Even if it was possible for Boeing 757s and 767s to fly that fast at sea level in 2001, it still would've been incredibly risky, especially if they were either flown erratically or exposed to unpleasant weather conditions (for the 9/11 planes, it was apparently the former). There's a reason why they're assigned speed limits, after all.
More importantly, a competent hijacker pilot would've factored in the risks to reduce the likelihood of the attack failing. Yet, they expect us to believe Osama Bin Laden - a millionaire whose IQ was considered above average - didn't bother to invest his money on better pilots to do his dirty work, instead relying on 19 or so hijackers whose lead pilots reportedly could barely fly Cessnas, much less passenger jets, without realizing how foolish that decision was. And they wonder why some people don't believe the official story?
Yes the 'planes' were the necessary trigger, but why use actual real planes? Way too difficult and risky, even if remote-control is possible (which I highly doubt). Much easier just to blast a hole in the side of the building that kinda looks like a plane impact and release some dodgy videos featuring surreal-looking planes and impossible physics. The dumb sheeple will never spot the difference!
Well, the documentary and the podcast is a short cut to the 23 year history of disinformation peddled by the 9/11 "truth" movement, that was infiltrated by cointelpro agents in 2005 - Now you have truth-traitors like Richard Gage, architects for an engineered truth and the "international center for 9/11 justice", suppression - still leading people astray....
Read: 9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
In a specific video that has been taken down shows the flight path over a thousand feet to the right of the tower.
When you zoomed in on the video you can clearly see in the distance an object flying away considering to be a drone.
In the past the military would use a plane for projecting the holographic images.
Now they use drones that are silent, the reason why the aircraft’s wings disappeared is because of the positioning of the plane at the time of allegedly impacting the building.
Also just before the nose makes contact with the building you can see an explosion.
So I would like to know how that is even possible ?
I know the answer but this would be a question I would like to hear from all of these professionals that seem to have all the answers.
In order for a 767 to reach speeds over 500 mph it would need 6X the amount of thrust.
AA 767 using PWs were not designed for low altitude flying the turbines cannot exhaust the amount of air being taken in and would cause it to basically suffocate.
Just like when you pour a glass of water and when the glass is full and you keep pouring it over flows because it can’t consume any more.
I hope this makes sense to you, my way of describing information sometimes at best wouldn’t make grade level 😆
The fact is there were no real planes used to smash into the twin towers or fly into the Pentagon and I don’t even want to mention the crash in Pennsylvania because there was a plane crash in that spot but it was many years before 9/11
Whether you agree or disagree with me I respect your opinion the same either way.
I remember my neighbor yelling for me to come in and watch what’s happening on the news, as I watched and saw a plane hitting the tower he looked at me and said can you believe that.
Without any hesitation I blurted out no I honestly don’t believe this because it looks fake to me that’s not real.
He politely disagreed with me and I’m sure he held back because I was working on his R/V and he didn’t want to start an argument with me 😆
Like I said agree or disagree is fine with me we’re good either way. 👍
"... the crash in Pennsylvania because there was a plane crash in that spot but it was many years before 9/11 ..."
I know you don't wanna' get started with Shanksville, but what makes you think there was an actual plane crash there prior to 9/11 and not another simulated crash like all the others? What was the plane that crashed there, if any, since it could not have been Flight 93 if this happened before the attacks?
I was asking you how you came to your conclusion that there was a real plane crash in Shanksville that preceded 9/11. What evidence have you seen that confirms it?
I had seen something about it being brought up that they used a previous plane crash in that area ?
Whether it’s true or not I can’t be 100% but I do remember seeing on the news about a plane crash but I really didn’t pay much attention to it and it was a long time ago.
As far as 9/11 there definitely was not a plane crash in Pensilvania, planes can’t burrow a hole in the ground so deep that it fills itself in.
A plane hitting the ground would fold up like an accordion.
Besides they said it went down tail first and there was plane debris miles away. 🙄
"A plane hitting the ground would fold up like an accordion."
Which is funny because they also claim that United 93 folded like an accordion while burrowing itself into the ground, which presumably is meant to explain why the Shanksville plane crater looked shallow.
"Besides they said it went down tail first ..."
I've always assumed the official story is the plane crashed into the ground head first. Where did you get the idea that it crashed tail first instead?
I know what you mean, I simply inform them that have spent years on this subject giving both sides the equal benefit of doubt with a pinch of common sense came to a conclusion and if you still want to disagree then allow me to ask you some questions and provide me with credible answers.
I’ve argued with hundreds of people on this subject have had my account suspended more times than you can shake a stick at.
The last time I was suspended for 24 hours just by simply saying something as petty as this.
Just find one pilot male or female on the planet who can replicate what these alleged hijacker’s allegedly did.
I’ve debated so many people who thought I was crazy but not one of them could give me an answer to my questions.
I had a discussion with a pilot and here is what he had to say:
Pilot: "Retired airline captain, 33.5 years in aviation, Icelandic"
9/11 revisionist asking questions:
Airline Captain 😳😳😳
Do I have some questions for you 😊
1. Can a plane fly at between 494 and 586 mph at 1 368 feet?
2. Can a plane doing about the same speed in question 1 and come down horizontally with the ground and slice through 5 lampposts without disintegrating or changing course?
3. Can a plane basically disappear into the ground where EVERYTHING just disintegrates in such a manner that not a chair, shoe, any luggage, or any trace of the plane can be found?
Pilot: 9/11 revisionist asked: I try to give my opinion:
1. between 494-586 mph? Aircraft FAA approved manual of the planes I have worked on has speed limits in form of Indicated airspeed at these altitudes:
757: 350 KIAS (knots indicated speed) is 402 mph.
767: 360 KIAS is 414 mph.
These speeds are maximum - unless the system has been tampered with, above these speeds you will have an aural warning very loud all the time.
It is a real distraction even for a seasoned pilot.
To answer, I think these speeds would be much above the speed when something breaks (although Jet airplanes have a built-in margin for overspeed).
2. Difficult…, let’s say aircraft weight 100 tons, I would believe that 5 lampposts collision would not alter the airplanes course (impact force) however could there be a disaster following due to damages.
3. No
4. An airplane on these speeds, banking to change course, the G-forces would, in my opinion have the airplane break up.
9/11 revisionist:
Now, the examples I was giving was the official narrative about 9/11 - and those planes on 9/11 were making insane banking manoeuvres both "planes" "hitting the towers" and if you look at the banking the "plane" that hit the Pentagon apparently sliced through the lamppost and number 3 was the "plane" that crashed at Shanksville.
Do you think an aluminium could slice through those massive steel beams?
What is your opinion on the 9/11 narrative?
Pilot:
1. you can bank an airplane and continue to bank, as if going to Roll the airplane. I believe you cannot bank the plane to make a course change unless to overstress it at these speeds.
2. insane banking manoeuvres at these speeds - NO - Breaking
3. I mean No - it would be breaking.
9/11 revisionist: Regarding the official story of the “plane” hitting the Pentagon picture:
- No sliced off pieces of the plane found.
Pilot:
- Keep in mind I have only years of experience and a simulation to these extremities would only be a calculation.
- I think cannot be simulated as of now, as just a years ago, simulators were not having enough data to be able to do simulation, e.g., full stall (before always emphasised on avoiding full stalls.
- Full stalls must be practised, whether a light plane or a jet.
9/11 revisionist: Referring to the pictures of a plain hitting a massive concrete block at over 500mp/h
- And this is what we are supposed to believe?
- An aluminium plane slicing through solid steel beams leaving a hole like the roadrunner cartoons....
Pilot: I think i am of an opinion that is like yours
9/11 revisionist:
- I really like you.
- now we just need to get into WHAT happened to the 8 buildings at the world trade centre complex.
HOW DARE YOU ASK THE EXPERTS - We must listen to the disinformation peddlers in the 9/11 "truth" movement.
The PSYOP Cointelpro agents, trying to sell remote controlled planes to over trusting truth seekers.
Why the remote takeover of planes on 9/11 is IMPOSSIBLE
Avionics technician exposes the impossibilities of remotely taking-over a commercial aircraft way back in 2007
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/why-the-remote-takeover-of-planes
Even if it was possible for Boeing 757s and 767s to fly that fast at sea level in 2001, it still would've been incredibly risky, especially if they were either flown erratically or exposed to unpleasant weather conditions (for the 9/11 planes, it was apparently the former). There's a reason why they're assigned speed limits, after all.
More importantly, a competent hijacker pilot would've factored in the risks to reduce the likelihood of the attack failing. Yet, they expect us to believe Osama Bin Laden - a millionaire whose IQ was considered above average - didn't bother to invest his money on better pilots to do his dirty work, instead relying on 19 or so hijackers whose lead pilots reportedly could barely fly Cessnas, much less passenger jets, without realizing how foolish that decision was. And they wonder why some people don't believe the official story?
Nice article. I wonder if you have a link to the quote included in your post? I'd be more than grateful if you do.
Yes the 'planes' were the necessary trigger, but why use actual real planes? Way too difficult and risky, even if remote-control is possible (which I highly doubt). Much easier just to blast a hole in the side of the building that kinda looks like a plane impact and release some dodgy videos featuring surreal-looking planes and impossible physics. The dumb sheeple will never spot the difference!
You need to get up to speed with the plane propaganda and also watch the documentary...
Watch: 9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality
Rumble Link: https://rumble.com/v42pr22-911-alchemy-facing-reality.html
YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/CrzNeZUp0tU
9/11 Truth Movement Planes Propaganda - Podcast - 7th March 2025
Getting The 9/11 Truther Plane Propaganda In Focus
Podcast: https://911revision.substack.com/p/when-the-911-truther-plane-narratives
Well, the documentary and the podcast is a short cut to the 23 year history of disinformation peddled by the 9/11 "truth" movement, that was infiltrated by cointelpro agents in 2005 - Now you have truth-traitors like Richard Gage, architects for an engineered truth and the "international center for 9/11 justice", suppression - still leading people astray....
Read: 9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
Read Dr Wood’s book: Where did the towers go? https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/product/where-did-the-towers-go-by-dr-judy-wood/
Andrew Johnson's two FREE E-Books on 9/11:
1. 9/11 Finding the Truth - http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/pdf/9-11%20-%20Finding%20the%20Truth.pdf
2. 9/11 Holding the Truth - http://checktheevidencecom.ipage.com/checktheevidence.com/pdf/911%20Holding%20The%20Truth%20-Andrew%20Johnson%20-%202017.pdf
Holographic imagery has been used before 9/11
In a specific video that has been taken down shows the flight path over a thousand feet to the right of the tower.
When you zoomed in on the video you can clearly see in the distance an object flying away considering to be a drone.
In the past the military would use a plane for projecting the holographic images.
Now they use drones that are silent, the reason why the aircraft’s wings disappeared is because of the positioning of the plane at the time of allegedly impacting the building.
Also just before the nose makes contact with the building you can see an explosion.
So I would like to know how that is even possible ?
I know the answer but this would be a question I would like to hear from all of these professionals that seem to have all the answers.
In order for a 767 to reach speeds over 500 mph it would need 6X the amount of thrust.
AA 767 using PWs were not designed for low altitude flying the turbines cannot exhaust the amount of air being taken in and would cause it to basically suffocate.
Just like when you pour a glass of water and when the glass is full and you keep pouring it over flows because it can’t consume any more.
I hope this makes sense to you, my way of describing information sometimes at best wouldn’t make grade level 😆
The fact is there were no real planes used to smash into the twin towers or fly into the Pentagon and I don’t even want to mention the crash in Pennsylvania because there was a plane crash in that spot but it was many years before 9/11
Whether you agree or disagree with me I respect your opinion the same either way.
I remember my neighbor yelling for me to come in and watch what’s happening on the news, as I watched and saw a plane hitting the tower he looked at me and said can you believe that.
Without any hesitation I blurted out no I honestly don’t believe this because it looks fake to me that’s not real.
He politely disagreed with me and I’m sure he held back because I was working on his R/V and he didn’t want to start an argument with me 😆
Like I said agree or disagree is fine with me we’re good either way. 👍
"... the crash in Pennsylvania because there was a plane crash in that spot but it was many years before 9/11 ..."
I know you don't wanna' get started with Shanksville, but what makes you think there was an actual plane crash there prior to 9/11 and not another simulated crash like all the others? What was the plane that crashed there, if any, since it could not have been Flight 93 if this happened before the attacks?
I’m a little confused about your statement care to elaborate
I was asking you how you came to your conclusion that there was a real plane crash in Shanksville that preceded 9/11. What evidence have you seen that confirms it?
It was about 10 years prior to 9/11
I had seen something about it being brought up that they used a previous plane crash in that area ?
Whether it’s true or not I can’t be 100% but I do remember seeing on the news about a plane crash but I really didn’t pay much attention to it and it was a long time ago.
As far as 9/11 there definitely was not a plane crash in Pensilvania, planes can’t burrow a hole in the ground so deep that it fills itself in.
A plane hitting the ground would fold up like an accordion.
Besides they said it went down tail first and there was plane debris miles away. 🙄
"A plane hitting the ground would fold up like an accordion."
Which is funny because they also claim that United 93 folded like an accordion while burrowing itself into the ground, which presumably is meant to explain why the Shanksville plane crater looked shallow.
"Besides they said it went down tail first ..."
I've always assumed the official story is the plane crashed into the ground head first. Where did you get the idea that it crashed tail first instead?
I know what you mean, I simply inform them that have spent years on this subject giving both sides the equal benefit of doubt with a pinch of common sense came to a conclusion and if you still want to disagree then allow me to ask you some questions and provide me with credible answers.
I’ve argued with hundreds of people on this subject have had my account suspended more times than you can shake a stick at.
The last time I was suspended for 24 hours just by simply saying something as petty as this.
Just find one pilot male or female on the planet who can replicate what these alleged hijacker’s allegedly did.
I’ve debated so many people who thought I was crazy but not one of them could give me an answer to my questions.
One of these days I’m going to have that memorized 😆
I’m using an outdated iPhone 8 😆👍
My discussion with a commercial jetliner pilot...
O, and MANY other pilots have also spoken up to the impossibility of the manoeuvres on the day. You should watch the podcast.....
9/11 Truth Movement Planes Propaganda - Podcast - 7th March 2025
Getting The 9/11 Truther Plane Propaganda In Focus
Podcast: https://911revision.substack.com/p/when-the-911-truther-plane-narratives
I had a discussion with a pilot and here is what he had to say:
Pilot: "Retired airline captain, 33.5 years in aviation, Icelandic"
9/11 revisionist asking questions:
Airline Captain 😳😳😳
Do I have some questions for you 😊
1. Can a plane fly at between 494 and 586 mph at 1 368 feet?
2. Can a plane doing about the same speed in question 1 and come down horizontally with the ground and slice through 5 lampposts without disintegrating or changing course?
3. Can a plane basically disappear into the ground where EVERYTHING just disintegrates in such a manner that not a chair, shoe, any luggage, or any trace of the plane can be found?
4. The link below – American Airlines flight 587 from 12 November 2001 – Is the assumptions in this video correct or false? - https://rumble.com/v4h4c7h-november-12-2001-the-crash-of-aa-flight-587-in-nyc.html
Pilot: 9/11 revisionist asked: I try to give my opinion:
1. between 494-586 mph? Aircraft FAA approved manual of the planes I have worked on has speed limits in form of Indicated airspeed at these altitudes:
757: 350 KIAS (knots indicated speed) is 402 mph.
767: 360 KIAS is 414 mph.
These speeds are maximum - unless the system has been tampered with, above these speeds you will have an aural warning very loud all the time.
It is a real distraction even for a seasoned pilot.
To answer, I think these speeds would be much above the speed when something breaks (although Jet airplanes have a built-in margin for overspeed).
2. Difficult…, let’s say aircraft weight 100 tons, I would believe that 5 lampposts collision would not alter the airplanes course (impact force) however could there be a disaster following due to damages.
3. No
4. An airplane on these speeds, banking to change course, the G-forces would, in my opinion have the airplane break up.
9/11 revisionist:
Now, the examples I was giving was the official narrative about 9/11 - and those planes on 9/11 were making insane banking manoeuvres both "planes" "hitting the towers" and if you look at the banking the "plane" that hit the Pentagon apparently sliced through the lamppost and number 3 was the "plane" that crashed at Shanksville.
Do you think an aluminium could slice through those massive steel beams?
What is your opinion on the 9/11 narrative?
Pilot:
1. you can bank an airplane and continue to bank, as if going to Roll the airplane. I believe you cannot bank the plane to make a course change unless to overstress it at these speeds.
2. insane banking manoeuvres at these speeds - NO - Breaking
3. I mean No - it would be breaking.
9/11 revisionist: Regarding the official story of the “plane” hitting the Pentagon picture:
- No sliced off pieces of the plane found.
Pilot:
- Keep in mind I have only years of experience and a simulation to these extremities would only be a calculation.
- I think cannot be simulated as of now, as just a years ago, simulators were not having enough data to be able to do simulation, e.g., full stall (before always emphasised on avoiding full stalls.
- Full stalls must be practised, whether a light plane or a jet.
9/11 revisionist: Referring to the pictures of a plain hitting a massive concrete block at over 500mp/h
- And this is what we are supposed to believe?
- An aluminium plane slicing through solid steel beams leaving a hole like the roadrunner cartoons....
Pilot: I think i am of an opinion that is like yours
9/11 revisionist:
- I really like you.
- now we just need to get into WHAT happened to the 8 buildings at the world trade centre complex.
- And that is going to warp your brain 😂😂🙈
Pilot:
- This is just the tip of the iceberg 😊