Flight 175 dropped into a deadly nose dive and locked in to position on a collision course with the South Tower. With unearthly precision, the plane banks the whole time zeroing in on the tower at full speed.

NOTE the very last tilt to the left the plane does just before impact - Looks very AUTOMATIC!

I still have a hard time embrassing the 'No Plane Theory'...

http://investigate911.se/911_United_175_Nose_Dive_Bomber.html

crazy, looks like the plane almost missed the tower, and yes you can see the pilot steer the plane to the left a little harder at the last minute.

What pilot? :D

Great minds think alike. :D

The supposed pilot of flight 175 was Marwan Yousef Al-Shehhi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwan_al-Shehhi.

One of its flight instructors would have affirmed about it:

"He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls", see:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-F...ning13jun06.htm

the piloting maneuvers of the airplanes which would have been executed by the supposed terrorists pilots to succeed the attacks of September 11 2001 were nevertheless very difficult to execute, see notably:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

An interesting remark of Commander Ted Muga:

"And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ..."

N.B. like Marwan Yousef Al-Shehhi, my English is also limited, but I have an excuse, I am French!

Flight 175 was not in a steep dive right before it hit the WTC. It just appears that way in the angle they choose to use in the video. It is a lie when the video states that this is the first time FDR’s have not been recovered. The maker of the video is an idiot if he thinks we should believe that the kind of flying shown requires remote piloting.

The maker of this video obviously believes in style over substance.

Ranb

Many of the remarks in the link from various pilots seem to just be cut/paste jobs from the same source. Airliners are stable aircraft, not fighter jets. They go in the direction they are pointed in, the pilot does not have to fight the controls to keep it going in a straight line.

The terrorists flew a 757's into a very large target and managed to miss the center of one of the building sides. Not great piloting, but good enough to do the job obviously.

Ranb

I think you give the feasability of amateur pilots manually flying aircraft at high speed with the forementioned maneuvers too much credability.

The logistics of the strike in itself irrespective of the contact point is an amazing piece of flying, and it happened not twice but 3 times on the same day, by 3 different amateur pilots, each behind the control column of a large jet built for cruising at high altitudes. When you look at that maneuver it absolutely reaks of remote control, and for people who run around getting their tinfoil hats on, that does not automatically disclude people being onboard.

Even remote control paths can be calibrated to be not quite perfectly precise, and infact often or not they arn't perfect because of wind conditions at altitude and constant minor corrections made by the computer.

It was carried out with military precision, any half wit can conclude that much.

I think that the performance of piloting the most difficult to accomplish is the one who was supposedly accomplished by hani hanjour, on September 11th, 2001, because notably this one would have been able to fly a commercial airplane of the size of Boeing 757, at the level of the soil, at a speed of 530 miles per hour, what has never happened in the history of aviation. A large commercial aircraft moves towards the ground while flying at a slow speed, when it gets ready to land. See, for example, the third short video below:

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-68...earch&plindex=3

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=643...earch&plindex=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA9Z4wyFk7Q

Here opinions of pilots profesionnels:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

1) "Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown

"The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying"

"Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous..."

2) Ralph W. Omholt – Commercial airline pilot. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and McDonnell Douglas DC-10.

http://physics911.net/omholt

"At the 9-11 Pentagon, we are supposed to believe that a 757, traveling at 300 Knots dove over a batch of construction equipment, immediately adjacent to the Pentagon wall, then leveled out; and did a totally perfect strike at the convenient “Least-Risk Point.” Thereafter, it morphed its way through three rings of the Pentagon, turning left and right through the linking hallways, leaving a handful of aircraft pieces which defy accountability. All that, without damaging or burning the Pentagon lawn! All that by a pilot known to be an idiot at the controls of a small plane.

It’s more than IMPOSSIBLE: it’s absurd!"

3) Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707 and 727

"The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...

When a commercial airplane gets that high, it gets very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature."

Concerning the twin towers:

1) John Lear – Retired commercial airline pilot with over 19,000+ total hours flown in over 100 different types of planes for 10 different airlines in 60 different counties around the world

"Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour."

2) Capt. Dan Govatos – Commercial airline pilot. Formerly Chief Pilot of Casino Express airlines; Director of Operations Training at Polar Air Cargo; Assistant Chief Pilot for Presidential Air; Manager of Flying for Eastern Airlines. Aircraft flown: Boeing 737, Airbus A300, Dassault Falcon 50 and Falcon 900, Gulfstream G-200m, and Cessna C-500. 10,000+ total hours flown.

"On 9/11, I was actually in the simulator training a class of new pilots. ... And we come out for a break and 9/11 is happening. Planes had hit the Tower. ... We were all -- just horrified and upset. ... We decided to go back into the simulator the next day. And after their sim training period, I said "Hey, guys, let's try something. Let's see if we can hit these buildings, like we saw happen." This was in a 737, a smaller, lot more maneuverable airplane. And so I set it up for these pilots. And, you know, keep in mind these pilots have many years of experience. I set up New York. And they all just took turns trying to hit the buildings. And they couldn't do it unless they slowed down to almost landing speeds."

"hey could not hit those buildings at the high speeds. They couldn't do it. ... .

People don't realize that to fly -- to hand fly an airliner at those speeds is extremely difficult. It's very hard to hand fly an airplane at those speeds, particularly if you're a novice. Because a novice that's learned -- all their experience is on little airplanes, they over-control everything. You got to understand going 300 knots in an airliner; and you move the controls like you would expect to do in a little airplane. Well, I mean you couldn't stand the G-forces. Everything has to be just finger-tip controls. [Editor's note: NIST estimates Flight 11 hit the WTC North Tower at 440 mph or 382 knots. NIST estimates Flight 175 hit the South Tower at 540 mph or 470 knots.] .

So, basically out of the 10 times each guy did it, nobody could do it. I finally was able to do it, on probably the last time. I jumped up there and tried it. But I'm telling you, that kind of opened their eyes; and I said, "You know, something is not right."

gee, are YOU a pilot? Anybody ever see any of the pictures of kamikaze attacks in WWII? How did those unskilled pilots of baca bombs (a torpedo nose with an aircraft tail and wings and a rocket motor in the back) manage to hit any targets?

Easy, actually - put the target in the front of the aircraft and keep it in front of the aircraft. The ONLY difference between these aircraft and the baca bomb was size and that the pilots were essentially private pilot trained.

Obviously they didn't have to LAND the aircraft since it was a one-way trip to HELL or take off either - that was done for them. As to the bit about "difficult to hit the building by experienced pilots" - I've done sims into buildings to see if it could be done. Just line up and keep the nose on the target.

You don't necessarily have to hit exactly where you think you will hit - just pick a spot and aim at it.

Remember this - as potential airline pilots, these towel heads were the absolute bottom of the barrel. As far as operating the aircraft, though, they knew enough to FLY it (not WELL, but enough) Hanjour also benefited from what is called "ground effect" - he was so close that the pressure on the underside of the wings kept the aircraft off the ground

http://www.yellowairplane.com/34th-2/Dauro_13.jpg (picture of baca bomb)

wow you're whack thinking the japanese pilots of WWII were some poorly trained imbeciles.

The skill required for a trained pilot to crash into his target while flying a relatively slow moving WWII Japanese fighter, with a single bomb, is hardly a comparison to that required for a relatively huge jetliner to do the same, while being flown at over 500+ mph.

Given the pilot's total lack of experience flying a Boeing 767, it defies reason to casually accept the credibility of such an accomplishment.

MM

Is there an unedited version of that video? Because I'm thinking it's fake. You never see the plane hit the tower from that "high dive bomb" approach. It always cuts to a different view before it hits.

Looks like good editing...

mirage - understand this numbskull - I've flown a 767 full motion sim - it's a VERY docile aircraft and quite responsive to control inputs (not an aircraft I took a particular interest in, though) With the rocket going, the baca was intended to hit at 400 mph or so (powered torpedo head). Kamikaze aircraft hit at 250 or so. They flew straight approaches right at their targets - look at the old movies. In most cases, the FUEL did the damage.

To the dummy (terror) who disputes what I said about the Japanese kamikaze pilots being poorly trained - YES they were "trained", but there weren't even enough aircraft to use for actual flight training for most of them so many were just "trained on the ground" and never saw flight until that fateful day - some were "regularly" trained pilots but not too many - a lot were just young kids - 16 to 19. WHY? The majority of the "skilled" pilots were either being used in interception missions (with whatever FEW hi altitude aircraft they had left) or were quite simply DEAD - 95% of the Imperial Air/Naval force having been killed before due to "attrition". Few planes, few pilots, little fuel. Read history (or is that too much for the conspiracy touts to do?) REMEMBER - IT WAS VERY LATE IN THE WAR. THE "GOOD" PILOTS WERE DEAD! They used a "betty" to carry bacas - other aircraft were flyable and made the trip under their own power. It's all out there in the history books

Incidentally, all 3 flights tilted to the left when they impacted the target. Even the pentagon crash (missile,jet, flight 77 or whatever hit the pentagon) appeared to have tilted to the left- if you look at the damage.

what do hijacked planes and democrats have in common?

A straight approach like Hani Hanjour took, who could not fly a cessna?

Comparing apples with oranges doen't lead to anywhere besides nowhere.

Hanjour had a commercial license (might not have been a great pilot,but he had the license) That sort of means he could fly a Cessna, doesn't it???

:unsure:

Quote:

"Hanjour also benefited from what is called "ground effect" - he was so close that the pressure on the underside of the wings kept the aircraft off the ground"

I am French and I understands a little the Italian language. In this Italian video (17 minutes approximately after his start)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=80...3&q=Luogocomune

Two Italian professional pilots were questioned about the possibility of piloting, at the level of the soil, a airplane of the size of a Boeing 757 at a speed of 530 miles per hour (1). They say that it would be very difficult, practically impossible. The second pilot had personally piloted military planes, at the level of the soil, and notably say that there would be turbulences and that the Boeing 757 would be practically uncontrollable, consequently.

It should not be forgotten that experienced pilots can also make errors of piloting. Examples:

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-25...earch&plindex=5

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-55...earch&plindex=0

(1) At 9:37: American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Conclusion: "ground effect" is Disinformation, as usual.

Damn, if i only had figured out that he had a commercial license, i wouldn't have spent
so much time writing an article which proves that he could not fly a cessna at all.

:blink:

Thank you I never seen that video.

My depth perception is off because I can't tell of the plane is coming overhead and doing a 180, or coming right at the camera. Can someone please clarify. Thank you.

Definitely remote control flying by very skilled US Military technicians. Any person about to die as the building face filled the cockpit windows would lose the edge and be unable to adequately control the aircraft with fingertip control. Nobody is that self-regulated or self-possessed. Besides these inept poorly trained Arabs would have never had that flying edge to begin with. A remote pilot would be oblivious to any danger to the aircraft. These were not landing speeds hitting those targets. NIST estimated Flight 11 hit the WTC North Tower at 440 mph or 382 knots and Flight 175 hit the South Tower at 540 mph or 470 knots. The Pentagon scenario with the 911 Whitewash Committee official speed of 530 mph would have been especially difficult. Experienced pilots were unable to hit the towers in a much more manueverable 737 set up on the simulator on 9-12-2001.

Frames from Purdue University Simulation



Arrogant Deception - Or an Attempt to Expose a Cover-up?
http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/asce_en.htm

The remote pilot. Who else? There was nobody in the cockpit. NIST estimated Flight 11 hit the WTC North Tower at 440 mph or 382 knots and Flight 175 hit the South Tower at 540 mph or 470 knots. The 911 Whitewash Committee gives an official speed of 530 mph or 461 knots for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that the official fantasy tale just does not add up, does it? Wake up Americans. Those were your fellow Americans the Bush Regime murdered on 9-11 and if you let them get away with it, they will do even worse again and again. :rolleyes:

Guys if you put attention to all the video clips when the flight 175 "crashes" in the second tower, you will notice all these......"the airplane" comes from DIFFERENT dirctions, on others, wings disappear, tail fins disappear, and when the "airplane crashes" with the tower the wings DON'T damage the walls of the building when it "makes" impact..........analize them carefully and you will find ALL the anomalies that I'm talking about.

WATCH THESE VIDEOS HERE'S THE LINK.....

http://septemberclues.blogspot.com/

I am a professional video editor and I have followed the "no planes" theory quite closely.

It's tantalizing at times because of the illusion created by some of the poor video quality in some videos, but at the end of day, it's really really dumb to go there!

We don't need it and it does nothing to further 9/11 truth!

If an a valid official investigation uncovers previously unheard of holographic technology capable of the no plane illusion, then all I can say is "wow".

Meanwhile, it is not necessary or wise to promote a "way out there" explanation that is based on weak evidence, unheard of technology, and is only going to undermine the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Too many people are trying to explain the "how" when it's not necessary. We need to prove that an investigation is justified. We do not have sufficient evidence to explain the details of what occurred and science fiction like speculation that goes beyond proving the need for a proper investigation, only serves to cripple attempts to gain wider public support!

I know of NO current video technology that is even remotely capable of convincingly creating the illusion of the Boeing 767 impacts that were observed on 9/11.

Even if the technology exists, and was used, because it's unknown to the public, it serves no good purpose in our promoting the belief in it's existence!

MM

That video is fully consistent with other information I have on the final approach, but I had never seen it so explicitly in a video. I see no evidence of splicing or other manipulation in the video. I'm not a pilot, but I did spend 5 years as a missile guidance technician. Sure looks like automated guidance to me.

Wow, never seen that angle of a video. Good link, it really just divebombs from the sky and does that nice 'twitch' before it hits.

I'm amazed at the precision with which that plane divebombed, pulled up, and twitched to the left at the last second before it hit the WTC. Looks suspicious to me.

Here's another video showing the dive and leveling off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxLfyf0aBMo

What makes you think it was military?

Anyone familiar with the kamikaze attacks during world war two knows how foolish your statement about "lose the edge" is. Japanese pilots flew through anti-aircraft fire to reach their targets. How can you say that they lost their edge? 80% of the American ships damaged near the end of WWII were it by kamikaze. Are you really that ignorant of history?

Ranb

I think the most plausible theory is that the planes were remote controlled. Thanx for the video.

I'm gonna give you some reasons why there were NOT airplanes involved in the murders on 9/11/2001........
1.....Why no airplanes flew to intercept "the hijacked" airplanes
2.....why the "hijackers" risked to fly for more than 30 mins, having airports 5 mins. from their targets.
3......Why there were NOT arabs names in the passengers lists.
4......Some "hijackers" were seen alive in the middle east.
5.......If the "hijackers" turned off the transponders, (air controlers "lost" contact with the "hijacked" airplanes), imagen this.......
If russia attack us, only with turning off thier transponders from aircraft they will destroy our country and we wouldn't notice.

Ps:All the videos that I have seen have anomalies, they are fake. :angry:

Quote:

"Why there were NOT arabs names in the passengers lists."

During the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui was shown a lot of "proof" concerning the facts of September 11th, 2001. Example:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...4&q=Luogocomune

The proofs presented by the American government also included the presentation of passengers' lists in which appeared the names of the alleged hijackers. See:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html

Whoa dude. You've been playing Flight Simulator too much! It has nothing to do with real life dude. I mean in my copy, you have to pull back on the stick to go up and push forward on the stick to go down. I mean what kind of crackhead programmer did that crap? I havent touched, been on, or even seen a real airplane, but even I know the controls don't work that way. So don't fool yourself that if you can do it on Microsoft FS, you can do it in real life. The world don't work that way son.

Excellent point. The next time russian bombers take off from Newark, turn off thier transponders, and decide to bomb DC or NY, I guess we'd be screwed.

We've pulled three related videos together, and are seeking more examples clearly exposing this final approach.

http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/08/video-of...t-of-steep.html

they gave fake passanger list ......

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/288505.shtml

Also why they didn't say anything about the "hijackers" autopsies??

They are controlled by Israel.