9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Targets

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bitstream, Nov 8, 2007.

  1. hcour

    hcour Guest

    Of all the conspiracy foolishness, this has got to rank near the top. This was seen live all over the world. So apparently this wasn't just "edited video", it was edited video that was shown at precisely the right time that morning, disguised as live-feed.

    So Katie Couric was in on 9/11? Or maybe she just thought she was watching live-feed, and the Today show director was really the one in on it. Or both of them? How about Matt Lauer? I'm so confused...

    Oh wait! I bet it was that evil bastard Al Roker!

    #31     Nov 10, 2007
  2. the one that went into the north tower is the one that flew just above the bldg's.... i never said it dived. the south tower jet did... according to that video. who knows... videos can be tampered with.. i know most of the mainstream media tapes were altered.

    how does an aluminum nose make it through a steel columned bldg.. still intact. thats bullchit.
    #32     Nov 10, 2007
  3. Nobody said that YOU said AA11 was in a dive.
    Take a breath. Relax.

    The north tower plane hit at a down angle of 10 degrees, according to the NIST. That would make it very possible, although also very unsafe, for it to do 443 mph when it hit. But I hardly think that some guys intent on commiting suicide were interested in safe flying. That goes for the ST also - 540 mph is also very unsafe. But I hardly think they cared. Do you think they were interested in safe flying?

    Again, if that video was altered, why post it? It attempts to show how it would have been impossible to pilot a plane into the building, saying that some sort of autopilot would have been necessary. Are you saying that CTerz altered it? I fail to see the continuity of thought by throwing up a video that attempts to bolster your "inside job" theory, and then say it may have been altered.

    Your aluminum nose argument is puuuuuuuuuuuure strawman. I don't know of anyone claiming that.
    #33     Nov 10, 2007
  4. Tom631


    Flown by remote control.
    #34     Nov 10, 2007
  5. #35     Nov 10, 2007
  6. well, if you called boeing you would find out why a boeing jet can't fly at those speeds at that altitude. has nothing to do with the safety you are implying.
    #36     Nov 11, 2007
  7. Wrong again:

    This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

    Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

    One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.
    - answer by Jeff Scott, 21 May 2006
    #37     Nov 11, 2007
  8. let's see what aerospace engineers have to say about this.. and also boeing itself:

    <object width="500" height="418"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xjgLwOT2zuc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xjgLwOT2zuc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="500" height="418"></embed></object>
    #38     Nov 11, 2007
  9. I've been studying 767's all night.. time for some sleep already. there's a very detailed (and long) conversation on this subject between several military and boeing pilots and engineers here. It looks like even John Lear, very experienced pilot and son of the founder of the Lear Jet corporation is involved. Kind of cheesy msg board name, but... that shouldn't bother any of us here


    all i can say is... flight 11 was indeed an airplane, and it pitched up into the collision, not down.
    #39     Nov 11, 2007
  10. have you seen the video of the approach, and does it match what you saw?
    #40     Nov 11, 2007