Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Was "Flight 11" a smaller plane?; Eyewitness testimony says yes.
Topic Started: Feb 17 2008, 04:23 PM (4,085 Views)
Lord Tsukasa
Member Avatar

(Note: Not talking about NPT or anything. Just posting eyewitnesses who saw a smaller aircraft.)

The plane that hit the North Tower was not a Boeing 767. Based on the initial eyewitness accounts, I believe that whatever hit the North Tower was smaller.


“I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane….yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they work with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!”-Karim Arraki

“I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like ‘bounced’ of the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down….it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it was anything commercial…”-Stuart

“We’re walking the dogs and we saw a plane flying really low, a jet, a small jet, and it flew directly into the World Trade Centre. And then all the pieces fell to the bottom…in seconds.”-Anonymous

“…we saw a plane flying low overhead which caught all of our attention. We looked up. It was making a b-line for the World Trade Centre. It was very low, extremely low, not a big plane like an airliner …uh… but not a tiny propeller plane, a small, small jet plane.”-Mary Cozza

"I mean, I hate to admit this, but I'm sitting there hoping that someone has made a mistake; there has been an accident; that this isn't the hijacked airplane, because there is confusion. We were told it was a light commuter airplane."

"I thought it could have been an accident...I thought the plane was much smaller..."-Sid Bedingfield

"I was told by somebody that we had an eyewitness who happened to be an off-duty firefighter who told me that he saw the first building get hit and it was hit by a prop jet, which I think turned out to be the wrong information, but everybody sees things differently. But he said he was an eyewitness. I gave him to a fire marshal. I never got his name personally."-Steven Mosiello

"We proceeded in Tower 1. I think the revolving doors were kind of busted up, so I think we went through a window. At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane."-Roy Chelson

"Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane."-Anthony Bartolomey

(These reports are much like the reports at the Pentagon. Don Wright said that it looked like a commuter plane. Steve Patterson said it appeared to hold 8-12 passengers. D.S. Khavkin said that it was a small commercial plane.)
Edited by Lord Tsukasa, Feb 17 2008, 04:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

LT,

I have researched this exact thing and have compiled some of these very quotes. I 100% believe it was a small plane that actually fired missiles into the building. You can actually see it happen if you look close enough. Two puffs off the wings before the flash.


Posted Image

Anthony Bartolomey EMT on the first plane that hit WTC1...

"Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a *military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building.*
Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Feb 17 2008, 05:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Woody Box


Air Traffic Controllers agree:


"The first outside word that controllers received was that a small twin-engine plane had hit one tower of the World Trade Center. They thought it was a twin-engine Cessna that had taken off earlier from Poughkeepsie, N.Y., to fly south under "visual flight rules," meaning the plane was not under direct air traffic control. "

Source: Washington Post, 9/16/01

http://de.geocities.com/woody_box2000/poughkeepsie.html

These controllers, by the way, are the same who got their experiences that morning taped only to watch months later how a hyperactive FAA manager named Kevin Delaney ripped the tape apart and distributed the parts over several bins.

Wondering what happened to this Cessna from Poughkeepsie...



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Very good stuff Woody. Never seen that.

That's why you're Woody Box and I am not :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lord Tsukasa
Member Avatar

Aldo Marquis CIT
Feb 17 2008, 05:08 PM
LT,

I have researched this exact thing and have compiled some of these very quotes. I 100% believe it was a small plane that actually fired missiles into the building. You can actually see it happen if you look close enough. Two puffs off the wings before the flash.


Posted Image

Anthony Bartolomey EMT on the first plane that hit WTC1...

"Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a *military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building.*
The missile fired from the drone was heard by Don Dahler. His account is compelling.

“…I can only describe as, it sounded like a missile, not an airplane….I grew up on military bases and I know the sound of jets and I’ve been in war zones and heard those kinds of different sounds….”-Don Dahler

Also, Bob's testimony would seem to indicate a missile sound:

“Bob said he heard it sounded like a rocket…”-Bob and Bri Video


Edited by Lord Tsukasa, Feb 24 2008, 05:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gribz

There is absolutely no doubt it was a smaller plane with a clear flash coming prior to impact.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Woody Box

Aldo Marquis CIT
Feb 22 2008, 04:43 PM
Very good stuff Woody. Never seen that.

That's why you're Woody Box and I am not :)

Thanks Aldo, not a big thing, everyone of us has his research field, and ATC is my favorite one :)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sevon

Aldo Marquis CIT
Feb 17 2008, 05:08 PM
LT,

I have researched this exact thing and have compiled some of these very quotes. I 100% believe it was a small plane that actually fired missiles into the building. You can actually see it happen if you look close enough. Two puffs off the wings before the flash.


Posted Image

Anthony Bartolomey EMT on the first plane that hit WTC1...

"Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a *military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building.*
There are always going to be people who thought they saw something different.

A couple of questions I have about this theory:

- If they wanted people to believe it was flight 11, why use a smaller plane?
- If they wanted to inflict a lot of damage, why use a smaller plane?
- Why use missiles? What could they accomplish that thousands of gallons of jet fuel could not?
- In video showing the impact, it doesn't look like a "smaller plane"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
This is the kind of stuff that cracks me up. Boston Center controllers followed AA11 all the way into the north tower. Even though the transponder was turned off, they followed it all the way to lower Manhattan where it disappeared. They knew immediately that it was the aircraft that hit the north tower. You can tell from the Naudet bros. film 9/11, that it is not a small plane. The twin towers were each 200ft across on each side. The 767-200 is 156ft from wingtip to wingtip. Look at the outline of the plane that entered the north tower, and tell me it was a small plane. You guys are smarter that this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
22205
Member Avatar
Arlingtonian
http://www.faa.gov/sept11portraits/portraits4.cfm?portrait=McLaughlin
Greg McLaughlin - deputy director of the Federal Air Marshal Service

Quote:
 
"After the first plane flew in, I got a call from one of our guys in New York. 'Hey, a plane just flew into the World Trade Center…I don't know, it looks small.'"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Woody Box

Bret08
Mar 1 2008, 02:06 PM
Boston Center controllers followed AA11 all the way into the north tower. Even though the transponder was turned off, they followed it all the way to lower Manhattan where it disappeared. They knew immediately that it was the aircraft that hit the north tower.


Hmmmmm? With all respect, Bret08, do you know what you're talking about?

Boston Center handed off Flight 11 to New York Center when it left their airspace (which doesn't include New York City). If you have any evidence that Boston Center "followed it all the way to lower Manhattan", I'm very interested.

And New York Center, as I said already, didn't identify immediately Flight 11 as the plane that hit the North Tower. Just to the contrary: even minutes after the North Tower hit, they were still watching Flight 11. They thought it was still airborne. Just take a look at the 9/11 Commission report.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
Woody Box
Mar 2 2008, 03:31 PM
Bret08
Mar 1 2008, 02:06 PM
Boston Center controllers followed AA11 all the way into the north tower. Even though the transponder was turned off, they followed it all the way to lower Manhattan where it disappeared. They knew immediately that it was the aircraft that hit the north tower.


Hmmmmm? With all respect, Bret08, do you know what you're talking about?

Boston Center handed off Flight 11 to New York Center when it left their airspace (which doesn't include New York City). If you have any evidence that Boston Center "followed it all the way to lower Manhattan", I'm very interested.

And New York Center, as I said already, didn't identify immediately Flight 11 as the plane that hit the North Tower. Just to the contrary: even minutes after the North Tower hit, they were still watching Flight 11. They thought it was still airborne. Just take a look at the 9/11 Commission report.





That is incorrect. Boston Center still had control when the hijacking happened. They are the ones who alerted the FAA. They are the ones who picked up the hijackers saying "we have some planes". They continued to track the flight until it disappeared over lower Manhattan.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
22205
Member Avatar
Arlingtonian
Bret08
Mar 2 2008, 07:54 PM
Woody Box
Mar 2 2008, 03:31 PM
Bret08
Mar 1 2008, 02:06 PM
Boston Center controllers followed AA11 all the way into the north tower. Even though the transponder was turned off, they followed it all the way to lower Manhattan where it disappeared. They knew immediately that it was the aircraft that hit the north tower.


Hmmmmm? With all respect, Bret08, do you know what you're talking about?

Boston Center handed off Flight 11 to New York Center when it left their airspace (which doesn't include New York City). If you have any evidence that Boston Center "followed it all the way to lower Manhattan", I'm very interested.

And New York Center, as I said already, didn't identify immediately Flight 11 as the plane that hit the North Tower. Just to the contrary: even minutes after the North Tower hit, they were still watching Flight 11. They thought it was still airborne. Just take a look at the 9/11 Commission report.





That is incorrect. Boston Center still had control when the hijacking happened. They are the ones who alerted the FAA. They are the ones who picked up the hijackers saying "we have some planes". They continued to track the flight until it disappeared over lower Manhattan.


actually bret i think you are misinterpreting the events. there is a long gap between boston center (in nashua new hampshire btw) identifying the "we have some planes" statement, and the first explosion at the world trade center. i highly recommend you go here to hear all the ATC controllers of that day tell it from their pov:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/

watch all five videos and/or read all 5 pages of transcript from the videos. im going to skip over the missing chunk of time in question and quote specifically the one section that best indicates where you are in error:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/page/3/

Quote:
 
But minutes after Flight 93 takes off, uneventfully, something does grab the attention of Newark controllers, whose view from the top of the tower is a panorama of New York’s skyline. Working alongside Callahan is Rick Tepper.

Rick Tepper: I just happened to glance up and I saw a mushroom cloud coming off the first tower. We knew it was an explosion type of fire. I said, "Greg, look at that."

Callahan: He was off my left shoulder, and he points out the window and said, “Look at the World Trade Center”.

Tepper: And he’s going “Oh, my god, look at that.” And so we were just standing there staring and just in disbelief. Watching it. Watching it burn.

The initial reports: a small private plane appears to have crashed into the tower.

Bob Varcadapane was the supervisor in Newark tower that morning, in charge of eight controllers.

Bob Varcadapane: You could see the smoke billowing from the side of the building, and we didn’t know what it was. I got on the phone to the en route air traffic control facility out in New York on Long Island and I asked them if they’d lost any airplanes, and they said, “No, but Boston Center lost an airplane. They lost an American 767...”

Brokaw: Did it occur to you at that point that it could have been that plane that went into the World Trade Center?

Varcadapane: Well, that’s exactly what I said to myself then. I said to the controller that I have a burning building. And you have a missing airplane. This is very coincidental.

As Bob Varcadapane trades calls with the New York and Boston centers, a horrific realization dawns on controllers. American Flight 11, still missing from radar, finally has been found.



i believe videos 1 and 2 cover the time from "we have some planes" all the way over to when the first major explosions at the WTC occurred. so if u want to be better informed on the events, i highly recommend you check the whole series out.
Edited by 22205, Mar 2 2008, 11:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gribz

Well done Woody and 22205 for coming in with good points there.

However Bret the "we have some planes" is just an absolute load of nonsense anyway. This is made up and was probably recorded at the pentagon.

I still strongly believe there was no hijackers on board these planes and i doubt if there were passengers also.

In my opinion the 2 planes that crashed on 9/11 were not commercial flights. There was no commercial plane at the pentagon or Shanksville.

Ive no idea where the real planes are
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
22205
Member Avatar
Arlingtonian
Gribz
Mar 3 2008, 01:01 AM

However Bret the "we have some planes" is just an absolute load of nonsense anyway. This is made up and was probably recorded at the pentagon.



thanks Gribz. there is/was in fact some controversy/confusion regarding the "we have some planes" comment:

Quote:
 
Because the talkback button on Flight 11 has been activated, Boston flight controllers can hear a hijacker on board say to the passengers: “We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you’ll be OK. We are returning to the airport.” Flight controller Pete Zalewski recognizes this as a foreign, Middle Eastern-sounding voice, but does not make out the specific words “we have some planes.” He responds, “Who’s trying to call me?” Seconds later, in the next transmission, the hijacker continues, “Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.” Zalewski asks for an assistant to help listen to the transmissions coming from the plane, and puts its frequency on speakers so others at Boston Center can hear. Because Zalewski didn’t understand the initial hijacker communication from Flight 11, the manager of Boston Center instructs the center’s quality assurance specialist to “pull the tape” of the transmission, listen to it carefully, and then report back. They do this, and by about 9:03 a.m. a Boston manager will report having deciphered what was said in the first hijacker transmission (see (9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001). Fellow Boston controller Don Geoffroy also hears the tape of the hijacker transmissions, though he doesn’t state at what time. He says, “I heard exactly what Pete [Zalewski] heard. And we had to actually listen to it a couple of times just to make sure that we were hearing what we heard.”

(sorry i cant seem to locate the link for the above)



but here are some other sources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/page/2/
Quote:
 
8:30 am. As Boston Center supervisors notify the FAA and other air traffic centers about the hijacking of American Flight 11, the plane makes another dramatic turn—south towards New York City. Pete Zalewski anxiously listens on the frequency, thinking the hijackers might try to make contact.

Pete Zalewski: Then comes a third transmission from the aircraft. And that one was pretty horrifying.

Zalewski, concerned he might be missing vital information, asks the supervisor to have someone pull the transmission tapes that are automatically recorded, right away.

Zalewski: And thankfully, they did pull the tapes. And a part that I didn’t hear which was, “We have more planes,” or something to that effect. And that really was a key statement.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007
Quote:
 
A manager at Boston flight control reports to the FAA’s New England regional headquarters the “We have some planes” comment made by a Flight 11 hijacker at 8:24 a.m. (see 8:24 a.m. September 11, 2001). The Boston controller says, “I’m gonna reconfirm with, with downstairs, but the, as far as the tape… seemed to think the guy said that ‘we have planes.’ Now, I don’t know if it was because it was the accent, or if there’s more than one [hijacked plane], but I’m gonna, I’m gonna reconfirm that for you, and I’ll get back to you real quick. Okay?” Asked, “They have what?,” this person clarifies, “Planes, as in plural.…



mind you Gribz, im not saying that this "confusion" went down exactly as they claim. but even if 100% true, its still isnt a justified excuse for not having contacted the necessary air defenses to intercept (make visual contact with, not shoot down) the off-course plane(s). but im only recently getting intimately familiar with the protocols in place for the controllers to follow in such situations, so i wont pretend to be an expert on the subject. perhaps woody can detail that further for us.

but back to the OP, the visual evidence (naudet film) shows a smaller plane. this can be argued perhaps, but then i would point to the many reports (earlier posts) that also point to a smaller plane. there has to be some reason for such early reports, its not a claim that appeared out of nowhere by itself. in fact, it would seem that the notion of a larger plane having hit the tower appeared afterwards, via MSM, and then became canon and taken as fact. but the INITIAL reports pointed to a smaller plane and that was the original fact before it was "updated".






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
22205
Mar 3 2008, 01:51 AM
Gribz
Mar 3 2008, 01:01 AM

However Bret the "we have some planes" is just an absolute load of nonsense anyway. This is made up and was probably recorded at the pentagon.



thanks Gribz. there is/was in fact some controversy/confusion regarding the "we have some planes" comment:

Quote:
 
Because the talkback button on Flight 11 has been activated, Boston flight controllers can hear a hijacker on board say to the passengers: “We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you’ll be OK. We are returning to the airport.” Flight controller Pete Zalewski recognizes this as a foreign, Middle Eastern-sounding voice, but does not make out the specific words “we have some planes.” He responds, “Who’s trying to call me?” Seconds later, in the next transmission, the hijacker continues, “Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.” Zalewski asks for an assistant to help listen to the transmissions coming from the plane, and puts its frequency on speakers so others at Boston Center can hear. Because Zalewski didn’t understand the initial hijacker communication from Flight 11, the manager of Boston Center instructs the center’s quality assurance specialist to “pull the tape” of the transmission, listen to it carefully, and then report back. They do this, and by about 9:03 a.m. a Boston manager will report having deciphered what was said in the first hijacker transmission (see (9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001). Fellow Boston controller Don Geoffroy also hears the tape of the hijacker transmissions, though he doesn’t state at what time. He says, “I heard exactly what Pete [Zalewski] heard. And we had to actually listen to it a couple of times just to make sure that we were hearing what we heard.”

(sorry i cant seem to locate the link for the above)



but here are some other sources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/page/2/
Quote:
 
8:30 am. As Boston Center supervisors notify the FAA and other air traffic centers about the hijacking of American Flight 11, the plane makes another dramatic turn—south towards New York City. Pete Zalewski anxiously listens on the frequency, thinking the hijackers might try to make contact.

Pete Zalewski: Then comes a third transmission from the aircraft. And that one was pretty horrifying.

Zalewski, concerned he might be missing vital information, asks the supervisor to have someone pull the transmission tapes that are automatically recorded, right away.

Zalewski: And thankfully, they did pull the tapes. And a part that I didn’t hear which was, “We have more planes,” or something to that effect. And that really was a key statement.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007
Quote:
 
A manager at Boston flight control reports to the FAA’s New England regional headquarters the “We have some planes” comment made by a Flight 11 hijacker at 8:24 a.m. (see 8:24 a.m. September 11, 2001). The Boston controller says, “I’m gonna reconfirm with, with downstairs, but the, as far as the tape… seemed to think the guy said that ‘we have planes.’ Now, I don’t know if it was because it was the accent, or if there’s more than one [hijacked plane], but I’m gonna, I’m gonna reconfirm that for you, and I’ll get back to you real quick. Okay?” Asked, “They have what?,” this person clarifies, “Planes, as in plural.…



mind you Gribz, im not saying that this "confusion" went down exactly as they claim. but even if 100% true, its still isnt a justified excuse for not having contacted the necessary air defenses to intercept (make visual contact with, not shoot down) the off-course plane(s). but im only recently getting intimately familiar with the protocols in place for the controllers to follow in such situations, so i wont pretend to be an expert on the subject. perhaps woody can detail that further for us.

but back to the OP, the visual evidence (naudet film) shows a smaller plane. this can be argued perhaps, but then i would point to the many reports (earlier posts) that also point to a smaller plane. there has to be some reason for such early reports, its not a claim that appeared out of nowhere by itself. in fact, it would seem that the notion of a larger plane having hit the tower appeared afterwards, via MSM, and then became canon and taken as fact. but the INITIAL reports pointed to a smaller plane and that was the original fact before it was "updated".






Boston controllers have said that they continued to track AA11 until it disappeard over Mahattan. They knew it was a hijacking early on, so they continued to watch it even though it had crossed into New York Centers control. I thought UA175 was a small plane when I saw the crash live on ABC. When I got to see other footage with better angles I could tell that it was a United 767. I am an aviation buff, so I can recognize Airlines and aircraft models. It was definitely a UA767 that hit the south tower. How could a small plane slice through nearly the entire side of the North Tower? You can see that that plane was not a small plane from the damage. Witnesses all have different perceptions and just because they thought it was a small plane means absolutely nothing compared to the physical evidence. The Naudet bros film shows a large plane not a small plane. If you really look at it in relation to the size of the North Tower, there is no way it is a small plane.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
22205
Member Avatar
Arlingtonian
bret
 
Boston controllers have said that they continued to track AA11 until it disappeard over Mahattan. They knew it was a hijacking early on, so they continued to watch it even though it had crossed into New York Centers control.

wrong. my entire earlier post, and the ATC's own words say they lost the plane. they had no idea what hit the tower, they had to deduce it given the events that had transpired. you are welcome to your belief, but you have not refuted any of the numerous pieces of evidence that prove otherwise.




bret
 
I thought UA175 was a small plane when I saw the crash live on ABC. When I got to see other footage with better angles I could tell that it was a United 767. I am an aviation buff, so I can recognize Airlines and aircraft models. It was definitely a UA767 that hit the south tower.

ok you switched planes, we were talking about flight11. i have no argument that a plane relative and simliar in size to a 767 hit the south tower.




bret
 
How could a small plane slice through nearly the entire side of the North Tower? You can see that that plane was not a small plane from the damage.

i will address the actual damage via some close-up pics in a moment. look for it below...




bret
 
Witnesses all have different perceptions and just because they thought it was a small plane means absolutely nothing compared to the physical evidence. The Naudet bros film shows a large plane not a small plane. If you really look at it in relation to the size of the North Tower, there is no way it is a small plane.

your dismissal of witness testimony could in turn be applied to your own visual observations. correct? you condemn eyewitness testimony as unreliable, yet you seem sure of your own deductions. deductions reached from watching an event on film as opposed to having been there and seeing what you thought was a small plane (north tower/11).

tell me did anyone who saw the 2nd plane say flight 175 was a small plane? plenty of witnesses saw it, and no one confused it for a smaller plane. so how did the first crash witnesses mis-identify a 767?

not to break it down to semantics, but let me just clarify my definition of "small" plane: im not saying it was a cessna or a tiny plane. when i say "small" i mean anything in size less than a 767, but greater than a single engine little plane. you're the aviation buff, perhaps you could name a few mid-sized, 2 engined, jet aircraft.

but if you are basing your conclusions on the damage scene (in pics) AFTER the crash/explosion, then such damage could have been manipulated. please refer to the pics further down below in my response to sevon:




sevon
 
- If they wanted people to believe it was flight 11, why use a smaller plane?

no one knew who or what "flight 11" was when it crashed. no one was focused on the towers (visually or otherwise) when the first plane hit. so due to its randomness, there wasnt a need to have a full-sized plane crash into the tower. at the same time however, given the random chance that someone was watching and/or filming the towers, they could NOT have the tower blow up without any planes hitting it.

after the first event, everyone was looking at the towers. all eyes and cameras were pointed up at the WTC's after the first crash and smoke became visible to new york's eyes. so because of this heavy focus directly on the towers, the perps HAD TO use as close a real plane to what would (eventually) be their alleged story, as possible. if they intended to tell everyone a UNITED 767 jet hit the 2nd tower, then logic would dictate that they use a plane that closely matches it. had they used anything else, then the risk of them being caught lying would multiplied by the thousands (of new yorker eyes looking up at the towers).

but the first incident/crash was an event that could easily be lied about later. when it happened, people were busy going about their daily newyork lives, not staring up at the towers. even if they saw a plane crash, it would take awhile before they were told that it was a much larger plane, so they may very well take the news's word for it. the idea of a "big plane" would be reinforced after the second jet hit and was indeed a large plane. then the first crash witnesses would assume (or come to believe) the 1st crash (which they may barely have gotten an actual glimpse of) was also a "big" jet-liner.




sevon
 
- If they wanted to inflict a lot of damage, why use a smaller plane?

see the reasoning above, but also let me add: the damage inflicted could be accomplished in any desired area, by way of explosives. thus, the size or severity of damage is not bound by the plane, especially the first plane (again cuz no one is looking at or for it). in fact, if you look at the damage that is "caused" by the first plane, it is not consistent with where the plane impacted. i have to dig up a stillpic, but there are explosion "squibs" visible on floors closer to the roof of the tower than to the impact location, and explosions far below the impact point, seconds after the crash. there are also secondary set of explosions to the right of the right wingtip during the first crash. that breakdown/analysis is unfortunately hiding in a no-plane/fakery-beliefed video ( amateur2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hvwg7aJLwY ).


but the vid does some good closeups that show the various "anomallies":

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

so the alleged damage inflicted is (and WAS) not necessarily mutually exclusive to (i.e. not directly caused by) the size of the first plane. within seconds after the crash, the building displayed damage in may places where they plane did not reach.

but thats where im sure you will attack: the plane COULD have reached these areas in the pic via FUEL, right? i guess its a fair response in regards to some of the damage pictured above, EXCEPT for the damage ABOVE the impact.

squib during "fligh11" crash:
Posted Image

Posted Image


that squib above the impact point is extremely similar to the squibs seen late during the full-collapse:
Posted Image

Posted Image

for the sake of argument, i will accept for a moment, the SKEPTICAL view that the later squibs were cause by pockets of COLLAPSING air. if so, why are we seeing a squib ABOVE the impact point? what is COLLAPSING to allow for air to shoot out above the plane crash? and HOW is it collapsing?

whatever the cause of the later squibs during the collapse, we all agree something substantial was falling downward during the time these squibs became visible. thus, the squib seen in the flight11 closeup, is evidence of floors falling/collapsing within milliseconds of the crash.

i have always believed thats why the planes were able to fully penetrate the buildings: all the columns and floors on the impact sides were dropped out of the way of the planes, immediately before the crashes (less than 2 seconds). if we calculate the buildings collapse times, for each second that transpired, anywhere from 5 to 8 floors were becoming "undone". so in two seconds or less, anywhere from 10 to 15 floors of building could have been moved out of the way via demolition, which is about the number of floors the planes managed to make contact with overall.

had the floors been in place, the plane would meet with solid objects enough to slow down the forward momentum and thereby force a substantial part of the planes to fall outside of the building. but minus the insides, all the plane had to penetrate was aluminum cladding and fairly thin metal:


Posted Image


i've seen many calculations that speak of the strength of this metal, but they are often referring only to its ability to withstand a vertical load. as far as i know, no one has any data on what kind strength would be necessary from a horizontal impact to cut its way thru something as thin as this, but i personally believe a mid-sized aircraft (f11) and a 767 (f175) could have easily penetrated thru this metal at high-speed, AS LONG AS there were no further obstructions in their way (floors, columns on the entry sides of the buildings).




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
"It's very clear now through testimony and documents given to us by the federal government that indeed....the Boston Center actually tracked American 11 as a primary target after it lost its radar, after it lost its transponder, all the way to World Trade Center," he said.



http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/141206trafficcontroller.htm

That is just one link, but this has been reported many times before. The controllers actually said they knew before anyone else that AA11 hit the north tower because they were still tracking it.


You can't look at the huge hole in the face of the north tower and think it was a small plane. That is physical evidence that can not be denied. You can see the outline of the plane from wing tip to wing tip. It was the size of a 767. The actually hole created by the fuselage is what you would expect from a widebody jet. I don't know how you still think it was a small plane.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Woody Box

Bret08
Mar 4 2008, 09:21 AM

"It's very clear now through testimony and documents given to us by the federal government that indeed....the Boston Center actually tracked American 11 as a primary target after it lost its radar, after it lost its transponder, all the way to World Trade Center," he said.



http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/141206trafficcontroller.htm



This is Robin Horndon's opinion, and with the exception of "all the way to the World Trade Center", he's right. New York City doesn't belong to Boston Center airspace, and we don't know if Boston Center tracked or was able to track Flight 11 beyond its airspace.

But what we know is that controllers and managers from New York Center thought Flight 11 was still airborne after the North Tower crash (8:46):

At 8:48, while the controller was still trying to locate American 11, a New York Center manager provided the following report on a Command Center teleconference about American 11:

Manager, New York Center: Okay. This is New York Center. We're watching the airplane. I also had conversation with American Airlines, and they've told us that they believe that one of their stewardesses was stabbed and that there are people in the cockpit that have control of the aircraft, and that's all the information they have right now.124

The New York Center controller and manager were unaware that American 11 had already crashed.

(9/11 Commission Report)


The NORAD tapes, by the way, have Flight 11 passing east of New York City, being sixteen miles east of JFK airport, then eight miles east of JFK airport, then over Upper New York Bay (i.e. some miles south of Manhattan) before the messages stop. This is pretty much different from the official path, isn't it? But it goes well with the excerpt from the 9/11 report.

http://aal77.com/norad/norad.php






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

sevon
Feb 28 2008, 05:06 PM


Quote:
 
There are always going to be people who thought they saw something different.


Yes, but in this case, we need to give attention to those that do not fit with the official story and video evidence at hand.

Quote:
 
A couple of questions I have about this theory:


Not much of a theory.

Quote:
 
- If they wanted people to believe it was flight 11, why use a smaller plane?



Because they can tell people whatever they want.
They used a smaller plane to keep the alarms low and make people think it was an accident. If it was a large airliner people would have been more inclined to suspect wrongdoing. I think it was to keep the military and the country in the first stage of complacency.



Quote:
 
- If they wanted to inflict a lot of damage, why use a smaller plane?



I told you why I think they used a smaller plane. They inflicted physical damage to the building through projectiles that appear to come off the wing.

Quote:
 
- Why use missiles? What could they accomplish that thousands of gallons of jet fuel could not?



To allow an easier entrance into the building for this small place they used to keep everybody off guard.

Quote:
 
- In video showing the impact, it doesn't look like a "smaller plane"


In video showing the impact, it does look like a "smaller plane".

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

http://www.geocities.com/x11drone/
Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Mar 7 2008, 05:53 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AMTMAN
Member Avatar

Aldo Marquis CIT
Feb 17 2008, 05:08 PM
LT,

I have researched this exact thing and have compiled some of these very quotes. I 100% believe it was a small plane that actually fired missiles into the building. You can actually see it happen if you look close enough. Two puffs off the wings before the flash.


Posted Image

Anthony Bartolomey EMT on the first plane that hit WTC1...

"Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a *military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building.*
Care to id that small plane and the type of ordinance used?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

No, I can't. But we can rule out a 767-200.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AMTMAN
Member Avatar

Aldo Marquis CIT
Mar 22 2008, 02:00 AM
No, I can't. But we can rule out a 767-200.
You can't ID it but you say its not a 767? How did you come to that conclusion? I would figure that if you know enough about aircraft to see that its not a 767 you would know what it really is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

AMTMAN
Mar 22 2008, 08:19 AM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Mar 22 2008, 02:00 AM
No, I can't. But we can rule out a 767-200.
You can't ID it but you say its not a 767? How did you come to that conclusion? I would figure that if you know enough about aircraft to see that its not a 767 you would know what it really is.
That's your problem not mine.
Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Apr 2 2008, 09:36 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AMTMAN
Member Avatar

Aldo Marquis CIT
Mar 22 2008, 06:47 PM
AMTMAN
Mar 22 2008, 08:19 AM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Mar 22 2008, 02:00 AM
No, I can't. But we can rule out a 767-200.
You can't ID it but you say its not a 767? How did you come to that conclusion? I would figure that if you know enough about aircraft to see that its not a 767 you would know what it really is.
That's your problem not me.
Hey you are the one that says its not a 767. I say it is a 767, prove me wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · American Flight 11 · Next Topic »
Add Reply