9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Targets

[Avid_Consumer]

Quote from Trader5287:

By who? Exactly who? We had an new admin in chaos - it's always that way with a change in power. They'd won in the Supreme Court 6 months before - Bush was just getting into it - I don't even know if his wife was there full time yet. Then August was vacation. And probably 50-75% of nominated positions in the gummint were unfillled.

Did they blow it? Maybe the FBI did. The last clear chance was probably there if there was a chance to stop it. Planned it? No way. And if it was a conspiracy, why are you all fighting about aeronautical engineering crap and not producing likely participants?

imho the qualitative conditions are fairly damning. the administration is known to have been eager to go into iraq beforehand, then ended up going in on several arbitrary 911 related premises. a large part of his cabinet collaborated on the pnac shit that specified a new pearl harbor event as a potential catalyst for their desired process of change. the admin was being warned by all kinds of sources, even saudi princes are talking about that now.. all kinds of shit... ashcroft stopped flying commercial. it just wasn't anything close to a surprise.

bush said he saw the first plane on tv twice, which would have been impossible.

i don't know. i just don't buy it. i understand that a catastrophe can be convenient for an administration's foreign policy goals and economic affiliations, and still not be conspiratorial, but the warnings were pretty specific and ample. it just stinks to me. especially norad's response. it's too sloppy and convenient at the same time

 

[Bitstream]

what is this a joke?

do these apologists think folks are in that a vacant state of mind to force down their throats this bogus shit? yeah absolute piece of cake hitting a bdg for it is so sunken that resembles a pizza, and square on right in the middle of it.

i would tell this asshole to take the exisiting 10k challenge and try hit that thing in a sim...he can hit it wherever he wishes: from above, to the sides..whatever. nobody has taken the wager so far and the real professionals who tried couldn't come close to hit it anyhere.

pathetic..and how much more bullshit has it yet to come with each new debunker selling new moronic fabrications we can expect to see obfuscations less and lesser coherent...most disinfo agents now hoping to rely on a comatose public.

hitting a sunken bdg like the pentagon...you see the thing from airborne, any altitude and it's flat like a pizza...what a laugh

Quote from dddooo:

Wrong again:

This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 21 May 2006
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

 

[Bitstream]

Quote from Trader5287:

Nobody has dispelled a relevant item in the 9/11 Report to date and I'd be surprised if they did. More people ought to read it. Probably 3$ on amazon by now.

Bin Laden confessed to ordering the crime. And those people listed in the report did it. Case closed.

If Hillary wins, will you conspiracists be back with Clintons Killed My Baby stuff?

obl kept denying any involvement for quite some time, even stating that those responsible may be people with strategic interests and a hidden agenda of their own.

then came the confession tape; totally fake. by then obl understood his position and the limited options he had for it he was to be blamed no matter what, so he took the only decision that although coming at a cost gave him also the better reward, and so alqaida was born.

 

[Rearden Metal]

Quote from Bitstream:

obl kept denying any involvement for quite some time, even stating that those responsible may be people with strategic interests and a hidden agenda of their own.

then came the confession tape; totally fake. by then obl understood his position and the limited options he had for it he was to be blamed no matter what, so he took the only decision that although coming at a cost gave him also the better reward, and so alqaida was born.

You're saying Bin Laden founded his terrorist group AFTER 9/11?!

So much foolishness in one little thread...

 

[Avid_Consumer]

after reading this NIST report and repeatedly revisiting the footage, i've been struggling to resolve the way i remember the altitude of flight 11. i just started googling for corroboration on the super low approach and found a guardian piece from 9/18/01 recounting a similar experience

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4259170,00.html

"My wife's sister had just taken her children to school and was standing on the corner of Fifth Avenue and Eleventh Street at 8.58 am, on the eleventh day of the ninth month of 2001 (the duo-millennial anniversary of Christianity). For a moment she imagined herself to be on a runway at Kennedy Airport. She looked up to see the glistening underbelly of the 767, a matter of yards above her head. (Another witness described plane number one as "driving" down Fifth Avenue - at 400mph.) There is a modest arch that fronts Washington Square Park; American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles was flying so low that it had to climb to clear it."


there are probably many eyewitness accounts that directly contradict the altitude in the video and NIST impact information. if i find more i'll post them

 

[reg]

Quote from Bitstream:


then came the confession tape; totally fake. by then obl understood his position and the limited options he had for it he was to be blamed no matter what, so he took the only decision that although coming at a cost gave him also the better reward, and so alqaida was born.

Please provide evidence of this. Thanks.

 

[Avid_Consumer]

if anyone can explain to me how the plane was low enough to graze people on 5th ave and the arch as well as the altitude i saw at spring and renwick, yet high enough to impact the top of WTC1 from a left banking 10 degree down angle at final impact, i would love to hear some possibilities. i'm pretty sure the NIST has this wrong

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from Avid_Consumer:

if anyone can explain to me how the plane was low enough to graze people on 5th ave and the arch as well as the altitude i saw at spring and renwick, yet high enough to impact the top of WTC1 from a left banking 10 degree down angle at final impact, i would love to hear some possibilities.

were you able to identify the type of jet?

 

[Avid_Consumer]

i mean, i can't say with any authority specifically what type of airliner it was, but it had the appearance of a standard 2 engine airliner. it transpired quickly, but 767 photos look like what i saw

i don't know... i could have it wrong but a down angle just isn't what i saw at all

 

[Bitstream]

Quote from Rearden Metal:

You're saying Bin Laden founded his terrorist group AFTER 9/11?!

So much foolishness in one little thread...

maybe i should have make a clear allusions stlli am surprised you'd jump it...
it's the significance the term 'alqaida' gained after 911 for it was just a generic and common name shared by scores of organizations, [likely not having anything to do with jihad or terror] referenced to under 'the umbrella of the sun'. now alqaida is just associated with obl and terrorism and i don't think there're any longer anyone wishing to use the name for the 'brand' it now represents.