It’s still the taboo topic. You can talk about anything else….just about anything… but not 9/11. Daily Kos dumps you if you post any of the evidence that has been undearthed. None of the progressive sites covered the international 9/11 Truth Conference in Chicago last week.
So, let’s pretend it isn’t happening…and that there are no vital questions to be answered.
This blog raises a new question. Think about it:
Flying a Plane Into the World Trade Center? Why Not Fly Out of LaGuardia?
Here is a new, and so far unasked question about the badly debunked official explanation of the events of September 11th 2001. If you spend years planning a spectacular attack the World Trade Center in New York City, and you are a less than adequate pilot, and you wanted to ensure the attack would be completed without giving the U.S. air defense apparatus the chance to follow their normal procedures and intercept your plane, why would you choose to fly out of Boston? Why would you choose to risk getting lost or stopped as you try to fly 190 miles to your target when you can hijack a plane from one of three airports within sight of the target?
There are three airports that would enable a pilot or a hijacker to have visual contact with the World Trade Center within a minute or two of takeoff. With all the planning these so called hijackers must have made, how stupid would they have to have been to travel to Boston in order to attack NY? We have been told that the so-called hijackers were barely able to pilot even simple two seater aircraft, but we are supposed to believe that they felt confident enough to navigate to NY from Boston without the help of ground control. Are we to believe that i they would not have flown out an airport from which they had constant visual contact with their target? Also keep in mind that planes taking off from these NY area airports would have more fuel remaining in their tanks when they made contact. They would not have to burn off 45 minutes worth of destructive explosive fuel….
Here is why they had to fly out of Boston:
Full blog:
I can see where they are coming from but has anybody suggesting this actually been on a plane? There is a minor procedure called “take off” in which the aircraft leaves the ground and climbs to a cruising height. At a minimum this would be 10,0000 feet and it takes some time to reach. To clear the surrounding residences, this can be fairly steep but once out of the immediate area this climb can be eased off. Still you are looking at maybe five or 10 minutes before the initial steep climb is eased off so the accelleration forces become reasonable.
Now during that climb, the accelleration forces and the angle of the climb make it difficult to move round the cabin. Certainly this is not the best time to stage a hijack. Thus even if you did take a plane from one of the New York area airports, you would still be a considerable distance from Manhatten before you could be in control of its cockpit. There is no guarantee either that you would be flying towards Manhatten. The direction would depend on the prevailing winds etc that day.
Remember also that the take-overs were to take place at around the same moment to avoid other planes being alerted. You need a number of planes to be in the air at the same time. This is most practically achieved by hijacking a number of planes from different airports .
For most of their journey, commercial planes are not navigated by the pilots. That is done by dialling in a number of way-points into the autopilot. The hijackers would have trained to re-program these which I understand is a very simple procedure. Once they were in the area, it was a simple matter of heading for the towers.
Also remember that the two towers were very shoddily built compared to modern standards. To save weight to build high there was not the central core for the services like the lifts that were employed in shorter or newer buildings. The walls between the core and the offices were plasterboard which blew out easily. Nobody foresaw that the particular construction where the floors were suspended between and internal core frame and the outer wall girders would actually be so fragile. The aircraft which hit the Empire State, although smaller, caused very little permanant damage. Without knowledge of this vulnerability which was only realised after the event, the best option for the hijackers would surely have been to try to hit as far down the buildings as possible to try to topple them. Instead they hit relatively high up.
Now you make the case that a nearer airport would mean the tanks would be fuller. Yes but this perversely would mean the explosive force would be less. Jet fuel is relatively non-flammable. The most explosive conditions are when the tanks are partially empty so a fuel vapour/air mix has developed over the remaining liquid. Full fuel tanks would burst spilling the liquid which might then catch fire. (The probablility depends on the exact type of fuel as some have fire retardants built in)
that’s an excellent explanation.
We might remember that one plane did take off from Newark (Flight 93) and that it didn’t turn around until Ohio.
I really don’t like bad conspiracy theory. The effect is to make real questions seem crazy. Like why a basic Lexis people finder search for the hijackers reveals that several of those people had FAA licences as pilots or mechanics but are portrayed as muscle, and that property searches reveal that several of them came here earlier than the Commission says.