In article <4Jzmg.77265$Mn5.42149@pd7tw3no>, rweldon.spamblock@jrpspamblock.ca says...

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:vdxmg.9123$Z61.4000@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

In news:e7d7o7$m96$2@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:

In article <27fmg.11822$OT.11198@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>,
manic_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:Cg2mg.69845$4L1.1240@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com,
Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> typed:

Nonsense. Small and surprising operations are the ones most
likely to escape the defense systems.

True but they still need to be undertaken with professionalism,
require preplanning, intelligence and coordination so require a
large and well organised infrastructure.

What is remarkable about 911 is the considerable amount of response
time available between the first and second plane hit should have
been sufficient to scramble the fighters. Especially when you
consider there were helicopters on the scene and flying around
within minutes and helicopters fly much slower than fighters.

Admittedly one would not want to down a US civilian passenger
aircraft, under any circumstances. but the second plane could have
been buzzed sufficiently to send it on a different course,
particularly if the pilot was inexperienced as we are lead to
believe.

Flying into a skyscraper requires as much preparation and precision
as landing on an airport runway. You have to set a very precise
course, you have to descend in a controlled way, you can't just drop
the nose and drop 5000 feet since the plane could go into a stall
and start breaking up. Any one who has flown even a flight simulator
on a computer would be aware of how difficult it is to manually land
a large aircraft, the amount of pre-planning and control necessary.
Most civilian commercial aircraft pilots rely on very sophisticated
technology of one sort of another, guidance systems, navigation
aids, computers and air traffic control in order to land safely on a
runway.

Yet we are expected to believe two highly inexperienced amateur
pilots managed to fly two large passenger jets into these towers
with deadly accuracy with no proper navigation aids and extremely
limited flying experience, under conditions that were far from
ideal. i.e a hijacking situation and of course knowing they were
flying to their deaths.

The problem is even highly experienced commercial pilots would have
difficulty flying a passenger jet into a particular building
hundreds of miles away with practically no navigational aids. It
might be easy in a Cessna, or in a flight simulator, but of course
flight simulators do have navigational aids and would allow you to
make a second attempt in any case.

The fact that both missions were accomplished with such deadly
military accuracy does suggest whoever was flying those planes was
far from inexperienced. and/or had help from external sources, such
as some form of ground based pathfinder system using geographically
separated radio signals as was used by bomber pilots in WWII to find
whole cities, and possibly some form of ground based radar tracking
system clandestine air traffic control housed in a van or truck.
Because without some form of external aids it would be quite a feat
for even a highly experienced military pilot to undertake such a
mission with such deadly clinical accuracy. Whilst one might accept
luck could play a part in a single sucessful mission not only do you
have it happening twice but 3 times if you count the Pentagon.

--
Amanda

There are a whole series of questions that are not answered by the
official
story, and it is these inconsistancies that make the official story,
into being one of coverup, especially since the official commission
report merely repeated/endorsed the official explanation, and
inconsistancies
are simply ignored altogether.
They simply adhere to the principle of - if you repeat the same story
over and over again, the public will start believing it.
And then the perpetrators will get away with murder - and the
government
and government agencies, do know about it.

Exactly. Those planes would have needed to have been on a precise course 
and
precise altitude a long time before the WTCs would have been visible. It
should have been obvious to NORAD something was amiss even before the 
first
plane hit. The intention of the second plane should have been obvious once
the first plane had hit since it would have already have been on course 
and
if it was travelling at 500 mph would have been around 150 miles from it's
target already on a clear course. The fact that it didn't have a fighter
escort is incredible.

Do you have any concept of how many planes were in the air at that time?  As 
far as I know, Norad doesn't routinely track domestic originated flights. 
Their job is to watch for incoming missiles and fighters, from outside the 
U.S. boundaries, not track every single plane in the air at any given time.

Of course apparently there were no fighters available that day because 
they
had all gone south on a special training mission. Which was amazingly
convenient for the hijackers but obviously suggests foreknowledge either
effective intelligence or complicity of elements within the US
administration.

Or the highjackers knew this beforehand, which is why they picked that date?

Of course the aspect it took place on 911 which is also the US emergency
services telephone number which ensures the event always remains in the
consciousness of Americans would also appear to indicate some form of
preplanning IMO it's simply too convenient and effective as a means of
keeping the event etched into the consciousness of the people for it to 
have
been nothing more than a coincidence.
-- 
Amanda

Or it could have just been a coincidence. 

When it is simply one event that is strange, it is a coincidence, but
when there are many stacked up, which goes against the official version
of events... something is definitely up...


It should be so noted, that there was an obvious fireball that occurred
outside the Tower with the second impact, so the two impacts/strikes
were decidedly different, making the first one, more on target? than the
second? Yet the second tower that was hit, fell first.
That both collapsed in the same manner - you can conclude that both were
of the same cause.
There should be a lot of photographic and video evidence available -
and this can be sorted through, if access is available to it?
Which will build the case for what is the most probable cause for the
collapse.

There is a website, which makes the claim that the footage released of
the impact, has been doctored, ie. faked. To give credence to be belief
that Boeing 757s struck the twin towers. I don't know whether that site
is accurate in it's information or not?
To me (with no expert knowledge) the idea of a clean impact of a Boeing
757 entering a skyscaper, and to disappear entirely inside, is very hard
to believe... And for it to happen twice! is even more unbelievable?
The plane should break apart on impact with the skyscraper - because it is
a hard target. A much smaller object, would be able to be contained within
the Tower impact.
If the Boeing had the ability to penetrate the building, wouldn't it also
carry on, and possible force an exit point? also? That the building could
not absorb all of the energy potential, that it has to go somewhere, and
fast...
I think you have to look at it, as a special effects project SFX - because
I don't think it was done real, and live...
Terrorists could not have done it.

Harvey