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

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. i'm pretty sure the NIST has this wrong
More...

If you look deeper, you'll more than likely find that quotes are taken out of context or quotes are edited to misrepresent what was actually said. This is normal for CTerz.

An example would be the Pentagon quote in loose change- "it looked like a missle with wings." But the whole quote goes - " the plane was flying really low, straight at the Pentagon. It looked like a missle with wings." This is just what these nutterz do - lie to make their political points. Do you find anything new with that?

I have no idea what you saw, so I have no comment.

The others - the comment that the plane "grazed" the arch is plainly ludicrous. Look where the comment came from. The Guardian is HARDLY a reliable source.
 
Quote from Haroki:

If you look deeper, you'll more than likely find that quotes are taken out of context or quotes are edited to misrepresent what was actually said. This is normal for CTerz.
More...

it's not a CT story. it was published a week after the attack and the author is describing the experience of his sister in law. i'm pretty sure there are several corroborations of that account, to my knowledge it's pretty well known. Lots of people in that area.

An example would be the Pentagon quote in loose change- "it looked like a missle with wings." But the whole quote goes - " the plane was flying really low, straight at the Pentagon. It looked like a missle with wings." This is just what these nutterz do - lie to make their political points. Do you find anything new with that?
More...

i agree, that happens.

I have no idea what you saw, so I have no comment.
More...

that's fine.

The others - the comment that the plane "grazed" the arch is plainly ludicrous. Look where the comment came from. The Guardian is HARDLY a reliable source.
More...

like you said, you have no idea what was seen. the plane came in LOW (at least at my location) and grazing is what i also witnessed. to describe it as pulling up to clear the arch may be hyperbole, but it's hard to mistake a 1000 foot altitude for a graze in a location witnessed by thousands of people. projecting your view of the guardian onto whatever the objective reality of that day was, is similar to a CTer misrepresenting a quote to fit their existing belief

i'll look for more corroboration.
 
My comment on the Guardian is in reference to their tendency to use, how do we say, "journalistic license" when reporting their stories. Basically, most stories I've read from them read more like a tabloid rather than a reputable news outlet.

So what I'm saying is not that they're perpetuating a CT story, since as you say there were no CTerz active yet, but rather their use of "journalistic license" to sensationalize a story can then be taken out of context to make another point seem plausible.

So how tall are the buildings on 5th Ave? In the photo you posted, they look to be "tall".
 
i get what you're saying. some of them are fairly tall frankly. for instance one 5th ave (i think that's the address) is accross the street from that arch on the east corner of 5th ave and is i dunno, at least 20-30 stories.

in reality i also find it really hard to believe the plane literally pulled up to clear the arch, that seems like hyperbole. although, when you're on the ground and a plane is whizzing accross the skyline at what seems like not much more than building height, i can easily see how it could honestly have seemed to be over the arch, or lifting to clear the arch to someone a few blocks up the street.

based on the trajectory i remember from our vantage, my guess (only a guess) is that the plane wasn't flying straight down or directly over 5th for any duration of time, and that it was in descent up until the point we remember seeing it enter a last minute climb over the last 10-15 blocks.

i mean, when it first came into my view, for the first second or so i seriously thought it was headed for the ground somewhere near the base of the towers. it's hard to resolve a >93 story altitude with how low it seemed to us before it appeared to climb into impact
 
So you saw the actual impact, or were you blocked?

Did it climb as you say and then dive at the last instant? It looks like you were 1 1/2 miles (?) away?

Actually kinda irrelevant, since the video dddooo posted showed a 757 doing 350 knots in level flight at 125 ft above sea level, according to the guy who claimed to be the pilot.

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:19:05 +1300
From: "Tony Davies" <******@xtra.co.nz>
To: "Dylan Phelps" <*********@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: B757 Videos

Dylan,

I was the captain of that particular shot, filmed during a Squadron open-day a couple of years ago. It's part of a routine that has been performed over thirty times at various airshows and practices around the world including RIAT Fairford 2003, Kemble 2006, RAF Waddington 2006, Warbirds Over Wanaka 2004, Avalon 2005.

The low pass is flown into wind at 350 knots (indicated) and 100 feet above the runway. It's a 2g pull up to between 45 and 55 degrees nose up pitch (although there has been higher) and the zoom climb ends at an altitude between 8000 and 10000 feet depending on the type of pull up used. The sequence does not end with a loop as some of the readers speculate, but in fact with a 60 degree wingover at around 220 knots. It is easily possible to enhance this maneouver with a steeper climb and bank but there is no need - it is spectacular already, and safe.

Q-The plane was 100 feet above the runway. How many feet was the runway above sea level?

A-I don’t have the exact information on that airport, as its possibly military, or it may be connected with the civilian airport. The air show is the Auckland International Air show, which looks to me like its held at the Auckland International Airport. Here is what I found for elevations above sea level for Auckland International, NZ:

Auckland International Airport
Airport: Auckland International Airport Auckland International Airport
ELEVATION: 23 ft.

So its basically almost at sea level, for all practical purposes, as far as I can tell.


And really, my whole involvement in this thread is to show that Ratboy's claim that a 767 can't go that fast in level flight is ANOTHER out-of-context quote, and therefore ludicrous.
 
that's right we were about a mile away. the google earth ruler shows it as .95 miles. i did some very rough math last night and came up with about 7 seconds from our location to impact at the speed the nist estimates. i remember it happening faster than that, probably just the emotion of the day

that's what i'm trying to resolve, how it could have gone from what appeared to us to be a very unambiguous arced path up into the collision, into a ten degree down pitch.

we had a full unobstructed view of at least the top two thirds of WTC1, and the left half of WTC2 staggered behind it. my friend watched it all the way through the collision. i turned away right at the moment of collision. i had been doing a lot of photography and an instinct gripped me to run for a camera. i got a few feet and stopped, realizing this was far beyond the scope of another nyc spectacle to capture. so i did not see the moment of collision but did see the flight path immediately up to it.

wrt velocity, i got the same impression from the pilot/engineer conv i linked earlier. seems like the 767 can go those speeds at sea level. i can't see though how it could make it from a few hundred feet somewhere between washington sq and our location, up to 1000 feet, in time to dive 10 degrees into the tower, particularly in a left bank. beats me

i just had to speak up when i saw the NIST's down pitch because it goes completely against our experience
 
Quote from Bitstream:

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.
More...

I can bring you up to speed on this: Before 9/11, Bin Laden's terror gang was simply called "Bin Laden's group".

For some petty legal reason, before launching the 'War on Terror', the U.S. government needed to pin a 'real name' on this terror group- "Bin Laden's group" wasn't deemed sufficient, legally- Even though they attacked us.
Al-Qaida is Arabic for "The Base". The U.S. had an intercepted transmission from one of Bin Laden's men, simply saying that he's returning to the base ("Al-Qaida", in Arabic). That's how this name came to be attached to the terror group. If all you're saying is that Bin Laden never chose to name his organization "Al-Qaida", but rather the name came from our side, then you'd be correct.

I'm not sure how we side-tracked onto this issue, but there it is.
 
after giving some more consideration to the pilot conversations on the impossibility of even highly experienced pilots accomplishing the 911 flight maneuvers, especially on a first try... i'm wondering a few things because it seems like there are many career boeing pilots who agree on the impossibility of accomplishing the maneuvers even for most professionals. the planes are capable, but experienced pilots sound highly skeptical wrt the level of experience, skill and practice required

1. has it been successfully established that there was an awacs type military plane over manhattan during the attacks

2. did the alleged hijackers have access to an industrial 767 simulator

3. how many such sims existed and where were they (as of 2001)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top