9/11: Analysis of Flight 175 leeds to an inside job - total_truth_sciences

1 message - Collapse all

Alex James

View profile

More options Apr 18 2008, 3:08 pm

From: "Alex James" <alexjamesne...@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:08:48 +0300

Local: Fri, Apr 18 2008 3:08 pm

Subject: 9/11: Analysis of Flight 175 leeds to an inside job

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | Individual message
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=5038
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=5038&...> &st=0

Hello everyone. I did a quick search and read the topics in the 175 forum to see if
anyone had mentioned this before and it didnt seem like it so here goes.

I'm not a pilot, nor do I know much about plane physics and flight dynamics beyond the
average layman. However I have some issues with the approach flight 175 took to the
south tower.

At first I had searched for a black box NTSB animation of the sort we have for the
pentagon for flight 175, then I remembered that the black boxes of this flight were
'destroyed'.

On some videos and in particular this one, this one
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsnja4PPeU> , it appears that flight 175 approaches the
south tower at a certain height but continues/starts to drop in altitude and then levels
off, but the manoeuvre causes the plane to drift and it has to roll before hitting the
tower.

I'd be interested to hear what commercial pilots in this forum have to say about this
approach. For a start does anyone know of a longer video of that clip? And preferably a
higher quality version to see the plane coming from further away.

To me it appears as though the plane was on target to hit the top of the tower (similar
to the north tower collision) but for whatever reason the pilot decided to drop and hit
the tower half way. Does anyone else see it this way?

A question to pilots here, how difficult is it to drop that 300-400ft in a couple of
seconds and still maintain your course? Is this something that a shaky cessna pilot
would just have absolutely no hope doing?

I was trying to put my mind in the position of one of the supposed 'arab hijackers'. If
you are flying to the towers, and you see the towers you have already accomplished many
difficult tasks, for one you've successfully hijacked a plane and subdued your
passengers into leaving you alone; you've dodged/tricked the US air force and
successfully navigated your way to New York with no help from outside; and you've also
found the towers in New York on your first go. You also find yourself flying towards the
tower, and you're about to hit it bang on centre, maybe a little higher than planned,
but it would be the same height as your buddy in the North Tower and would still achieve
the effect of flying into a WTC tower for the world to see. Given that you are rubbish
at flying a cessna, do you risk everything at this point and (im guessing here) drop the
thurst/flaps to shed some altitude for a slightly better 'effect' given you probably
dont have a degree in engineering and dont know if that would make any difference? Or do
you stay on course and try and hit the tower in any which way you can?

Just as a side note, I personally don't think the 9/11 conspiracy theory community has
to prove beyond doubt what happened at every stage of the plot. I think it's enough to
find a single flaw in the official line in order to show there is foul play at work. If
just one part doesn't add up (i.e. it couldn't have been the arabs flying the planes)
then the government needs to be held to account for the story they are putting out.

Anyway, thoughts much appreciated.

P.S. I don't believe in the ghost plane theories, I have no comment on the pod theory,
and I am less and less convinced that a passenger Jet crashed in Pennsylvania.

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Msg&CODE=04&MID=684>
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Mail&CODE=00&MID=684>

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

amazed!
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&showuser=331>

Posted: Feb 25 2007, 04:49 PM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Post&CODE=06&f=8&t=5038&p=8106697>

Extreme Poster

Group: Valued Member
Posts: 1,489
Member No.: 331
Joined: 14-December 06

Welcome aboard! cheers.gif

I have had similar questions to yours since the beginning. I am a pilot, and I cannot
understand why, assuming the planes were piloted, 175 had to make that hard bank at the
last second. I was not aware of the downward trajectory you mention, and if true, that
makes it all the more interesting.

Surely if one were lined up on the target at that speed there would be no need for such
last second maneuvering.

Some theorize that the airplanes were drone, and thus controlled remotely. Others
suggest some sort of laser targeting as what drove the homing "instinct", and others
note that the floors hit might have contained some sort of precision homing device.

I have read that one of the men leasing office space on the floors hit was none other
than Paul Bremer.

There are far more questions than answers.

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Msg&CODE=04&MID=331>
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Mail&CODE=00&MID=331>

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

tit2
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&showuser=999>

Posted: May 18 2007, 08:02 AM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Post&CODE=06&f=8&t=5038&p=9008543>

Poster

Group: Members
Posts: 28
Member No.: 999
Joined: 27-April 07

Extract:

"Phone Calls

Three passengers, Pete Hanson, Brian David Sweeney, and Garnet Bailey made phone calls,
all from GTE airphones, from United Airlines Flight 175. Flight attendant Robert Fangman
also made phone calls.[4][5]

At 8:52 a.m., Pete Hanson called his father, Lee Hanson in Easton, Connecticut, telling
him of the hijacking. Pete was travelling with his wife, Sue, and 2 1/2 year old
daughter, Christine. Pete said that the hijackers had taken over the cockpit, that a
flight attendant had been stabbed, and possibly someone else in the front of the
aircraft had been killed. He also reported that the plane was flying erratically.[6]

Flight attendant Robert Fangman called a United Airlines office in San Francisco, and
spoke with Marc Policastro. He reported the hijacking, and said that both pilots had
been killed.[6] He also reported that a flight attendant was stabbed, and said that the
hijackers were flying the plane.[6] The call was disconnected after a minute and 15
seconds.[4]

At 8:58 a.m., Brian David Sweeney tried calling his wife, Julie, and left her a message,
telling her that the plane had been hijacked.[6] He then called his parents at 9:00
a.m., and spoke with his mother, Louise.[4][6] Sweeney told his mother about the
hijacking, and mentioned that passengers were considering storming the cockpit and take
control of the aircraft.[6]

Pete Hanson made a second phone call to his father at 9:00 a.m.

"It's getting bad, Dad. A stewardess was stabbed. They seem to have knives and Mace.
They said they have a bomb. It's getting very bad on the plane. Passengers are throwing
up and getting sick. The plane is making jerky movements. I don't think the pilot is
flying the plane. I think we are going down. I think they intend to go to Chicago or
someplace and fly into a building. Don't worry, Dad. If it happens, it'll be very fast.
My God, my God."

As the call abruptly ended, Pete's father could hear a woman screaming."

The calls of 8:58 and 9:00 do not seem to evoke this movement of very fast descent of
flight 175. Why?

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

tit2
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&showuser=999>

Posted: Aug 16 2007, 03:15 PM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Post&CODE=06&f=8&t=5038&p=9808889>

Poster

Group: Members
Posts: 28
Member No.: 999
Joined: 27-April 07

the author of this video precise:

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-61...earch
<http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-614623194061654994&q=Dave+Bot...
art=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0> &plindex=0

"Was this type of piloting possible for a hijacker who had trained (and was deemed poor)
only on Cessnas? Can people really talk on their cell phones during an accelerated
10,000 ft. per minute descent toward the earth?

But wikipedia indicates:

"Three passengers, Pete Hanson, Brian David Sweeney, and Garnet Bailey made phone calls,
all from GTE "airphones" , from United Airlines Flight 175." (not "cell phones")

The official report indicates that the phone call of Brian David Sweeney was performed
at 8 h 59, not at 8 h 58.

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

"At 8:58, the flight took a heading toward New York City."

"At 8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney tried to call his wife, Julie. He
left a message on their home answering machine that the plane had been hijacked. He then
called his mother, Louise Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that
the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to take control of the plane
away from the hijackers."

Therefore, during an accelerated 10,000 ft. per minute descent toward the earth, this
passenger does not signal any abnormal maneuver of the airplane.

At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter who says in particular:

"The plane is making jerky movements. I think we are going down"

But it does not signal the fastness of the descent of the plane.

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

Ningen
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&showuser=1240>

Posted: Sep 2 2007, 01:01 AM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Post&CODE=06&f=8&t=5038&p=9903072>

Poster

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 1,240
Joined: 24-June 07

Is there an official flight path for Flight 175? I'm curious about the trajectory which
got the plane from 10,000 feet to 700 feet.

What is the fastest time a Boeing 767 could get from 10,000 feet to 700 feet?

The official speed of Flight 175 when it hit the South Tower was 500-550 mph, depending
on the video.

Can a Boeing 767 fly that fast at 700-1000 feet on a horizontal trajectory?

If a dive can be used for higher speed, how fast do you have to dive and how far from
the building do you have to pull out of the dive to hit it on a horizontal trajectory at
500 mph?

In reference to tit2's question, do we know where the plane was supposed to be at 9:00?
How far from the South Tower and at what altitude?

Thanks for the video, tit2. The controller says the plane dived at a rate of 10,000 feet
per minute. Is that possible? What about when the plane gets below 5 or 10 thousand
feet?

The time of Hanson's call certainly doesn't match what the controller said would be
happening to the passengers - he said it was in a nose dive.

This post has been edited by Ningen on Sep 2 2007, 01:13 AM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Msg&CODE=04&MID=1240>
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Mail&CODE=00&MID=1240>

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

tit2
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&showuser=999>

Posted: Sep 2 2007, 03:53 PM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Post&CODE=06&f=8&t=5038&p=9906065>

Poster

Group: Members
Posts: 28
Member No.: 999
Joined: 27-April 07

Quote:

"In reference to tit2's question, do we know where the plane was supposed to be at 9:00?
How far from the South Tower and at what altitude?"

How far from the South Tower?

The 9/11 Commission Report specified that "The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United
175 were not found"

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

At the difference of passports of terrorists who were found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yxymPVfNLI

It is thus not easy to give correct estimates of speed and altitude for flight 175.

NIST estimates Flight 175 hit the South Tower at 540 mph. The official report precise:

At 9:03:11, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

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

An airplane travelling at a speed of 540 miles per hour course a 27 miles distance in a
time of 3 minutes.

27 miles = 142560 feet

But it is probably not a valid answer to your question.

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

tit2
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&showuser=999>

Posted: Sep 3 2007, 02:52 AM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Post&CODE=06&f=8&t=5038&p=9908572>

Poster

Group: Members
Posts: 28
Member No.: 999
Joined: 27-April 07

Last seconds of flight 175. Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucT4-Q2gd9A

Thus at 9 a.m. the airplane was always "in a nose dive", if the assertions of the
Air-traffic Controller, Mr. Dave Bottiglia, are exact.

The presumed pilot of flight 175 was Marwan al Shehhi. See:

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

See also: "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan"

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Sagadevan21Feb2006.html

A flight instructor would have said about Marwan al-Shehhi:

"He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls."

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

cbsiftcb
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&showuser=2456>

Posted: Nov 8 2007, 07:07 AM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Post&CODE=06&f=8&t=5038&p=10268636>

Poster

Group: Members
Posts: 1
Member No.: 2,456
Joined: 7-November 07

Just my two cents...

First of all here's my interpretation of 175's approach from the videos:

Rapid steep descent (more like a dive) .... some leveling off but still in shallow dive
... lined up off to the right of target ..... wings banked to the left ..... in final
3-4 seconds of approach pulls quite a lot of up elevator levels off and even climbs a
little (remember very high airspeed) all while still banked, thus still turning, to left
.... impact

It seems to me given the immense speed of the approach (a controversial topic in itself
I know) some kind of guidance possibly with automated piloting was likely used.

However, f we assume a pilot flown approach, thinking about it ..... if I was flying the
approach I would probably prefer to line up off to one side, let's say to the right (as
seems the case in 175's approach) and aim a bit too low .... then for the final line up
I would only be concerned with *fine tuning the amount* of left bank and up elevator
...... winding the turn in or letting it out so to speak ...

If however I was trying to fly S+L .. or to be more precise S+ in a dive (which is even
worse!) I would have to constantly be correcting to the R and L .... this I would
imagine would be harder due to a/c lag and secondary effects etc ....... I would
probably end up chasing myself all over the shop at that speed....

I much prefer my first method. I wonder if an automated pilot (or rather the software
programmer) would also prefer such an approach.

I better confess right now my main flying experience is in sailplanes
alt=spinhalo.gif>so I will be thinking with 'sailplane logic' and could be way off the
mark here ... or maybe a 767 compares well? - (apart from some obvious differences)
.....

Anyway I still think I would stand by my instincts that aiming to one side and low and
then adjusting a single progressive turn back into the target would be the smoothest,
most controllable and accurate way to hit the target.

Am I making any sense at all?

I hope no one finds this post disrespectful - I do not like imagining flying into any
building...

Please feel free to comment ... alt=yes1.gif>

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Msg&CODE=04&MID=2456>
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Mail&CODE=00&MID=2456>

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

amazed!
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&showuser=331>

Posted: Nov 8 2007, 09:12 AM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Post&CODE=06&f=8&t=5038&p=10268966>

Extreme Poster

Group: Valued Member
Posts: 1,489
Member No.: 331
Joined: 14-December 06

cbs

Welcome to the forum.

Apparently the radar data supplied by NTSB indicates speeds near Mach 1 for this flight.
There is another thread here about that.

As you say, it is controversial. I don't know what to believe, and wonder how much is
information and how much is disinfo.

Something like 40 miles out he was at about 25000 feet. A very tough descent profile,
impossible without exceeding the aircraft limitations. Maybe impossible altogether. We
can only speculate.

My personal theory is that the aircraft was without humans onboard and remotely
controlled. Just a theory and I have no proof. We know the technology exists, and they
certainly had the airplanes.

We know from the pictures, assuming they are not fake, that the airplane was descending
and banking when it hit.

There is alot of good stuff here at PFT.

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

Factfinder
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&showuser=1808> General

Posted: Nov 8 2007, 02:58 PM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=2a16f6d7096a3...
1&act=Post&CODE=06&f=8&t=5038&p=10270515>

Very Active Poster

Group: Members
Posts: 743
Member No.: 1,808
Joined: 23-August 07

QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 8 2007, 09:12 AM)

cbs

Welcome to the forum.

Apparently the radar data supplied by NTSB indicates speeds near Mach 1 for this flight.
There is another thread here about that.

As you say, it is controversial. I don't know what to believe, and wonder how much is
information and how much is disinfo.

Something like 40 miles out he was at about 25000 feet. A very tough descent profile,
impossible without exceeding the aircraft limitations. Maybe impossible altogether. We
can only speculate.

My personal theory is that the aircraft was without humans onboard and remotely
controlled. Just a theory and I have no proof. We know the technology exists, and they
certainly had the airplanes.

We know from the pictures, assuming they are not fake, that the airplane was descending
and banking when it hit.

There is alot of good stuff here at PFT.

Another related point we should consider: We also know from the photos and videos that
the alleged airplane was recorded as being intact, though having completed airframe and
powerplant damaging maneuvers according to radar return data (Mach 1 Thread Here)
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=9179> . This is yet
more confirmation of false evidence, IMO.

The final approach seems to differ on the various videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDRS9ht_OsY

Notice the position of the two buildings and the direction the smoke is blowing. The
videos may be from different angles but not different enough to account for the plane's
direction.

I'm thinking the videos played early on that day were legit but we saw faked videos
later in the day.

Heres a better one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE3lPxadzNI

This post has been edited by WetBlanket on Nov 14 2007, 03:43 AM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Msg&CODE=04...>
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Mail&CODE=0...>

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

Destinova <http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showuser=1468>

Posted: Nov 22 2007, 03:39 PM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Post&CODE=0...
52839>

Poster

Group: Members
Posts: 37
Member No.: 1,468
Joined: 17-July 07

It's the first time I saw this video... and I don't know if it's a fake but it looks
pretty real to me.
It's one of that videos that brings up that one question I ask myself many times: "Where
are the many amateur videos of that day? I mean the first tower is on fire and I can
imagine that in Germany everyone would take a shot of it with the handy or other cams
and banish it on a film or memory card/stick. It's the city that never sleeps with
millions of Manhattanite and thousand of tourists (!) It's not a small village in the
sticks! Where are those videos?".

dunno.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88&feature=related> &feature=related

This post has been edited by Destinova on Nov 22 2007, 03:43 PM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Msg&CODE=04...>
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Mail&CODE=0...>

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

tumetuestumefaisdubien
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showuser=2452>

Posted: Nov 23 2007, 09:18 AM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Post&CODE=0...
54966>

Active Poster

Group: Members
Posts: 221
Member No.: 2,452
Joined: 7-November 07

QUOTE (Destinova @ Nov 22 2007, 03:39 PM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88&feature=related> &feature=related

The video you are linking to is almost surely a fake. see:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/resizeplane/

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Msg&CODE=04...>
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Mail&CODE=0...>

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

guesswhotoo6 <http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showuser=2408>

Posted: Dec 19 2007, 11:22 AM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Post&CODE=0...
73670>

Poster

Group: Members
Posts: 2
Member No.: 2,408
Joined: 26-October 07

Questions about the aircraft speed to the building in theories where the aircraft in
question is empty or nearly so, need to consider that the maneuvering speed will
decrease as the load decreases. This is always a trick question on the exams. Thus
making tight multi G turns while being lightly loaded may exceed the max stresses for
this airframe, making the apparent observations less than possible. The POH is available
from Boeing. Just one of the hundreds of inconsistencies stemming from 9-11-2001. Has
anyone looked at the POH in this regard?

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Msg&CODE=04...>
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Mail&CODE=0...>

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

pinnacle <http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showuser=242>

Posted: Dec 19 2007, 02:47 PM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Post&CODE=0...
74438>

Active Poster

Group: Valued Member
Posts: 239
Member No.: 242
Joined: 14-November 06

The RADES data of Flight 175 shows it dropping 6400 feet in the last minute
of radar coverage. The last 12 seconds it drops 2400 feet.
That seems awfully fast to me.
RADES data ends at 13.02.23 am so at this point some of the videos should show
a steep dive happening but most of the video I have seen only shows a shallow dive as it
flies over the city. 2400 feet is ten fuselage lengths in 12 seconds so it ought to be
visible in some of the footage.
Also the transponder was still on so the altitude data should be more accurate for
Flight 175 than for the other planes which had to be estimated.

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Msg&CODE=04...>
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Mail&CODE=0...>

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

dMole <http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showuser=2294>

Posted: Dec 19 2007, 05:48 PM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Post&CODE=0...
75164>

Very Active Poster

Group: Members
Posts: 306
Member No.: 2,294
Joined: 1-October 07

Hi pinnacle,

Briefly, using my lat/lon spherical solid angle RADES approximation method adjusted for
40.6N latitude, for the primary radar "height," I get -8.046157075 deg for the last min,
pitching down to -15.5124315 deg for the last 12.025 seconds of UA175 data.

Using the RADES ModeC (transponder) data, I get -8.418034735 deg for the last minute,
pitching down to -13.02340578 deg for the last 12 seconds.

The negative is angle below "horizontal" line of sight [actually tangent to a sphere at
the UA175 altitude... ]. Of course, this does not include error analysis, uncertainty,
and significant figures (a quick "ball park" analysis, and my calculator pastes that
many digits by default). I can elaborate on the calculations later, but I'd rather not
interfere with the independence of your research. wink.gif

This post has been edited by dMole on Dec 19 2007, 05:49 PM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Msg&CODE=04...>
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Mail&CODE=0...>

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

pinnacle <http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showuser=242>

Posted: Dec 19 2007, 06:42 PM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Post&CODE=0...
75369>

Active Poster

Group: Valued Member
Posts: 239
Member No.: 242
Joined: 14-November 06

My real question is how hard would it be for an amateur pilot to fly a 767 at 500 miles
per hour plus at sea level and dive over one hundred feet per second.
Could a 767 even take that kind of flying without breaking up or going out of control?

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Msg&CODE=04...>
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Mail&CODE=0...>

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

CocaineImportAgency
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showuser=1846>

Posted: Jan 3 2008, 01:48 AM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Post&CODE=0...
39804>

Active Poster

Group: Members
Posts: 247
Member No.: 1,846
Joined: 25-August 07

175 impact
<http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5050200730235217231&q=fligh...
burning&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0>

...i`ve never seen this one before!

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Msg&CODE=04...>
<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Mail&CODE=0...>

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

SPreston <http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showuser=1045>

Posted: Jan 8 2008, 10:27 AM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Post&CODE=0...
68233>

Patriotic American

Group: Members
Posts: 241
Member No.: 1,045
Joined: 14-May 07

Faked Videos and Audios?

user posted image
Michael Hezarkhani Video / CNN Best Angle
<http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/hezarkhani/>

user posted image
The <http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/> WTC2 Media Hoax

user posted image
Ginny Carr WTC2 Impact Audio Recording - The Doppler Shift
<http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/carrwtc2/> Problem

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Msg&CODE=04...>

<javascript:scroll(0,0);> Top

SPreston <http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showuser=1045>

Posted: Jan 8 2008, 10:36 AM

<http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Post&CODE=0...
68261>

Patriotic American

Group: Members
Posts: 241
Member No.: 1,045
Joined: 14-May 07

Popular Mechanics Fakery? Photo of a child's toy without flaps, ailerons, etc placed
into image?

user posted image
Der <http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/howard/> Spiegel image

*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only *** CAVEAT LECTOR
***

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.

NOTE: Some links may require cut and paste into your Internet Browser.

Please check http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/topics?gvc=2 more real
news posts and support the truth! (sorry but don't have time to email all posts)

<http://blogs.albawaba.com/alexanderjames/> http://blogs.albawaba.com/alexanderjames/
<http://blogs.albawaba.com/Alexanderjames/page/links>
http://blogs.albawaba.com/Alexanderjames/page/links

<http://www.lulu.com/content/165077> http://www.lulu.com/content/165077;
<http://www.lulu.com/browse/book_view.php?fCID=165077&fBuyItem=5>
http://www.lulu.com/browse/book_view.php?fCID=165077&fBuyItem=5

<http://bb.domaindlx.com/alexjames999> http://bb.domaindlx.com/alexjames999

*** Revealing the hidden Truth For Educational & Further Research Purposes only. ***
Welcome to Real News Edited excerpts, non-partisan, pro-truth-honesty-peace, and
anti-war-lies-crime. The purpose is to expose corruptions, frauds, deceptions, lies,
criminal plans, cover-ups and free-speech silencing by powerful people in governments,
foundations, corporations and media, which are done using the name of democracy, human
rights, false interpretations of religions, cults, occults, patriotism, economy,
business, media, elections, justice, charity, etc., and are used to trick the public
into hatred & wars and out of their lives, money and freedoms, while the propaganda we
are subjected to makes us believe that we have evolved to where such things cannot
happen [remember slavery, apartheid.]. Please share what you learn with others who do
not have access to the internet. This is only a tip of the iceberg. Stop the hatred that
is used to promote the dehumanization of the victims of predatory aggressions;spread the
truth;free your mind from being a Zioncon occupied territory of the neo-feudal lords by
rejecting the mainstream news propaganda. Caution: real news may induce a kind of
schizophrenia because it provides a true vision of reality which is so different from
the one we are presented by the mass media spins. Latest real infonews available at
alternate news. ***** Check whatreallyhappened . com & other alternative news sites for
latest news flashes. In Truth We Trust! The opinions expressed herein contain positions
and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of the recipient, disseminator or others
mentioned in the information. These are offered as a means to stimulate dialogue and
discussion.

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency (NSA) may
have read emails without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any
judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse, nor protection.......... IF
anyone other than the addressee of this e-mail is reading it, you are in violation of
the 1st & 4th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Patriot Act 5 & H.R.
1955 Disclaimer Notice: This post & all my past & future posts represent parody & satire
& are all intended for entertainment and amusement only.

To be removed from the list, please reply with the subject line "REMOVE"

To receive email at another address, please reply with subject line "CHANGE"

To receive email, please reply with "WEEKLY"