Chapel
could you point to the evidence that the live broadcasts were interferred with in the way you are implying?

Scroll down the main 9/11 page and count how many threads discuss 9/11 video trickery. Enter any of them and click on the links.

reply to post by White Chapel


well thats your problem not finding what you expect. dont expect others to find.
IMO.
thanks.

Originally posted by White Chapel
I'm trying to get on board with this 911 conspiracy stuff (especially after the Jesse Ventura interview on Stern the other day) but I can't make the leap because I just can't find actual evidence...thanks in advance.

I never cease to be amazed by people who claim they can't find any actual evidence. It makes me wonder if there's any amount of evidence that would suffice. At this point, probably not.

It is funny to me a woman was heard screaming that was not an AA plane. It's funny to me they had unusual bumps on them. It's funny to me they smoked a hole in the towers seconds before impact. Many funny things.

Originally posted by jpm1602
It is funny to me a woman was heard screaming that was not an AA plane. It's funny to me they had unusual bumps on them.

It's funny to me they smoked a hole in the towers seconds before impact.

interesting.do you have some infos on this?

Originally posted by anti72

It is funny to me a woman was heard screaming that was not an AA plane. It's funny to me they had unusual bumps on them.

interesting.do you have some infos on this?

There's a DVD called "9/11 in plane sight" or something like that. I don't own it, but I've watched it. It shouldn't be too hard to find.

It shows a woman, on camera, hysterically yelling "That was not an American airliner", as she's quickly walking past the camera.

It also shows what appears to be some type of cylinders under one of the planes.

reply to post by tezzajw


ok, thanx. I know it. I just wondered about ´..they smoked a hole in the towers seconds before impact. ´..

whats your ´theory´?

Originally posted by anti72
whats your ´theory´?

My theory is that the official story is a load of crap and the public have been lied to from the day it happened.

Truthers don't need alternate theories - all they have to do is to shoot down the official story, which is pretty damn easy.

They didn't even make a positive forensic ID on the alleged plane wreckage that allegedly hit the towers. That's an extremely poor investigation, from the onset!

reply to post by tezzajw


right, its disgusting to what dimension we are lied to.

ok, and thats it? a fake investigation and a bunch of liars.

no NWO? ´patriot act´, ´global war on terror´.. just exaggeration ?




[edit on 11-8-2008 by anti72]

All of the above and more. I will never read 'the old gray goat' quite the same again.

Originally posted by jpm1602
It is funny to me a woman was heard screaming that was not an AA plane. It's funny to me they had unusual bumps on them. It's funny to me they smoked a hole in the towers seconds before impact. Many funny things.

She did not say "AA", what she said was that was not an American Airline. Meaning that it wasn't an American plane. She would not have known at the time that a hijacking had occured, all she saw(as she was walking down the street) was a plane hit the WTC. She thought we was being attacked and she was right.

Ask yourself this. How would she have known that an American Airline 757 had been hijacked when she was walking down the street with her friends when the attacked happened? I saw the clip and I did not see a radio, earphones or television around her. Did you? If so please tell me where.

Just posting what I remember. Obviously she saw something anomolous for that kind of spontaneous outburst. What it was, I couldn't tell you.

Originally posted by jpm1602
Just posting what I remember. Obviously she saw something anomolous for that kind of spontaneous outburst. What it was, I couldn't tell you.

Maybe she saw a plane flying low over mahattan and hitting the WTC? They dont exactly do that on a daily basis, so it is an anomaly so to speak.

Anyhows: only watched the first few minutes of that video (friggin computar voice ... yikes)

Erm... isnt it kinda silly to use a simulation to prove that reality was wrong? In counterstrike i can jump 2 meters straight up, so reality got it wrong there too...
Besides: why is he using a 747? So, not only do we use a simulation to show that reality went wrong, no we use a simulation of a different plane? Why not use a Cessna skycatcher? With a topspeed of 120 knots that would have been even saver to proove that a 757 cant go 500 knots.

*prepares to write an email to god to tell him to fix the bugs in realitys physics engine*

Edited for speeling mistakes

[edit on 12-8-2008 by debunky]

Originally posted by jpm1602
Just posting what I remember. Obviously she saw something anomolous for that kind of spontaneous outburst. What it was, I couldn't tell you.

Maybe she panicked because a massive plane just hit a massive building? That isn't exactly something you see everyday in downtown NYC.

The enigma is the terror in her voice saying that is not an American airliner. What would have caused such an outburst? I make no claims on the veracity of 911, it's snafu'ed enough.
I just find it very curious why she would have said this.

Originally posted by jpm1602
The enigma is the terror in her voice saying that is not an American airliner. What would have caused such an outburst? I make no claims on the veracity of 911, it's snafu'ed enough.
I just find it very curious why she would have said this.

What would have caused such an outburst? ARE YOU KIDDING???

The fact that ANOTHER plane had slammed into a WTC tower ( thus revealing the first impact was NO ACCIDENT!)

And it WASN'T and American Airlines jet that hit the South Tower.. It was A UNITED jetliner ( not silver.. but grey and blue)

Do you want to know what the FIRST thing I did when I read your post?

I went to the charlatan video "in plane site" to check and see if the blonde ladies description/reaction was the FIRST or the Second impact.. Look at the Smoke genius. Not the camara angle.

There was a butt-load of smoke filling the sky from the EARLIER "first" A.A. flt 11 impact and the MUCH more RECENT after effects of the Second impact UNITED flt 175 around the towers. Her reaction actually implies that the FIRST impact was an American Airlines jet..and the SECOND impact was not..it was something different...like United Airlines.

Mystery solved.. And I am FLAT-OUT embarrassed that there is not a higher level of research prevailant in the American society.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but no one will grow if they only hear mindless agreement

reply to post by Taxi-Driver

You just don't get it, do you?

She said "That was not an American Airliner".

In no way did she infer or imply that she was saying anything about the company being American Airlines or United Airlines.