Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

UA175 PASSED RIGHT UNDER THEIR HELICOPTER!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 03:11 PM
Original message
UA175 PASSED RIGHT UNDER THEIR HELICOPTER!
Edited on Sat Mar-20-04 04:07 PM by seatnineb
We saw the second plane".
Peculiar.
Where is this guy going?.
HE WENT RIGHT UNDER OUR HELICOPTER.
His wings rocked three times banking left and right.
I prayed this was a bad dream.

This is the testimony of Donald T Gromling.
A Pilot of the NYPD aviation unit.
His helicopter was first on the scene after the 1st tower was hit.

This reference can be found in:

LIFE : One Nation:America Remembers September 11,2001
Published By Little,Brown,2001/2002
There is a photo of Gromling posing with Co-Pilot Timothy Hayes on page 147.

THE CATCH IS THAT THIS UNIT VIDEO TAPED EVERYTHING AT HIGH ALTITUDE FROM SHORTLY AFTER THE IMPACT OF THE NORTH TOWER TO THE EVENTUAL COLLAPSE OF BOTH TOWERS.

SO WHERE IS THE FOOTAGE OF FLIGHT UA175 PASSINGRIGHT UNDER
THEIR HELICOPTER?
OTHER EXERPTS OF THEIR FOOTAGE HAVE BEEN AIRED IN VARIOUSE
NEWS BULLETINS AND DOCUMENTARIES OVER THE LAST YEAR AND
(MOSTLY ..THEIR PASS OVER THE ROOF OF THE NORTH TOWER TO SEE IF THEY COULD LAND).

THERE ARE 6 POSSIBLITIES.
1)THE FOOTAGE FORMS PART OF THE ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND THERFORE CANNOT BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC(POSSIBLE)....

2)THE PLANE THAT THEY VIDEO TAPED FROM CLOSE RANGE WOULD REVEAL THAT IT IS NOT THE SAME PLANE THAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD IT IS(POSSIBLE).

3)THERE WAS NO PLANE AND GROMLING IS LYING(POSSIBLE)..........

4)THE VIDEO CAMERA WAS FACING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION TO THE ONCOMING PLANE(POSSIBLE BUT UNLIKELY).....

5)THE VIDEO CAMERA WAS SWITCHED OFF(POSSIBLE BUT UNLIKELY).

6)THE FOOTAGE(OF THE CRASH) IS TOO GRAPHIC TO SHOW(POSSIBLE).



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. I count six possibilities but Okay
Edited on Sat Mar-20-04 03:18 PM by DS1
1) Plausible, but unlikely
2) Possible, but even more unlikely, a 2nd jet did slam into the Tower
3) That's one hell of a holograph
4) Plausible, I doubt police helicopters have onboard radar, and from that angle the jet would have been coming slightly out of the direction of the sun
5) Possible, unlikely
6) Possible, unlikely as we're all aware of what planes slamming into buildings look like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. a 2nd jet did slam into the Tower



Yeah...and the video would show us what type of jet crashed into the 2nd tower.....

Why are they so afraid to show us?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Isn't there already enough footage of the second jet?
Like so

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. True.....


But they could have shown this footage before or concurrently with all the other amateur footage that we saw in the days and weeks immedietly after 9/11.
But they didnt....
Why?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Possibilities
Edited on Sat Mar-20-04 04:41 PM by LARED
1.Possible

2.Who said anything about the video being at close range?

I personally know about two dozen people that watched flight 175 fly over their place of business in NJ and then saw it crash into the WTC. So unless holgrams can travel four or five miles and make really really loud noise, you've entered fantasy land.

3. See 2.

4. Possible, but who said they even video taped flt 175?

5. See 4.

6. Too graphic? See 4.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The Video.

LARED WROTE.

"Possible, but who said they even video taped flt 175?"

And who whithin the NYPD says they didn't?.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. With logic like that
I can see my position is hopeless. I surrender.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. What hologram?
Edited on Sat Mar-20-04 04:49 PM by seatnineb
LARED WROTE

"Who said anything about the video being at close range? "

In relative terms ...

Certainly a great deal closer than any of the other angles we have seen it from.....

Maybe too close for your comfort LARED...



LARED ALSO WROTE

"I personally know about two dozen people that watched flight 175 fly over their place of business in NJ and then saw it crash into the WTC. So unless holgrams can travel four or five miles and make really really loud noises, you've entered fantasy land. "..

Look at the guy in Evan Fairbank's video....that low altitude and loud noise sure failed grab his attention AND HE WAS RIGHT UNDERNEATH IT........



And who said anything about holograms.....?

I said NO PLANE....as in nothing.....it is just a possibility amongst others....nothing more ...nothing less....









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Re
Certainly a great deal closer than any of the other angles we have seen it from.....

This statement is based on what? You have no idea how close they were -- only they were above flt 175.

Maybe too close for your comfort LARED...

Yes, I'm sure the fantastic revelation that a helicopter may have videotaped flt 175 is very convincing evidence of something. Let me know what it is at some point.

Look at the guy in Evan Fairbank's video....that low altitude and loud noise sure failed grab his attention AND HE WAS RIGHT UNDERNEATH IT........

So what. Are you calling me a liar?

And who said anything about holograms.....?

I said NO PLANE....as in nothing.....it is just a possibility amongst others....nothing more ...nothing less....


Sorry I thought you were the guy humping the idiot hologram theory.

What do you mean by nothing?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. The one angle we have not seen....


LARED wrote..
"You have no idea how close they were -- only they were above flt 175. "

You could well be right....my interpretation of "right under our helicopter" could indeed be exagerated....

I am not afraid to see this video if they should one day show it...
Are you?..



LARED wrote
"Yes, I'm sure the fantastic revelation that a helicopter may have videotaped flt 175 is very convincing evidence of something. Let me know what it is at some point.

Dont ask me....ask the NYPD OR THE FBI ...Why do they want you NOT to see it?....
I mean what are they waiting for? ....it could put skeptics like me in my place.....


LARED also wrote
"Sorry I thought you were the guy humping the idiot hologram theory"

Well you thought wrong.......

If you can refute photos showing some poor woman alive at the point of the planes impact in the North Tower then what stops you from questioning the authenticity of a "darkened plane" approaching
the second tower?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. How interesting
I am not afraid to see this video if they should one day show it...
Are you?..


Afraid of a tape of flt 175 that may not even exist? Pardon me but -- huh?

Even if it does exist, why would I be afraid of it?

Dont ask me....ask the NYPD OR THE FBI ...Why do they want you NOT to see it?....

Why do they not want me or you to see a tape that you don't know if it even exists? Pardon me again but -- huh?

I mean what are they waiting for? ....it could put skeptics like me in my place.....

I know this may come as a surprise to you, but I sorta doubt the NYPD or the FBI are concerned if you're a skeptic. Again just a guess, but they are even less concerned about putting you in your place. What makes you think they even know you draw breath?

If you can refute photos showing some poor woman alive at the point of the planes impact in the North Tower then what stops you from questioning the authenticity of a "darkened plane" approaching
the second tower?


Again I'll ask -- even if there really is a women in the photo (something I seriously doubt) so what?

I know I will regret this, but what exactly is a "darkened plane?"




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I'll just bet
It's the "other" plane they were covering up with the holograph.

You see there was one plane that looked exactly like the one that hit the building, but they substituted a different plane that looked exactly like it but to cover up the fact that it was a different plane, they had to generate a hologram, but to cover up the fact that they were generating a hologram they had to use another airplane and generate a hologram to cover up that plane - so that was the "darkened" plane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. Great audition
...to become an official story spinster....
But you might have to tone down your imagination a touch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #16
26. Maybe
but, I think it would just be easier to steal some alien technology and build a cloaking device. I'm sure the CIA can just swipe some from Hollywood. I hear security is not very good in the special effect equipment storeroom.

:evilgrin: :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. To quote LARED

From post#2
Possible, but who said they even video taped flt 175?

From post#8
I'm sure the fantastic revelation that a helicopter MAY have videotaped flt 175....

From post#15
Afraid of a tape of flt 175 that may not even exist?

Also from post#15
Why do they not want me or you to see a tape that you don't know if it even exists?

You do seem a touch anxiouse to highlight the fact that they may not have video taped this incident......fair enough.......but then you ask me why I think you are afraid to see it....


I know this may come as a surprise to you, but I sorta doubt the NYPD or the FBI are concerned if you're a skeptic. Again just a guess, but they are even less concerned about putting you in your place. What makes you think they even know you draw breath?

I kinda figured out the above for myself......but thanks anyways......

I know I will regret this, but what exactly is a "darkened plane?"

I mean every conceivable angle photographed or video taped of flt 175 shows that UA brand on the tail ........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Back to reality
Edited on Sun Mar-21-04 07:56 AM by LARED
You do seem a touch anxiouse to highlight the fact that they may not have video taped this incident......fair enough.......but then you ask me why I think you are afraid to see it....

No. I'm not in the least bit concerned if they do or did not have video tape flt 175. I was only trying to highlight the fact that you are manufacturing a mystery for your own purposes.

Just what is the point of this anyway?

I mean every conceivable angle photographed or video taped of flt 175 shows that UA brand on the tail ........

Huh? That's a darkened plane? Please explain.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Maybe the video from above shows the giant string that was
used to control the plane from space!!!!

:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. Wow!
You really are giving TROGL a good run for his money........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. You really must stop shouting or learn what a CAPS LOCK key does
You turn off CAPS LOCK by pressing the key again.

SHOUTING in a board is rude.

If you cannot make your case in a normal tone of voice - you don't have a case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. It seems to have worked


...as I have your attention Trogl..

It is text on a page not sound waves propogating through air...

Now stick to the topic rather than subtly tring to change it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Common Internet courtesy
There's nothing you can do about it now but apologize, but it is an understood courtesy to use uppercase letters only as a limited form of emphasis. All caps is understood as shouting, and let's all use our inside voices here, okay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. OK, then make your case
You're the one changing the topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
13. The possibilities without Caps Lock
1) The footage forms part of the ongoing criminal investigation and therefore cannot be released to the public (possible)

But unlikely. There's so much footage of Flight 175 crashing into the South Tower; what's one more?

2) The plane that they video taped from close range would reveal that it is not the same plane that we have been told it is (possible)

Actually, this option is impossible due to implausibility. Too many witnesses, too many pictures, and too many videotapes of Flight 175 crashing into the South Tower exist. It would be miraculous if this footage contradicted them all.

(There is an option not listed here that's close to this one - that the footage shows no one in the cockpit. This option would be celebrated by the remote control crowd, but since I've no need of that hypothesis, I consider it possible but implausible).

3) There was no plane and Gromling is lying. (possible)

See 2). Impossible, implausible, and insulting.

4) The video camera was facing in a different direction to the oncoming plane. (possible but unlikely)

I'd say that this was part of the reason. They were focused on the North Tower. They might not have had time to focus the camera onto Flight 175 before the crash. Why do you say that this is unlikely? Put me down for probable on this one.

5) The video camera was switched off (possible but unlikely).

I'd say this was impossible, unless they were changing a tape.

6) The footage (of the crash) is too graphic to show (possible).

Hmmm. Much footage has been held back from the public due to graphic reasons. Many closer shots of the buildings were available while they stood burning, but the networks kept the shots back out of respect to the people who were jumping and falling from the buildings. However, these closer records are on the Internet, if you go looking for them. I'd be surprised if footage that stunning hadn't leaked out somehow.

For me, the most probable explanation is that the footage recorded by Gromling's helicopter is unusable. The oncoming jet took them by surprise, since they were focused on the North Tower fires, and they weren't able to record the crash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BassettWilliams Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Is it a "tape?".
" ... unless they were changing a tape."

The cameras mounted under and alongside the NYPD helicopters I have seen are controlled by pilot joysticks and transmit to a base, they did not have tapes.

I have seen footage shot by NYPD helicopters of military aircraft flown over opening day ceremonies at sporting events, op-sail, etc; except for a second here or there it's all pretty much just a blur, as if helicopter pilots had difficultly following fast aircraft with camera.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #18
30. That makes sense. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #13
23. Yup...
BoloBoffin wrote

Too many witnesses, too many pictures, and too many videotapes of Flight 175 crashing into the South Tower exist. It would be miraculous if this footage contradicted them all.


So they all identified this incoming jet as United Airlines Flight 175 right there ..from the ground or from other highrise buildings ...at 9:03AM on September 11th ,2001.....

Bolo....like Lared you seem a trifle to keen to say that the footage may not exist...
I agree ....it may not ..I wrote as much in the original message...

But if it does then lets see it....
Even if it is a blur
Even if it is from a great distance...
How many other angles show flt 175 from above.?

There was no plane and Gromling is lying. (possible)
Impossible, implausible, and insulting.

Then perhaps you would care to explain why Gromling seems to have been mysteriosly replaced by a man called Peter Walsh who is now the official pilot along with the original co-pilot Timothy Hayes...

P.S Sorry about the earlier Caps lock...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. What is the fine for posting strawmen arguments over the limit?
Edited on Sun Mar-21-04 08:40 AM by LARED
How many other angles show flt 175 from above.?

Why do you think this is important?

Then perhaps you would care to explain why Gromling seems to have been mysteriosly replaced by a man called Peter Walsh who is now the official pilot along with the original co-pilot Timothy Hayes...

Ok, pull over son. I'm only going to issue a warning this time. You know posting strawman arguments at over the allowable limit is subject to fines. Now be careful in the future or you'll get more than a warning.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Oh dear!
Touched a raw nerve have I ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Not really
I was just having some fun. The straw man arguments are rather tiresome though. But I guess without them about 90 percent of the CT arguments would vanish.

Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you post silliness like the pilot mysteriously changed job as some sort of assertion in support for your argument? For starters people change jobs all the time, and if he did, what does it have to do with the existence or non existence of a video? What is mysterious about it? The answer to both is nothing. You posted an argument that this information is somehow pertinent to your point (whatever that is) yet provide zip in the way of material information.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Oh come on LARED

Is that the best you can throw at me???

First....
I think I should clarify a definite misunderstanding..

My apologies.....

The book:
One Nation:America Remembers September 11,2001
Published By Little,Brown
There is a photo of Gromling posing with Hayes with the aforementioned testimony on page 147.

The caption next to the photo reads...
"Donald T Gromling(42Yrs) And Timothy Hayes(34Yrs)"
"Pilots NYPD Aviation Unit".
Theirs was the first helicopter on the scene
This book was published at the end of 2001/beginning of 2002.

Now fast forward to the 1 year anniversary in September 2002 when the program:

In Memoriam To New York City 9/11/2001 was broadcast...

It was narrated by Mayor Guiliani and his team and featured a host of amateur and profesional footage of the day.....

But when it came to the NYPD footage (which showed their surveillance of the roof of the north tower) the caption at the bottom of the screen reads pilots WALSH AND HAYES....
Indeed you can see Hayes to the right of the screen...you cannot see the other pilot however........
There is a subsequent interview with Walsh(Patrick) as he discusses the attenna laden roof and the inability to land on it...
So where is Gromling.?.......
Maybe he was the crew chief (not a pilot) in the back of the helicopter.....................
That is the only feasable explanation I can think of...........
Not that it matters.......

Because it looks like another NYPD aviation unit video taped the event...

Daley, who was flying over ground zero in New York City on September 11, showed the audience a gripping video taken in the cabin of his NYPD Bell 412 during the attacks. At one point, his helicopter was about 150 feet from the hijacked Boeing 767; indeed, the commandeered commercial airliner dove to avoid Daley's helicopter.


http://www.defensedaily.com/sar2001/wrap3.htm

So lets see the video........
Im up for it ...are you guys?








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Sure I'm up for it
Do you have a copy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Well...

If you were so up for it you would be asking the FBI or the NYPD...
Not me...
Are you sure that you are not afraid to see it.....
Sigh......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Frankly
I'm interested in seeing the video, but not interested enough to pester the FBI or NYPD. If you feel up to it, knock your socks off.


Again I'll ask -- why should I be afraid of a video.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BassettWilliams Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Questions re: post #31
You're still making too many assumptions; stating theory as fact.

First things first:
How many NYPD helicopters were airborne on the morning of 911?
What pilots and crew were assigned to those helicopters?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BassettWilliams Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
29. The "catch?"
"THE CATCH IS THAT THIS UNIT VIDEO TAPED EVERYTHING AT HIGH ALTITUDE FROM SHORTLY AFTER THE IMPACT OF THE NORTH TOWER TO THE EVENTUAL COLLAPSE OF BOTH TOWERS. SO WHERE IS THE FOOTAGE OF FLIGHT UA175 PASSINGRIGHT UNDER THEIR HELICOPTER?"

The REAL "catch" to all this are your assumptions that; 1) "everything" was video taped, and 2) footage exists.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Indeed..
They are assumptions...and I am sorry if I implied otherwise..
I do have the NYPD extended footage taken from TG2(Italian News) of their arrival at the North Tower...
And I do have the NYPD footage taken from the Memorial to New York City documentary which shows the aftermath of the collapse of tower#2.
So it is just a question of what they shot inbetween...

But it is your assumption that my assumptions are incorrect...
You sound like you would be relieved if my assumptions are incorrect...

If they have not Video taped flt175....fine
If they have I would like to see it(not that I have any right to)...But I'm curious..that's all
Nothing more...nothing less...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BassettWilliams Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Again
Once again you are assuming things: "You sound like you would be relieved if my assumptions are incorrect..."

I'm simply asking you to make your case, to prove it. You have the burden of proof that "they shot inbetween..." and a pilot was "mysteriously" reassigned or relieved of duties.

So far you've only shown how easy it is to engage and irritate other forum members, but you have yet to make make your case.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #37
44. No case ..just a question....


First and foremost I was never making a case.......more an inquiry.......that is why I gave 6 possiblities in the original message......with my personal assumption/opinion of how true each of these possibilities could be.Everyone else was perfectly entitled to and eventually did state their assumptions/opinions.....

The Inquiry....
Did Gromling/Hayes video tape flt175.....?
Yes or no?

If yes ...then I for one would be curiose to see it....no matter what the quality....

If they have not video taped flt 175....then that is fine.....although I would like to know why.....as it did pass "right under our helicopter".......


As for making assumptions....so what....?
I am allowed to make assumptions as you are.....


After all you keep on telling me that I cannot prove that they filmed flt 175 which is fine ...I can't......

Yet if I turn the tables on you....

You yourself cannot prove that Gromling/Hayes or Walsh/Hayes or Walsh/Hayes/Gromling did not film flt 175..

As for Gromlings ambigouse presence...what else can I say....

Chronologically speaking
It is documented in a book(a very partisan/patriotic book at that) in the winter of 2001/2002 with a photo(of the pilots)that the Gromling and Hayes helicopter was the first on the scene.......

Then a few months later it is revealed through the footage itself that in fact the Walsh and Hayes helicopter was the first on this very same scene....so where is Gromling??

I am just going by the mainstream sources and references....
No assumptions here...just the facts...according to the official story..


I tried to help you out by saying maybe Gromling was the crew chief
who tends to reside in the back of the helicopter...and that there were 3 or more individuals in the helicopter....and that is indeed my assumption....

If you have a better thesis then post it....




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BassettWilliams Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. The NYPD
helicopters I have seen, 4 or 5 of them so far, at NYC Public Safety Day Expos and at other public events and recruitment events were two (2) man crews, and all 'copters were also equipped with TIC - Thermal Imaging Cameras that allow police to "see" heat, body heat of individuals being pursued or under surveillance for example, or even detect fires.

Does having TIC capability mean NYPD made and - or has TIC films of the 911 events?

Will a genuine search for truth allow me to assume they also used TIC on 911 and are with holding those films? No, absolutley not; so why should I, or anyone else assume they filmed the airliner that passed beneath them?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. "Tough" audience
Most of the DU audience is here because we know the Official Conspiracy Theory is Bullshift, and we want to know the truth. Key word: "most"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. Of course "The Official Conspiracy Theory" is bullshit
You made it up.

"Straw man" just don't cut it around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BassettWilliams Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. The real key words
should be: "we want to know the truth."

But the problems with that are the self-proclaimed "911 researchers" who busily promote their hollow theories while verbally assaulting anyone who disagrees. How can one find truth in this often repeated scenario?

Is there really an effort going on to know the truth - or not?

One interesting 911 thread for example began with a good link to FDNY eyewitness accounts of major damage to 7 WTC and numerous floors burning out of control. What happens? a) Respondents who believe in a controlled demolition claim that eyewitness accounts are totally unreliable; even though they themselves have used eyewitness accounts of loud bangs and explosions to support their theory that carefully placed bombs were probably installed during construction of the towers, or placed there after the first attack in the parking garage. How is anyone really seeking the truth with, to borrow a term, situational ethics; where eyewitnesses are totally unreliable in one scenario, but very reliable for another? b) In a further effort to discredit and discount the firefighters reporting, and to further support a hollow theory; photos are posted of 7 WTC declaring they are proof of minor damage and small insignificant fires. How is that effort a genuine search for the truth when the photos being posted are from very early in the morning and several hours before the fires grew in size and intensity? Anyone who questions the respondents using those situational ethics is verbally attacked.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. Eyewitnesses to "loud bangs"?
Where did you get that? Or, did you mean "earwitnesses"? Or, did you mean fireman who were in the buildings whenever they HEARD loud explosions?

You raised an interesting point about the time of day whenever certain photos were taken. It would be helpful if all photos taken that day were time-stamped. Maybe there's some other way to know the time when they were taken. I'm especially interested in the WTC7 photos, because I've yet to see one that shows anything more than two or three small fires in the building.

One of the problems you forgot to mention are the frustrations of having to contend with the pot shots from Official Story Conspiracy apologists here - on the board meant for those who are interested more in what really happened, and not just the "Wacky Caveman & Cavemen Did It" conspiracy theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BassettWilliams Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. The 7 WTC photos
repeatedly used in these threads do not show the full extent of the damage or sizes of the mulitple fires. I am certain, having myself been witness to the events, that the aforementioned photos were taken very early in the morning, long before the fires grew in size and spread.

Seeing them used time and time again to support theories and statements for minimal damage and small insignificant fires is not a genuine search for truth; and is instead a good example of twisting the facts and bending the truth to fit and "prove" whatever hollow theory happens to be popular at the time.

It is not my intention to go off the topic of this thread, but as someone who has, for several months, very carefully and very throughly followed all these threads I am very disapointed that this thread has gone the way of so many others; juvenile name calling, finger pointing, and one-ups-manship instead of honest debate with genuine facts.

I do not see any probative value to semantic arguements or comments about eyewitnesses vs earwitnesses terminologies; but I do see problems when one member accepts (insert your word preferance here)witness testimony to support his theory, but later rejects all (insert your word preferance here)witness testimony as unreliable. It's impossible to have it both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Not a forum for debates.
"honest debate with genuine facts." The only people who say that are the folks who are here to disrupt the process of trying to learn what really happened on 9-11.

What is it that YOU want to debate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BassettWilliams Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Nothing at all
I personally have no 911 issues, and I have no 911 theories to debate.

I was witness to the events in NYC at WTC on 911, but I did not and I could not see everything; so my goal, by visiting this forum and other forums that may offer insight, is to learn as much about the events of 911 as I can - to "fill in the blanks" so to speak of what I missed, and to learn as much as possible.

My efforts to learn, in all honesty, are detoured by useless links (to Roman concrete and acid rain for example), unsubstantianted theories in threads with titles such as "Thermite Used ... blah, blah, blah" or "WTC was "pulled" by Silverstein" which are nothing but pages of hollow theory, chest thumping messages and verbal attacks.

To steal another member's quote: "Where's the beef?" Where are the facts? Where, after reading a dozen concrete links is there anything relative to WTC? Ask that member; get no answer.

Where in this thread is there proof that the airliner in question was filmed, that the pilot was later 'mysteriously' reassigned, or that there are multiple man crews with a crew chief seated in back? I'm not disrupting - I'm asking. Where are the genuine facts? None, the member had "assumptions" all of which can not be substantiated - so in response he attacks LARED and others who question or ask about his theory - and then offers "unswerving" thanks to those who support him.

Now, which side of that scenario is doing the disrupting?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. No worries Abe!

Thanks for your unswerving support in this and other threads........

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
49. Whoooosh
Edited on Mon Mar-22-04 04:02 PM by DulceDecorum
If memory serves, planes that take off from busy airports in, say New York, are supposed to wait a certain amount of time because of the air turbulence generated by the preceeding plane.

I know that when I am driving on the highway, I can feel the whoosh of a tractor-trailer when it draws alongside me.

So my question is this:
How come the "whoosh" of that big Boeing jet did NOT destabilize that small helicopter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Yeah!


Well we know the helicopter was there but as for flight 175........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. United Airlines Flight 175
United Airlines Flight 175 was a morning flight that flew from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California (BOS-LAX) route. The airplane on the flight was hijacked and crashed in New York City on September 11, 2001.

On September 11, 2001, the Boeing 767-222 on the route, N612UA, was one of two planes hijacked and driven into the World Trade Center.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_flight_175

N612UA appears to be alive and well.
The N-number remains assigned to the very same exact plane that we have been told was hijacked.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=...

So I guess THAT story just went
Whhhhhooooooooooosssshhhh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. Dulce, you're beautiful!
You managed to hit on the real reason the footage from the helicopter was useless.

How come the "whoosh" of that big Boeing jet did NOT destabilize that small helicopter?

What if it actually did? Then the footage would be useless because the cameraman and all on board would have been concerned with stabilizing the helicopter and not focusing the camera on the plane and/or crash. So the most probable option is that the footage is useless at this point in the video.

Good job, Dulce!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Ta
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. Close DD
I know that when I am driving on the highway, I can feel the whoosh of a tractor-trailer when it draws alongside me.

Close. As a tractor-trailer pulls along side of you or you pass them you feel your car getting a slight push toward the trailer. This is because as the air trails off the front of the truck it creates a slightly lower pressure along it sides. Similar to a very crude airfoil. Because the car is sensing a difference in pressure from one side to the other it gets pushed toward the trailer.

You experience turbulence from the trailer if you get behind it at about 50 to 150 feet or so. If you are in the right spot your vehicle will start to vibrate a little. This is similar turbulence to the turbulence left behind a moving jet. Oftentimes this turbulence is felt for many miles behind a jet. I read in a ME magazine a number of years ago that in-flight turbulence is very often your jet hitting the wake of a jet many miles in front of you.

Bolo brings up a good point. If the helicopter was close to flight 175 it most certainly would have high-tailed it out of there the moment the pilot saw it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #54
57. Time
TWO snooze.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. I'm rather disappointed
I thought you might appreciate a little info about aerodynamics.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BassettWilliams Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #54
58. Question: filming high speed objects
but first; yes, indeed. Bolo brings up a good point. If the helicopter was close to flight 175 it most certainly would have high-tailed it out of there the moment the pilot saw it.

Here in the NYC-NJ Metropolitan area the skies are inundated with aircraft; passenger planes of all sizes, freight, blimps, and helicopters are, without exaggeration in abundance: NYPD, Coast Guard, news, traffic, corporate, Medic, PANYNJ, taxi, private and other military for example. Whenever there is a police car chase, major traffic accident, fire or other newsworthy incident one can simply look up and see how the helicopters avoid passenger plane routes and also maintain distance from one another. News commentators even mention the no fly zones and distance requirements during their coverage and sometimes apologize for not being able to get in closer or show a better angle.

In post #18 I mentioned that I have seen NYPD helicopter camera footage of military aircraft flyovers at opening day ceremonies for the baseball and football seasons, memorial day, and for numerous other events. The footage is lousy. It's clear that those military planes in these ceremonial flyovers pass the stadiums and parade routes at much slower than normal operating speeds, but the footage is bad, usually just a few seconds then a blur, another few seconds and then another blur. It is obvious they loose track of these planes and have problems following them with the camera.

I have tried to videotape car races up in Watkins Glen, and other sporting events. It's difficult to keep a race car, which is traveling much slower than a jet aircraft, in my camera. I made every effort to do so but in all honesty my footage was mostly blurred. My question is: Would NYPD be able to film the airliner in question at the speeds it was reported to be traveling?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. My guess
is any video taken by the NYPD would be of a similar or less quality than the other video's that are in the public. The video equipment in a police helicopter is designed to track stuff on the ground, not track objects at high speed.

As you aptly point out, filming (or for that matter shaping a photo) of something with clarity at a high velocity is difficult. There is no reason I can think of NYPD aircraft would have high speed taping equipment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. This message

.... is addressed to you ,LARED,TROGL and BoloBoffin...

The footage taken of flt 11 by the Frenchman Jules Naudet and the Chec Havel Plava were technically useless.....it did not stop the Media Whores from repeatedly showing those clips.......
Admittedly these are the only images of flt 11 so I guess they would have to make do....


But the footage of flt 175 .... the "darkened silluette" that was shown live by C.N.N on 9/11 itself was and still is equally useless(from a qualitative point of view)....

In fact NEARLY every angle video taped or photographed of flt 175
reveals the same "devoid of any significant detail" images...
The plane is either obscured by the towers (depending on the angle)
or by the intrinsic "zoom out at the most critical point" of the supposedly amateur camaraman brigade who just happened to be in the vicinity at the time.


So what difference is a grainy blured image(if the image exists at all) shot by evasive NYPD helicopters going to make to the already existing (poor quality) compilation....?

I would still like to see the footage shot by the NYPD at the time of 175's approach and impact even if they were facing in the opposite direction or were in a different location or did not have enough time to react......

What were Gromling/Hayes or Walsh/Hayes or Gromling/Walsh/Hayes seeing,video taping and doing when flt 175 appeared on the scene.

If they did not film it ...fine....so there is nothing to hide..right?
So why has it not been released to the public...




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. So why has it not been released to the public...
My guess

There's nothing of interest to see, so why would the media make it available.

Do you expect to see a news story that says --

"New 9/11 footage found that shows nothing. We are wasting valuable revenue generating time by showing this worthless video so seatnineB will stop manufacturing mysteries."

That seems to be your expectations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. That darn Liberal media
Edited on Tue Mar-23-04 03:10 PM by Abe Linkman
Why are you trying to imply it's the MEDIA that has decided that the footage shows nothing, and that if it did, they would make it available?

See folks, it isn't our Government that refuses to release evidence, it's that darn LIBERAL MEDIA. That's why we haven't seen the footage from the video taken at the service station near the Pentagon. Trust Lared (and your Gov't) that if there was something of interest to see in that tape, the MEDIA would make it available.

Same with footage of Atta and The Boys at the airport. And who knows what other video and other evidence exists that the MEDIA is responsible for us not being able to examine.

Yeah, that's the ticket: it's the LIBERAL MEDIA'S decision. Your Gov't isn't hiding or withholding ANY evidence of the existence of the "Wacky Caveman and Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy. (cause they didn't do it)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Abe
I am making the assumption that the NYPD released the tape to the media in my comments. I based this (perhaps incorrectly) that seatnineB assumed the tape was available to the media.

The basic issue is still there. Assuming there is nothing to see on the tape, why bother to make it public. Why is anyone creating a mystery out of nothing. As pointed out in a number of different ways by a number of people there is no reason to suspect that the NYPD has any video of flt 175 that is useful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Lared: Is THIS why you assumed the tape was avail. to the media?
"I'm interested in seeing the video, but not interested enough to pester the FBI or NYPD. If you feel up to it, knock your socks off."

That's the closest I could find any of YOUR messages speaking about who might have control of the video.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. The government doesn't control the footage
The owner does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. You need to get up to speed, sport.
The Gov't confiscated video from the service station closest to the Pentagon...just hours (or maybe minutes) after the "attack" on the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. Incredible
The footage taken of flt 11 by the Frenchman Jules Naudet and the Chec Havel Plava were technically useless.....it did not stop the Media Whores from repeatedly showing those clips.......
Admittedly these are the only images of flt 11 so I guess they would have to make do....


Translation: My argument is so weak that I can knock it down myself.

But the footage of flt 175 .... the "darkened silluette" that was shown live by C.N.N on 9/11 itself was and still is equally useless(from a qualitative point of view)....

Again, what was available on that day, seat9B? They ran the footage they had on that day.

In fact NEARLY every angle video taped or photographed of flt 175
reveals the same "devoid of any significant detail" images...
The plane is either obscured by the towers (depending on the angle)
or by the intrinsic "zoom out at the most critical point" of the supposedly amateur camaraman brigade who just happened to be in the vicinity at the time.


Devoid of any signifigant detail? What about the holy relic of the "mysterious node" on the underside of Flight 77? Doesn't this argument make that one a total hogwash?

People claim to see missiles, UFOs, holograms, and missile nodes in that picture, but now you are shoring up the "devoid of signifigant detail" side of the story?

How can you be offering this argument as honest discourse? The attack on the South Tower was the most photographed event in history. Hundred of millions observed this event as it happened and the rest of the world watched the repeated replays of every scrap of footage that the news programs could obtain.

And you are obsessed with one more piece of footage that most probably will give you no additional information?

This is a perfect example of darkweaving. Ominious hints of dark motives behind every concievable twist of the facts. This is exactly what gives conspiracy theorizing a bad name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #63
86. Ominous indeed...


No matter how hard you try, you,Lared,Trogl,BassetWilliams and anyone else with similar thoughts cannot prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that the NYPD has not got "unusable footage" of flt 175........



The "they would have shown it if it was useful" speaks volumes about your "denial" methodologies.

I have never denied that they may not have filmed flt 175.....
Believe me ...I dont have a problem with this.....
I actually agree with you guys as to the reason why they may not have footage...
Indeed it was one of my own hypothesis in the original message...


But you guys.seem to have a problem if the NYPD have.got footage.......
Hence the litany of reasons why the image could be crap....



As Abe correctly pointed out we are still waiting to see the Hotel and gas station (near the Pentagon) surveillance footage after nearly 2 and 1/2 years.

The footage that could show flt 77 in all its unadalterated glory...
The footage that could blow us "conspiracy theorists" to kingdom come......
The footage that could remind the official story believers how the silvery fuselage of an American Airline Jet peirces the fortified walls of the pentagon.....







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BassettWilliams Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. I'm glad you put usable footage in quotes
because that is exactly the problem as I see it; usable. I for example have film footage from several of my Uncle's flights over Vietnam, and films of those SAM, Surface to Air Missles fired at his aircraft are, except for a few seconds, just blurs. Same is true of the old B&W films of his Father's bombing missions over Germany during World War II; all those attacking German planes are, except for a few seconds, just blurs. I have filmed race cars at Watkins Glen Raceway and have hours of blurs encapsulating a few seconds of decent footage. I do not see how it's possible to film and get "usable footage" of aircraft at the traveling speeds suggested. It is still however your responsibility, and you bear the burden of proof, especially as the author of the original message and producer of this "theory du jour" to offer proof that NYPD did film and has film - not mine or anyone's else's to prove otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #49
67. because the whoosh only works if you're close
force falls off with the square of distance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. And the presence of the tower
has no effect whatsoever in redirecting the whoosh upwards and downwards and outwards?

Flight 587 was buffeted by two wakes of similar intensity and appeared to be flying normally before a significant force pushed the plane left, then left and right, according to preliminary readings from its flight data recorder. After that, "rudder position data became unreliable" and presumably the pilots lost control, according to NTSB director Marion Blakey.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/11/16/wake.turbulen... /

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Wake turbulence from a second plane could be the culprit that snapped the tail from an American Airlines jet as it took off from a New York airport, costing the pilots control of the aircraft and sending it on a steep dive into a Queens residential area, investigators said Thursday.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/14/new.york.crash /

Snapped the tail right off another jet.
But our helicopter jockeys are still able to talk about a Boeing airliner travelling at high speed and passing right under them.
And we haven't even started talking about the effect an explosion has on air currents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mn9driver Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. No... AA 587 was in trail, not above or off to the side.
in the classic spot for a wake encounter. The wake didn't snap the tail off, the FO's rudder inputs did. See my previous post on the subject. The NTSB has a good handle on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #71
72. So if Flight 587 had been ABOVE
the first jet when it whooshed by,
there would have been no turbulence and no problem whatsoever?

Sorry, I must have been confused by watching the swathe that is cut by speedboats.
Somehow I got the idea that turbulence traveled in 3d when it came to planes.

Good thing for that helicopter that I was wrong.
I had them going down like a bird with a broken wing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mn9driver Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #72
76. Wake vortices stream off of the wingtips
and slowly move outward and downwards at about 15 MPH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. What about the tail?
Any wake vortices there?
I am assuming that your silence on the rest of the frame indicates that the rest of the plane from the nosetip onward - with the exception of the wingtips - does not generate any turbulence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. I have a limited understanding of aerodynamics, but I think this is right:
Any airfoil has the potential to form vortices. We know from experience that the lifting surfaces of an aircraft (the wings and, to a very small degree, the horizontal stabilizer) cause measurable vortices that move outward and downward slowly and have the potential to effect another aircraft's flight. We also know that these vortices do not effect aircraft flying above.

Most of the aircraft is designed to move through the air as effeciently as possible. Lifting and control surfaces work because they deviate from this. That's why they cause turbulence...they work by altering airflow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mn9driver Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. Concur. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #79
83. Some Pics




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mn9driver Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. Clarification.
Your top pic is of a "delta wing" shape experiencing a high AOA "vortex breakdown" (a pre-stall condition). A swept wing (not a delta wing) jet at lower AOA's has much cleaner vortices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. Thanks
You are correct, the different shapes create far different patterns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #83
88. OOh, look at the pretty clouds swirl
...and they have a mass of...what?

...and a lamp standard bolted to the ground has a mass of ...what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasterKey Donating Member (85 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
73. Flight 175 right before it hit the 2nd Tower
Here is flight 175, with an extra peice of equipment, shooting out a missile right before it hits the 2nd tower;

http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/...

To see the rest, check here;

http://www.letsroll911.org

And here; http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.ph...

cheers~
phil jayhan :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #73
75. You're off topic
Don't start that nonsense again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. The Impostor plane
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 01:00 PM by DulceDecorum
is the one with the bulge.

United Airlines Flight 175 was a morning flight that flew from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California (BOS-LAX) route. The airplane on the flight was hijacked and crashed in New York City on September 11, 2001.

On September 11, 2001, the Boeing 767-222 on the route, N612UA, was one of two planes hijacked and driven into the World Trade Center.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_flight_175

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) reports that Flight 175 was diverted.
Sept. 11 United 175 N612UA BOS LAX 8:00 7:58 8:23 Diversion
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/chart.html

N612UA appears to be alive and well.
The N-number remains assigned to the very same exact plane that we have been told was hijacked.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=...

There is NO WAY to get around the fact that the BTS lists Flight 175 as having been diverted.
There is NO WAY to get around the fact that the FAA lists N612UA as having a current and valid registration.
Or the fact that several alleged hijackers have turned up ALIVE.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-09210...
These three FACTS corroborate each other and confirm that
WE HAVE BEEN LIED TO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. Be nice if there were some serial numbers
and some assurance that the NTSB is actually keeping that website up to date.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. Even if you knock out the NSTB
and I see no reason why we should,
that still leaves us with the FAA and the living hijackers.

We KNOW that the FAA is current because we just found out that Dodson Aviation REALLY DOES OWN that Zimbabwe plane that got caught with all those mercenaries on board, just like the FAA said that it did.

Furthermore,
the airports and airlines in question maintain their own records, independent of those kept by that private firm with close ties to the Pentagon which maintains its own mega-database of US flights.

And as it stands, the BTS IS keeping that website current.

NOTE: January 2004 is the most recent data and data are available since January 1995.
Summary Statistics - All and late flights (total number, average departure delay, average taxi-out and average scheduled departure) and late flights (total and percent of diverted and cancelled flights).
http://www.bts.gov/programs/oai/airline_ontime_statisti... /

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) was born as a statistical agency in 1992. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 established BTS for data collection, analysis, and reporting and to ensure the most cost-effective use of transportation-monitoring resources. BTS brings a greater degree of coordination, comparability, and quality standards to transportation data, and to fill important gaps.
<snip>
BTS' data collection programs for aviation and motor carrier information are authorized under separate legislation enacted when the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) and Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) were terminated. Both of these programs are mandatory data collections. The Wendell Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act (AIR-21) authorized funding for the airline information program from the Aviation Trust Fund, but to date no funding has been appropriated from this source.
http://www.bts.gov/about /

The information presented by the BTS is not THAT easy to discount, eh?
Now, the BTS says that Flight 175 was diverted.
What do you have to indicate that it was not?
Speak up, we are all listening......
Wotchagot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadBroke Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
74. About helicopters landing on the Trade Center roof
In January of 2002 I attended a 9-11 Q&A forum held at NYC's Robert Wagner High School on the upper eastside. Someone in the audience asked the NYPD representative why the city's helicopters didn't land on the roofs to evacuate people. He said that roofs had obstructions that made landings impossible.

BUT he also added that even if they could have landed the odds for successful rescues weren't good. Helicopters he said have weight limits, and under the best conditions they can only carry X number people; a landing would have created panic, a mad rush, which would have created scenes similar to those during the fall of Saigon where people rushed, overloaded helicopters, hung from landing gear, got caught in tail rotors and so on.

Not looking to be combative, but the remarks of the NYPD representative at that 9-11 Q&A forum I attended contradict the statement in the original message: "THEIR PASS OVER THE ROOF OF THE NORTH TOWER TO SEE IF THEY COULD LAND" so I'm curious, in which documentary did they say that they were looking to land on the north tower? I don't recall hearing that in any show I watched - I may have simply missed it.

I'm also very curious and 'thinking out loud' as to what Gromling means when he says "HE WENT RIGHT UNDER OUR HELICOPTER." "RIGHT UNDER" can mean a lot of things. Only he knows what he means by it, and only he knows what it was he was trying to describe. "RIGHT UNDER" can be open to a lot of interpretation. Example: Does he mean 100 feet under, 500 feet, 1000 feet; you get the idea.

On a personal note, I had two experiences with NYPD helicopters I'd like to tell about. As I have explained in other messages, I have been a volunteer firefighter in NJ for several years, and on two occasions; both commuter train derailments with multiple injuries, NYPD helicopters assisted NJ State Police medical helicopters (called NorthStar and SouthStar) with evacuation of critically injured. My task each time was to secure helicopter LZ (landing zone) in nearby baseball fields.

The derailment at night forced me to also provide lighting at the LZ for the helicopters and ambulance crews. I had to use my fire engine to tow my fire department's telescoping light tower trailer. Everything went well with the all the landings, loadings and departures; but a few nights later when all the agencies met to critique and discuss the operation we found out that one pilot, a Lieutenant from NYPD had complained to his superiors that I set my LZ lights up "RIGHT UNDER HIM." No one present at the meeting had any clues as to what he was complaining about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep 19th 2019, 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC