The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

[skyeagle409]

I looked at the BTS database. Quite long taxi out times appear to be routine in Newark that day. However, while this may be only another coincidence, we can't completely rule out the possibility the United 93 was simply "waiting" for United 175 coming from Boston to make a rendezvous in the skies.

There are always delays in air travel, but what I want to know is why rendezvous airliners in Class A airpace? Don't you think that would be enough set off alarm bells within the air traffic control system? That is not like bringing VFR aircraft together in uncontrolled airspace.

Edited October 17, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Skyeagle do the passenger lists in regards to jobs and occupations of passengers seem completely in line and reasonable as a standard, completely average joe-american group? Not too many VIP's/CEO's of Military Industrial Companies, not too many Actors, Not too many CEO's/Creators of famous sitcoms, not too many people who had relatives in severe legal troubles? None I bet, how weird would it be if they were packed onto the flights?! =/

The list is reasonable considering that people with lots of money tend to travel in privately-owned aircraft.

I notice he's completely disappeared since: "But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05,

this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center"...

If you disable the transponder the ground controllers will lost information on your aircraft, however, that does not mean the controllers cannot track your aircraft, but there are those who seem to think so. There are ways controllers can continue to track an aircraft with a disabled transponder so I never considered that to be an issue.

.

Edited October 17, 2011 by skyeagle409

[ValkyrieWings]

And for those wondering if I were IFR when departing on an IFR Flight plan, assigned an IFR altitude in my IFR Clearance prior to departure as my initial altitude of 10,000 feet, well of course, I was IFR. Duh.... lol

*SNIP* Edited October 17, 2011 by Lilly
removed inflammatory remark

[skyeagle409]

I'll try to address the rest of your post and answer your questions when I have more time later, but I don't think that the "evidence" of a "rendezvous" is as uncommon as you seem to think. These planes were miles apart weren't they? Air traffic commonly follows the same tracks. Consider this as an example.

How many common flight tracks do you see in this 24 hour sampling of traffic over North America? Thousands?

There are thousands of flights each day and that is mind-boggling and why being an air controller's job is not for everyone. In addtion, they must deal with pilots who deviate from their altitude and heading assignments, etc, and fail to respond to instructions in a timely manner in congested airspace during rush hour.

Frankly, I was impressed how quickly they were able to get as many aircraft on the ground after the attacks..

Edited October 17, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

[

And for those wondering if I were IFR when departing on an IFR Flight plan, assigned an IFR altitude in my IFR Clearance prior to departure as my initial altitude of 10,000 feet, well of course, I was IFR. Duh.... lol

I figured you were IFR, otherwise, you would have been putting a lot of people at risk if VFR.

*SNIP*

Edited October 17, 2011 by Lilly
removed quote and response

[skyeagle409]

Review that video and again and point out the problems with that video.

Edited October 17, 2011 by skyeagle409

[ValkyrieWings]

I figured you were IFR, otherwise, you would have been putting a lot of people at risk if VFR.

lol.... I show you an example of an aircraft with nearly 10,000 fpm climb rate performance, tell you that I was assigned 10,000 feet as my initial altitude prior to departure, and you had to "wonder" if I were IFR?

This is another indication you are either not a pilot, or a very poor pilot.

A real pilot would notice I was assigned 10k and would immediately recognize you cannot be assigned 10k if you are not IFR.

But, as usual, you focus on the mundane in order to confuse the reader, and fail to address the point I was trying to make. And that is, I was level at 10,000 while ATC thought I was climbing through 21,000. It went right over your head (no pun intended), as expected.

"skyeagle", do you know why ATC thought I was climbing through FL210 when I was level at 10,000?

Once you understand this simple concept, then you will understand how easy it is to 'spoof' a controller and how easy it could be done to swap planes on 9/11, even in highly controlled airspace. Hence one of the reasons I posted the Airspace video above.

But I don't expect you will ever understand as in my relatively short experience with you, you have been unable to calculate EAS, unable to determine a TAS from a groundspeed with known winds and course, and unable to recognize when a pilot departs IFR. There are many more examples, but those are just off the top of my head.

You will have to ask Santa yourself, however, when the time comes you can ttrack Santa, thanks to NORAD.

[skyeagle409]

[

Review the aircraft in the photo and information provided on that aircraft and provide us with information as to where the aircraft is located today. The registration number is provided. If the aircraft is out of service, explain why.

American 77

My link

Edited October 17, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

lol.... I show you an example of an aircraft with nearly 10,000 fpm climb rate performance, tell you that I was assigned 10,000 feet as my initial altitude prior to departure, and you had to "wonder" if I were IFR?

Were you holding that altitude VFR? If so, then there is a problem in the FAA regulations.I think that your aircraft was the product of MS 2004 or Flight Sim X, and nothing to do with the real world of aviation..

The fact when you pulled in windspeed and direction in addition to groundspeed and asked me about airspeed, then that is where you blew it so I decided to have some fun and add something along the lines of multiplication and division and still, you couldn't figure it out. In other words, you do not have much experience if any, in the sky as a pilot.

Edited October 17, 2011 by skyeagle409

[ValkyrieWings]

"skyeagle",

Do you know how to calculate EAS?

If an aircraft is traveling at 510 knots near sea level, what is the airspeed at 40,000 feet in which would have the same effects on an airframe?

Here is a hint...

Click here -

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx#EquivalentAirspeed

Put 40000 feet in the Pressure altitude window.

Put -40C in the Celsius window.

Put 510 knots in the EAS window.

Click Eval on the TAS window.

What does it say skyeagle?

That's right grasshopper, 510 knots at sea level is nearly Mach 2 at 40,000 feet.

Now why would anyone want to modify a 767 to increase it's performance to nearly that of a F-15?

Why would the govt spend billions on building bombs only to destroy them in an explosion?

I'll let that one bake your noodle for a bit, but I'm sure most others will get it pretty quick.

Here's another hint which flew right over your head.

Click

Edit: Typo

Edited October 17, 2011 by ValkyrieWings

[skyeagle409]

"skyeagle",

Do you know how to calculate EAS?

Test time is over! You have shown to me that you are short on actural flying experience, if any, AND there were intact airliners that struck the WTC buildings and the Pentagon and you have offered no real challenge to the contrary.

Edited October 17, 2011 by skyeagle409

[ValkyrieWings]

Were you holding that altitude VFR?

I know you have a problem with retention "skyeagle", so here, let me bold it for you this time and underline the operative words.

And for those wondering if I were IFR when departing on an IFR Flight plan, assigned an IFR altitude in my IFR Clearance prior to departure as my initial altitude of 10,000 feet, well of course, I was IFR. Duh.... lol

Take your time... read slowly... you'll get it eventually.

If you like, I can increase the size of the font the next time?

[skyeagle409]

I know you have a problem with retention "skyeagle", so here, let me bold it for you this time and underline the operative words.

And for those wondering if I were IFR when departing on an IFR Flight plan, assigned an IFR altitude in my IFR Clearance prior to departure as my initial altitude of 10,000 feet, well of course, I was IFR. Duh.... lol

Take your time... read slowly... you'll get it eventually.

If you like, I can increase the size of the font the next time?

Well, what did I say if you were VFR at 10,000 feet? If VFR and within the guidelines, you would have known what altitude you had to be to have been to be within those guidelines, which depends upon your heading as well.

That means that you could ONLY have been IFR if those guidelines were followed, but then again, you could have flown that altitude VFR using your MS 2004 aeroplano and still be safe..

Edited October 17, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

Who woulld have filed a flight plan for a drone?

What of the war games supposedly being performed on 9/11? They had planes in the air.

You seem to have glossed over Valkryries main point (not that I'm surprised).

"skyeagle", do you know why ATC thought I was climbing through FL210 when I was level at 10,000?

*insert generic skyeagle response without actually answering anything*

[skyeagle409]

What of the war games supposedly being performed on 9/11? They had planes in the air.

You would throw in a NOTAM. Was there a NOTAM issued for such an exercise that day?

[Lilly]

Do not allow this discussion to degenerate into swapping insults. Stick to the discussion at hand.

[Wandering]

You would throw in a NOTAM. Was there a NOTAM issued for such an exercise that day?

Again, you answer a question with a question...So you're not really answering are you. Was their War Games being performed on 9/11? Yes or No?

[bubs49]

Again, you answer a question with a question...

Don't expect a single answer from him. His tactic is diverting and sidetraking the discussion from the real focus.

Filtering all the clutter, we have two facts here:

1. Fact 1. BTS database provides inconsistent takeoff times both for United 175 and United 93. His answer? None.
   
2. Fact 2. We have a strange "rendezvous" in the skies at 08:46 involving United 175, United 93 and a third unidentified target, all this virtually at the same time when American 11 hits the North Tower and United 175 changes its squawk code twice. His explanation? None.
   

Aliens, UFO, Elvis, a lot of speculation about drones that can't be flown in a controlled airspace or, if any, did not originate from Stewart AFB either, B-767 that can't be modified by the most powerful government in the world, passengers recovery, victims, everything.

But not a single explanation about the facts and the questions raised in this thread. Faced with facts and evidence, he reacts with a personal view of the real world (and he calls it evidence, of course).

[Wandering]

Don't expect a single answer from him. His tactic is diverting and sidetraking the discussion from the real focus.

Filtering all the clutter, we have two facts here:

Fact 1. BTS database provides inconsistent takeoff times both for United 175 and United 93. His answer? None.

Fact 2. We have a strange "rendezvous" in the skies at 08:46 involving United 175, United 93 and a third unidentified target, all this virtually at the same time when American 11 hits the North Tower and United 175 changes its squawk code twice. His explanation? None.

Aliens, UFO, Elvis, a lot of speculation about drones that can't be flown in a controlled airspace or, if any, did not originate from Stewart AFB either, B-767 that can't be modified by the most powerful government in the world, passengers recovery, victims, everything.

But not a single explanation about the facts and the questions raised in this thread. Faced with facts and evidence, he reacts with a personal view of the real world (and he calls it evidence, of course).

[booNyzarC]

--

BoonY, you ask questions and people have answered them here, why not acknowledge you were incorrect, or had at least assumed incorrectly instead of just ignoring it? I'll be honest, I completely expect it from skyeagle but I would hope some people on here are above acting the way he does.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly what I had incorrect.

[Wandering]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly what I had incorrect.

I have already made a post about it BoonY, your 'apples and oranges' reply does not take away from the fact you repeatedly said there was no break in the radar data (may I add you got that information through skyeagle as far as I'm aware), when there in fact was.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Wandering

[booNyzarC]

I have already made a post about it BoonY, your 'apples and oranges' reply does not take away from the fact you repeatedly said there was no break in the radar data (may I add you got that information through skyeagle as far as I'm aware), when there in fact was.

If you had actually read the related posts you'd realize that my information didn't come from skyeagle and that so far the information I've provided hasn't been refuted by anyone.

First of all, the data I was discussing with bubs was related to Flight 175. I was discussing that flight because... he was discussing that flight. (Apples)

Secondly, the post you quoted as somehow invalidating the information I had provided was related to Flight 77. (Oranges)

But by all means, please share with me how the information about Flight 175 was incorrect.

[Wandering]

So I did.

facepalm

I should have quoted

Minutes later, United 175 turned southwest without clearance from air traffic control. At 8:47, seconds after the impact of American 11, United 175's transponder code changed, and then changed again. These changes were not noticed for several minutes, however, because the same New York Center controller was assigned to both American 11 and United 175. At 8:51, the controller noticed the transponder change from United 175 and tried to contact the aircraft. There was no response. Beginning at 8:52, the controller made repeated attempts to reach the crew of United 175. Still no response. The controller checked his radio equipment and contacted another controller at 8:53, saying that "we may have a hijack" and that he could not find the aircraft.

So there is a gap in communications & in people watching the radar.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Wandering

[booNyzarC]

So I did.

facepalm

No worries, we are all human.

[bubs49]

If you had actually read the related posts you'd realize that my information didn't come from skyeagle and that so far the information I've provided hasn't been refuted by anyone.

[...]

But by all means, please share with me how the information about Flight 175 was incorrect.

If you are referring to the United 175's radar continuity we were debating about two days ago, you're not incorrect. Nobody denies that information.

Problem is: radar continuity itself might only be apparent. It does not prove alone that the aircraft squawking code 1470 was actually the same aircraft squawking code 3020, and then 3321 seconds later. As shown in the footage, another target literally overlaps on the track of the original United 175. As a result, code 3321 might come from the new radar target which then heads to WTC2 after a south turn.

There is an overlapping. You can't deny this. Therefore your information is not necessarily incorrect, it just doesn't prove that the plane that hit the South Tower was actually United 175 after that "rendezvous". The perfect synchronization with the first impact against the North Tower, the double squawk change and the presence of United 93 are strong suspects that a swap occurred and United 175 actually deviated West (Cleveland), while the third target headed to New York.

Edited October 18, 2011 by bubs49