I noticed a few things in this video. There appears to be a flash near the top of impact zone on WTC1 at about 2:50 into the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YOu2Qy0A0s&NR

Also note that these civilians had already speculated with some conviction that the first impact was intentional. But NORAD didn't?

Another point is that Mr. Friedl says the plane was steeply banked on approach. It didn't simply come in from a distance directly toward the building. The precision of the impact suggests exceptional piloting skill, or automated control.

Another point about the video is that the image goes black at the time of impact. That is probably the result of the transmission tower being on WTC1. One has to wonder, however, if there might have been an intentionally effort by someone to hide what actually happened.

yep similar flash's can be seen in this video, Take a look at this angle of the south tower falling, if you look closly you can see flashs through the thick dust, you may have to watch it quite a few times befoe you see them, but there was some eyewittness' who stated they did see low level flashs, you can see them as the falling section imerses into the thick dust, also i wonder what cased the explosion on the corner of the building facing the camera as the collapse begins.

Also Look at the left hand side of the facade of the building, directly below the damage line where the buildling isnt damaged you see flash's in the center of the building's facade and then smoke puffs out.
........thoughts ?


http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...&q=wtc+collapse

P.S re-play it over and over and you will spot more and more flashs if you look closly.

What do the civilians thinking it was intentional mean?



'The precision of the impact suggests exceptional piloting skill, or automated control.'


All they had to do is stear the thing...maybe one of the 'pilots' for truth guys will tell you that.

The fist thing I noticed was a bright light appearing in WTC1. This might be explained by in creased air flow, but it seems worth noting. I did see one conspicuous flash just before the top section disappears into the dust cloud. What is even more striking to me is that about halfway between the impact zone and the top of building there is a clear indication of some kind of disintegration taking place along the closest corner corner.

"Civilians" in this context means people who were neither military or in air traffic controllers. "Intentional" means the plane was flown into the building on purpose.

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

"Steering" a jumbo jet at 400-500 mph in a tight maneuver resulting in a direct hit virtually straight on and dead center would be an extraordinary accomplishment for even an excellent pilot with experience in that type of aircraft. For a man who had never flown such a plane, it is absurd to consider.

And none of these hijackers had actually ever flown a plane comparible to the planes they flew on 9/11 had they ? some might say well they did there homework from reading about what the cockpit consisted of and where everything was located etc, yet they didnt bother to reserach which side of the pentagon would have resulted in the most casualties and where the higher ups were housed, no they actually hit the only side whiich had just been renovated and was the least populated side of the building.

And people say they wern't interested about how to land properly because they wern't concerned about landing, why ? because lining up one of the buildings would be similar to lining up to hit a runway, at vastly quicker speeds wouldn;t it ?.And the fact Hanjour hit the pentagon with extreme precision so as not to even touch the lawn is an unbelievable feat for someone who wasn't ntrested in how to land a plane when in flight school.

Why does that prove precision piloting it could just as likely show the opposite. Because of less than perfect skills that bank was neccesary. PRecision piloting may have been better lined up instead of counting on a last second manuever to hit the tower

How do you know what researxh they did about where they wanted to hit the building . Also how do you know they hit the pentagon near where they intended to.

Yeh right, we're supposed to believe these were highly inteligent people who carried out this highly sophisticated attack yet they never bothered to research which side of the building to hit to cause most deaths and possibly kill a top American offficial like Don Rumsfeld, who was actually on the opposire side of the building at the time, actually preditcing an "event" to his cronies momenets before the attacks.

Pilot friends of mine have all said the same thing. It would take basic airmanship to pilot a jetliner once it's airborne. The landing and takeoff are the most diffcult pieces of flying.

And also following even terrain to NYC does not take a lot of knowledge......and steering them in more or less a straight line from a decent distance isn't difficult either. Again I'm getting this from pilots including military pilots with combat missions under their belts.

Perhaps your friends are correct about what you describe. It has, however, nothing to do with the situation at hand. We are talking about power-diving from altitude and banking sharply into the building at the last moment. The flight into the Pentagon was (if we believe it was a 757) even more spectacular. What I gather from witnesses, it came across the parking lot of the Navy Annex at about the hight of the building or lower, and clipped lampposts on an overpass as it sailed into the first floor of the Pentagon (Defense Intelligence Agency HQ) at 540 mph without touching a blade of grass.

I've never flown an airplane, but I know what it's like to drive a car at 120 mph. I also know a good deal about surface to air missile guidance systems. The evidence I see points to these plane having been turned into guided missiles.

How is it harder to hit a building than to land a plane, how many millions of times has a plane landed and how many times did someone deliberately crash into a building, maybe the Kami Khazis in WW2, a few hundred, so using MATHEMATICLA PROBABILITY, that shows it is much harder to crash into a building than to land a plane. SO if those arabs couldn't land a plane it is IMPOSSIBLE that they could crash into the WTC, and that they did it TWICE means that its REALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

The newly released Pilots video uses the NTSB supplied data, and the NIST supplied data, imposes it onto a picture and proves that using either one of the above two stories, AA77 never came close to any light pole.

They used the story that was given to them to prove, without question, it was BS.

And when you correct the barometric pressue given on the Flight Data Recorder, AA77 was 450 ft. ABOVE the pentagon..

Of course this is based upon the data supplied by the NTSB and NIST.....

I gotta go with betting if I absolutely had to, I could keep an airplane airborne with little experience... My money says I would crash and burn on an attempted landing...

yea another flash at 1:30 through the film. Watch the South Tower right above the tape on the news screen.

So why do people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, and years to learn how to fly? Why when there is an accident, and the pilot is dead, the passengers cannot pilot the plane? Any information about your pilot friends? What do they pilot/where have they learned to do it?

Hey look, all the "debunkers" seem to have "pilot friends", who say how easy it would be, how coincidental.

If i had a pound from every time a "de-bunker" came out with "I HAVE A PILOT FRIEND" i'd be a millionaire.