Was "Flight 11" a smaller plane?

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!

Pages:
1
2

Was "Flight 11" a smaller plane?; Eyewitness testimony says yes.
Topic Started: Feb 17 2008, 04:23 PM (2,083 Views)
charlie4371	Apr 2 2008, 04:54 AM Post #26
Posts: 8 Group: Skeptics Member #425 Joined: 03/21/08	Can I ask, why use a small plane for one tower and lie about it being the a big plane - risking the whole conspiracy for nothing - but then use the actual big plane for the second tower? That makes no sense.
Posts: 8 Group: Skeptics Member #425 Joined: 03/21/08


look-up	Apr 2 2008, 08:35 AM Post #27
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	yea, it makes no sense. risk management is their game.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Apr 2 2008, 09:38 AM Post #28
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Perhaps you guys missed this... "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."
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


look-up	Apr 2 2008, 10:16 AM Post #29
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	if they used a missile in one, they would have certainly used one in the second, and knowing that people would already be gathered with dozens of cameras and hundreds of witnesses, they did not use a missile with the second, and it is very difficult to believe they did in the first, in my opinion. the screenshots are so pixellated (not your fault, that's just how it goes sometimes) to tell 100% either way. I do not see any reason why they would need a missile. the plane penetrates just fin on its own. I tend to believe that people only got a very brief glimpse of the first craft, and made mistakes identifying it. I also tend to believe that, no matter what plane was used, the first instinct of every witness would be "accident", not "attack". None of us were really thinking attack until the second one struck. I was getting ready for work when NBC announced a plane had hit the tower. When I got to work, I told everyone there about it. Then, when people turned on the radio and heard a second one hit, we all collectively had our stomaches sink to our shoes, and said, "holy shit. what's going on?" I know none of these points are really "evidence" so to speak, but they are reasonable arguments.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Apr 2 2008, 10:30 AM Post #30
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	A 767 screaming in at high speed and hitting the towers would set off some alarms. I hold firm on my position, there is enough there to suspect that they used a smaller modified craft. They used projectiles because it was a smaller craft. Fact is, there are MORE witnesses to a small plane, than a large 767. I believe there is only 1 account from an NBC news exec naming it as a 767 he saw. In fact, look-up can you show me some accounts of it being a large 767 plane? Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Apr 2 2008, 11:24 AM.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


look-up	Apr 2 2008, 02:05 PM Post #31
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	nope. I don't have a good knowledge of everything that eyewitnesses said like some of you guys do. I'll concede that. I guess the naudet footage is all we have of that hit, and the dude didn't zoom in quick enough to really tell one way or another. hey I'm not going to tell you what to believe. i don't see why a larger plane would set off more alarms... say from ATC or military. I also remember that some evidence was found at the wtc sites that verified it was a large boeing, or am I mistaken about that? additionally, no one really disputes that the plane seen on the 2nd strike footage is a 767, do they? I mean, except for people that think there was no plane at all. So if that one was a 767, I'd say it's almost ridiculous to think the other one was any different. But I'll concede that it certainly COULD have been a smaller plane, although I don't agree that there's any strategic reason to use a smaller plane, or that a missile was needed to help penetrate. I'm filing this information under the part of my brain that houses the "hmm... interesting, but no way to prove one way or another" information. At least until someone uncovers something a little more concrete. Think about it, the plane was only in the naudet bros. field of vision for less than a second, and we are having a hard time identifying the plane with that footage. So how likely is it that someone standing closer, would have heard it, "looked up" and identified it prior to the impact? That is CORRECTLY identify it. I'm not accusing anyone of lying. Just accusing them of using their knowledge of the way air-traffic usually travels, to form their immediate responses to the situation. I can only say what I might have thought if this happened to me. I can't say what the witnesses think or feel. If it were me, I'd assume it was a smaller plane with an inexperienced pilot, who got lost or confused and smashed into a building. I'd imagine that the 767s that usually travel through there, take a much safer route around manhattan than the smaller cessnas and learjets... Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. Just that it doesn't sound likely to be true, in my opinion. peace,
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Apr 2 2008, 03:02 PM Post #32
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	S'all good. But I'd say there is enough evidence to support a non-767. We'll just agree to disagree. peace.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Citizen Pawn	Apr 3 2008, 08:37 AM Post #33
Posts: 601 Group: Members Member #202 Joined: 01/24/08	AMTMAN Mar 22 2008, 08:39 PM 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. I say it's not a 767, always have.
Posts: 601 Group: Members Member #202 Joined: 01/24/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Apr 3 2008, 04:33 PM Post #34
Posts: 1,966 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Bret08 Mar 1 2008, 02:06 PM 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 just make shit up. They followed AA11 around on radar for 45+ minutes after impact. In the NORAD recordings you can even hear the FAA say "Military confirmed it was definitely another plane that hit the tower. AA11 is still airborne. Yes he is a hijack" (paraphrased)
Posts: 1,966 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Apr 3 2008, 04:38 PM Post #35
Posts: 1,966 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Bret08 Mar 3 2008, 10:09 AM 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. Do you have a source for this or are you just making shit up? (I know the answer and can't wait to see it)
Posts: 1,966 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Apr 3 2008, 04:40 PM Post #36
Posts: 1,966 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	I've always believe both planes were modified and fired some sort of weapon prior to impact to insure their tail sections wouldn't end up on the street blowing the whole thing wide open.
Posts: 1,966 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Bret08	Apr 15 2008, 10:57 AM Post #37
repeated trolling offender Posts: 209 Group: BANNED! Member #227 Joined: 01/27/08	Domenick DiMaggio CIT Apr 3 2008, 04:40 PM I've always believe both planes were modified and fired some sort of weapon prior to impact to insure their tail sections wouldn't end up on the street blowing the whole thing wide open. Why would their tail section end up on the street below? Boston center tracked the AA11 all the way to lower Manhattan where it disappeared. You are getting confused with New York center and the FAA being confused about AA11. Boston center had no doubt that the plane that hit the north tower was AA11. The outline of the plane that entered the north tower is the perfect inmage of a widebody jet. There were not missiles or bombs to add to the damage.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · American Flight 11 · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2