911 Pentagon Video Footage

[Babe Ruth]

MID

Thanks for the straight answer--gear down. Perhaps a few members of the *Snip* Squadron have never seen 3-view drawings of different aircraft. Some of those drawings are with the gear up, some of those are with the gear down.

In this case, since the gear was up as Hani scooted across the Pentagon front yard at near redline, the number 45 would be changed by whatever value the landing gear adds to that 45 number. A minor adjustment, for sure.

Did another member of the Squadron defer an answer to the Bob & Weave observation question, or did I just miss it?

Edited August 5, 2012 by Karlis
Deleted denigrating adjective.

[skyeagle409]

It seems to me that if you were all the expert you think you are, and with 2 known values in the formula, you or one of the other believers would provide the thread with an overlay of a 757 profile against the backdrop of the building. We know the distance of the camera to the building, and we know the dimensions of a 757. It would seems some brilliant scientist could generate a diagram of the relative size of the airplane against the building, but maybe I expect too much?

Checking out the figures, the vertical stabilzer is consistent with that of a B-757.

[skyeagle409]

MID

Thanks for the straight answer--gear down. Perhaps a few members of the Geriatric Squadron have never seen 3-view drawings of different aircraft. Some of those drawings are with the gear up, some of those are with the gear down.

In this case, since the gear was up as Hani scooted across the Pentagon front yard at near redline, the number 45 would be changed by whatever value the landing gear adds to that 45 number. A minor adjustment, for sure.

Did another member of the Squadron defer an answer to the Bob & Weave observation question, or did I just miss it?

You might want to check this out.

New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

[Babe Ruth]

K

My bad, you replied regarding the B&W!! Not a very convincing reply, but a reply.

So, according to the FDR, and aptly named by you, Hani flew most of the maneuver with a bit of pilot induced oscillation. Then, for the most critical part of the maneuver in the front yard, he miraculously recovers to be autopilot-steady. Indeed, autopilot coupled to the radar altimeter, I guess. And you have no problem with the probability of that scenario?

Maybe it's because I have more time instructing than you have flying altogether, but I find that scenario MOST improbable. Highly unlikely. A guy transitioning from Cessnas to Boeings gets "magic hands" within 5 feet of the ground at near redline speed.

I can't speak for the rest of the troofers, but I dismiss the government claims about Hani having flown a simulator because I HAVE FLOWN A SIMULATOR. Many of them. I'm due this month for my annual simulator training. As an FAA examiner told me years ago after I screwed up a landing in a Lear simulator, "these are flight simulators, not landing simulators." Simple but true.

Assuming that Hani actually did fly a 757 sim, it did not seem to cure him of the PIO you have observed and named, did it? I assure you it did NOT prepare him for flight within 5 feet of the ground at speeds near Vmo. Put your instructor hat on, professor.

I don't quite get your point about throttle control and rudder inputs. Why do you exclude elevator inputs?

And just to set the record straight, throttle control and inputs DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE SAME EFFECT IN ANY TYPE AIRCRAFT. Your statement is true ONLY IF the engine and thrust lines are the same. For example, rear engined aircraft experience different pitch reactions to throttle than do tractor mounted engines where the thrust is forward of the CG. So too, as on some seaplanes, if the thrust line is overhead the throttle inputs bring a different reaction.

Vne is not used on transport category aircraft Kludge, at least as I recall. The term is Vmo, max operating. And as you know that value varies with altitude and temperature. Might be wrong, but as I recall on the 757 it is near 350 at sea level.

You cannot appreciate just how flawless Hani's approach across the front law was because you have never been forced to do it, even in a Cessna 150. You have never even gotten close to flying a transport aircraft near redline within 5 feet of the ground, you have never instructed others in doing the same in a Cessna, so I take your comment with a grain of salt, to be sure. Your place in aviation's Ivory Tower in academia deprives you of sitting in the right seat as another pilot attempts low level flight. Never once have you done that.

Ah, and you're an expert of jihadists too? Man alive, that is some pretty thorough education you have.

Sorry to hear you must keep the nitro handy. It is sheer coincidence that the beta blockers have that unintended consequence of helping heal psychic trauma. As it turns out, adrenaline works wonders for the muscles and such, but has a possibly harmful effect on the psyche. Yes, I have experience survivor's guilt.

[skyeagle409]

Maybe it's because I have more time instructing than you have flying altogether, ...

There is a serious problem with that statement because your past missteps and comments indicate a lack of knowledge in aeronautics and flying experience, which explains why you are not asking the right questions.

Since you brought up dimensions, all you had to do was to examine the width of damage along the flight path leading to the Pentagon and the visible damage on the outer wall of the Pentagon in order to determine that in no way the aircraft was a cruise missile, and that was another major blunder on your part, especially since the cruise missile you had suggested is actually an anti-ship missile and I might add that the Pentagon is not a ship.

Such major blunders were enough to set off the alarm bells.

Edited August 5, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

At least Kludge is honorable enough to have posted his qualifications and experience here. All you've ever posted is that you're a retired crew chief. By NOT answering previous questions directed your way, one must assume that you do not have an instructor's license. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm asking the right questions, it seems, BECAUSE you refuse to answer them, it seems because an honest answer would make your argument look poorly.

[booNyzarC]

Yes, I do know just a bit about photogrammetry, and I assume you know more than I do, which is fine by me.

It seems to me that if you were all the expert you think you are, and with 2 known values in the formula, you or one of the other believers would provide the thread with an overlay of a 757 profile against the backdrop of the building. We know the distance of the camera to the building, and we know the dimensions of a 757. It would seems some brilliant scientist could generate a diagram of the relative size of the airplane against the building, but maybe I expect too much?

You are totally missing the point BR.

You are the one who claimed that it could not be a 757. You made that claim with ZERO substantiation.

And now you are attempting to avoid, yet again, your responsibility in supporting your claim.

An honorable man would admit that he had made an unsubstantiated claim and retract it until he could back it up with an actual analysis.

Considering the rather snide statement you just made to Skyeagle, I can only assume that you value honor. Or do you?

[skyeagle409]

Sky

At least Kludge is honorable enough to have posted his qualifications and experience here. All you've ever posted is that you're a retired crew chief. By NOT answering previous questions directed your way, one must assume that you do not have an instructor's license. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I do not have an insructors license and never sought to obtain one. I was not only a DCC crewmember on the Air Force's C-5 Galaxy, but an airframe technician-- military and civilian--with over 44 years experience. My airframe experience includes employment as a civilian and military airframe technician with the U.S. Air Force and with defense contractors such as Raytheon Aerospace, Vertex, AECOM, and L3 Communicatons. My duties included placement as an airframe supervisor/inspector for the Air Force and for a defense contractor and I have developed special equipment, and tools for the Air Force and major defense contractors, and components for Air Force aircraft. I have been sent to Pensacola, Florida to develope a new technical repair manual for the engine inlet used by the TF-39 engine that powers the C-5 Galaxy. The manual is currently in use by the U.S. Air Force, and I might add that I have been a member on fact finding teams as well.

I became the first civilian to receive the "Civilian of the Quarter" award while employed with Raytheon Aerospace at Travis AFB. I have been a member on aircraft and jet angine component modification teams and have worked airframes that include the Apache, Chinook, and Black Hawk helicopters at the Corpus Christi Army Depot.

I am a civilian pilot with over 43 years of flying experience and began my flight training in 1969 at Hill AFB, Utah and I continued my flight training while TDY at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona. I have given safely lectures on aviation safety and mountain flying to members of the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) and I am currently a flying buddy with an original Tuskegee Airman. In addition to inventing components and equipment for the Air Force and defence contractors, I have invented a new type of vertical axis wind turbine, which I plan to market in the near-future for civilian use.

I have lead a Tuskegee Airmen chapter as president, which includes members who are Air Force officers, enlisted personnel, military civilians, retirees, and non-military civilians and I am currently the historian for the chapter. My exhibits have been shown in the newspapers and on TV news channels in Corpus Christi, Texas. You will see my picture and my exhibits in the links. In addition, the aircraft carrier, USS Lexington, hosted my exhibits two years ago, which were covered by the local TV news stations as they interviewed a Tuskegee Airman who flew from California to sit with my exhibits. You can see the fruits of my work by visiting these links.

http://www.caller.com/news/2009/jul/16/tuskegee-airman-visits-city-signs-autographs/

http://www.caller.com/photos/galleries/2009/jul/17/tuskegee-airman-autograph-session/

http://www.alicetx.com/calendar/event_31001aee-38df-5a17-b9f7-6d534f6bf20b.html

That is just a small portion of my involvment in aviation.

Edited August 5, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Czero 101]

Yes, I do know just a bit about photogrammetry, and I assume you know more than I do, which is fine by me.

I personally think that my neighbour's cat knows more about photogrammetry than you do, but then again, my neighbour's cat is capable of more intelligent and rewarding conversation than you are....

It seems to me that if you were all the expert you think you are,

ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE QUOTE EXACTLY WHERE I HAVE CLAIMED TO BE AN EXPERT...

Since I know that this is yet another of a long, long list of things you are incapable of doing, I'll kindly ask you to stop purposely misquoting me, purposely taking my statements out of context, and will direct you to go have carnal knowledge of yourself.

and with 2 known values in the formula, you or one of the other believers would provide the thread with an overlay of a 757 profile against the backdrop of the building. We know the distance of the camera to the building, and we know the dimensions of a 757. It would seems some brilliant scientist could generate a diagram of the relative size of the airplane against the building, but maybe I expect too much?

So in other words, you can't do the math, don't know how a wide-angle lens will affect how an object looks in an image, have no intention of even trying to do anything except hand-waving, burden shifting and blustering to substantiate your claims.

Thank you for confirming that, not like it's really news or a surprise to anyone, though.

Now understand this:

It is NOT MY JOB nor it is anyone else's job to prove you right OR wrong.

Your claim = your burden of proof.

Every time you shift YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF to someone else, the only thing you achieve is to prove that you are unwilling and incapable of proving your point, incapable of rational discussion and incapable of approaching this or seemingly any other topic with any amount of intellectual honesty or integrity.

Cz

Edited August 5, 2012 by Czero 101

[Babe Ruth]

You are totally missing the point BR.

You are the one who claimed that it could not be a 757. You made that claim with ZERO substantiation.

And now you are attempting to avoid, yet again, your responsibility in supporting your claim.

An honorable man would admit that he had made an unsubstantiated claim and retract it until he could back it up with an actual analysis.

Considering the rather snide statement you just made to Skyeagle, I can only assume that you value honor. Or do you?

I might be wrong Boo, though I doubt it in this case. Because I'm just like you--sometimes wrong, plain and simple.

As the worthy opposition, you could prove me wrong and decide the question. If Cz can get his photogrammetrics together, he could provide an overlay of the Boeing on the Pentagon wall at the instant it struck, and we could then infer what we actually saw on the parking lot camera shot. Why so much anxiety?

I am happy to admit that I'm wrong whenever that can be demonstrated. I've been wrong in my life many times, and learned to live with it decades ago. If you and your team can sketch what the Boeing should have looked like just as it struck, I'll buy it.

I've seen another guy could do it, is the only reason I know it can be done. Quite simple when you think about it....

[Babe Ruth]

Thanks Sky, for your impressive credentials and honest answer regarding flight instructing. I respect your military service.

How much low level time do you have? Just as an idea to see how you might judge Hani's awesome flying skills. Or, will you claim that they are only ordinary skills?

But on topic, I must say the same to you as to Boo & Cz. Can't somebody get a computer to draw the outline of a 757 on the Pentagon wall, as viewed from the parking lot camera?

It would settle the question. I would be happy to acknowledge it was a Boeing, if that be the case.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Babe Ruth

[Czero 101]

As the worthy opposition, you could prove me wrong and decide the question. If Cz can get his photogrammetrics together, he could provide an overlay of the Boeing on the Pentagon wall at the instant it struck, and we could then infer what we actually saw on the parking lot camera shot. Why so much anxiety?

I am happy to admit that I'm wrong whenever that can be demonstrated. I've been wrong in my life many times, and learned to live with it decades ago. If you and your team can sketch what the Boeing should have looked like just as it struck, I'll buy it.

But on topic, I must say the same to you as to Boo & Cz. Can't somebody get a computer to draw the outline of a 757 on the Pentagon wall, as viewed from the parking lot camera?

Its your claim, BR... so its your burden to prove it.

If you're too lazy / incompetent / ignorant to make any effort to verify what you say, its not up to us to help you prove or even disprove your case in any way.

You provide no proof for your claim(s), therefore it (they) can be easily dismissed as the deluded opinion(s) of a willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest, under-the-bridge living conspiracy believer.

Cz

[Kludge808]

"The *Snip* Squadron"?

Yeah, I saw that too. As a proud member of the Geriatric Squadron, I take offense.

[Babe Ruth]

Cz

I'm assuming that you are claiming the object in the picture is a 757. Is that a correct assumption?

[Czero 101]

Cz

I'm assuming that you are claiming the object in the picture is a 757. Is that a correct assumption?

I am not making any claim.

The "Official Narrative" makes the claim that it was a 757 - specifically, AA Flt. 77 - and they provide the evidence to back up their claim.

For the purposes of the Burden of Proof, the "Official Narrative" is the accepted version of events. Whether you accept or believe that or not is of no consequence.

You are proposing events that contradict the accepted version of events, so it is your burden to prove your version of events.

Period.

End of story.

Cz

Edited August 5, 2012 by Czero 101

[Babe Ruth]

No offense intended sir, but it SOUNDS like you are defending the accepted version of events?

I know you're not taking any position, as you stated. So then, what's that old saying that one cannot prove a negative?

Do you mean to say you have no interest in what was in the photograph?

[Kludge808]

Oh, my freakin' God!

BR, what is it with you? All you're doing now is presenting straw man arguments, ad hominems and outright distortions & falsehoods. Your "life experiences" include nothing related to aviation which has been shown time & time again yet you persist in trying to get everyone to believe that particular fantasy. You insist everyone prove what they say yet you offer not even a shred of evidence to contradict anything posted that disagrees with your "life experiences" and "common sense." You are nothing but a disruption to the thread and I am >|< close to reporting you as such. In any road, I am through with you. Totally, completely and absolutely through.

Fellow members of the Geriatric Squadron and honorary members, may I suggest placing this irritant on ignore?

[Czero 101]

No offense intended sir, but it SOUNDS like you are defending the accepted version of events?

I know you're not taking any position, as you stated. So then, what's that old saying that one cannot prove a negative?

Do you mean to say you have no interest in what was in the photograph?

Are you going to fulfill your burden of proof and produce evidence - showing how you used proper photogrammerty techniques and calculations based solely on the one photograph that the "tail was too short" for it to have been a 757 - to defend your position or not, BR...?

Yes or No...?

That's the only question that needs answering right now.

If yes, then please, show your work.

If no, then please stop the handwaving, red herrings, intellectual dishonesty and all the other distractions and just admit that you have no evidence to back up your claims and no intent of providing any.

Cz

[DONTEATUS]

THe proof is in the Details ! Or in this case Da-Tail !

[Kludge808]

THe proof is in the Details ! Or in this case Da-Tail !

ROFLMAO! About right on that.

[Kludge808]

I have to say it once again, that is the tail of a B-757. BTW, I had a chance to talk with a few B-757 pilots at our convention in Las Vegas, and I might add the 9/11 CT folks do not have many friends in that group.

I'm a little surprised they would have any but there is always that 2%. If any are on line anywhere, it would be cool if one would join this little discussion to present his/her professional opinion. Maybe he can also pound into Captain Life Experience's* head the difference between Vmo and Vne although that's probably wishful thinking.

* I don't remember who came up with this but thank you!

[Kludge808]

Thanks!

Got a chance to talk to a number of airline pilots including those who fly the B-757, and I visited my cousin in Las Vegas, who is a retired engineer from United Airlines at SFO and whose son is a B-767 captain for another major airline who also flew the B-757 for a number of years.

Kewl! As I mentioned previously, the only air transport time I have is 20 hours each in the DC-9 and 737 simulators at Used Air. The DC-9 could be a real b***h under certain conditions while the 737 was relatively tame. I've heard the 757 & 767 are delightful to fly, especially with the improved situational awareness offered by glass cockpit.

I heard that! That approach was not flawless by a long shot. In addition to damages to government property, perhaps we should send a bill to his relatives for damages incurred when he knocked down those light poles.

I think they belonged to the State of Virginia. Maybe send a couple good ol' boys over to collect ...

[Karlis]

Yeah, I saw that too. As a proud member of the Geriatric Squadron, I take offense.

Point of order, please:

I edited one or two posts containing the phrase, "geriatric squadron" because imo that could be interpreted as a negative dig at older posters who have now retired from active duty. I have also asked that this phrase not be used in future posts.

If anyone has objections to that, please PM me or Saru, rather than posting about it in threads.

thanks,

Karlis -- mod team member

[skyeagle409]

Thanks Sky, for your impressive credentials and honest answer regarding flight instructing. I respect your military service.

How much low level time do you have?

Quite a bit. I once flew a brand new Cessna 172 from the factory at low altitude over open country until I reach Colorado to refuel. From there, I flew to Tonopah, NV, and then on to Oakland, CA. where the aircraft was fitted with long range tanks for its flight to Australia. Another pilot took over from there.

Just as an idea to see how you might judge Hani's awesome flying skills. Or, will you claim that they are only ordinary skills?

His approach was sloppy and his turning maneuver was nothing spectacular nor different from the maneuvers I conducted when my instructor pulled back the throttle and told me that I just lost an engine. I placed the aircraft into a bank and scanned the ground for an emergency landing spot and looking out for power lines and taking into an account, the direction of furrows and ridges while careful not to go into an power-off stall during the turn, which has hardly any different than what Hani ahd done and I was just a student pilot at the time.

I consider turns around a point or S-turns in moderate winds, which was taught to me as a student pilot, a more difficult challenge than what Hani had done. All he had to do was to bank the aircraft and drop the nose, and aim for the Pentagon, so how difficult is that? The fact he knocked down the light poles shows just how sloppy his approach was. A more practical approach IMO, would have been a direct, angular diving attack with a tailwind where additional energy and airspeed would have been gained, and coming in from such a high altitude would have avoided ground obstacles which could have spoiled the attack.

It would settle the question. I would be happy to acknowledge it was a Boeing, if that be the case.

As many times as I have seen vertical stabilizers of B-757s, it was no problem for me to pick up on certain details.

[skyeagle409]

Kewl! As I mentioned previously, the only air transport time I have is 20 hours each in the DC-9 and 737 simulators at Used Air. The DC-9 could be a real b***h under certain conditions while the 737 was relatively tame. I've heard the 757 & 767 are delightful to fly, especially with the improved situational awareness offered by glass cockpit.

The B-757 is very easy to fly and at Duncan's birthday party, a former co-worker of mine, and who was also an airframe technician in my unit at Travis AFB, later went on to fly B-757s and refers to the B-757 as a "push-button airplane" and he told me at the party that he would rather fly the B-727 for some real flying. Another guest at Duncan's party and a good friend of ours, was aerobatic wonder, Julie Clark. She drops down for visits from time to time and there is much about her on the Internet.

You can push a button on the B-757 and the aircraft will take off and fly the trip and then, push another button at the proper time and the B-757 will land itself. I don't think that many passengers are aware that in some cases, the aircraft is actually landing itself. Since the B-767 and the B-757 share similar panels, it is no problem moving up to the B-767 from the B-757. With the B-757, just set the autopilot and make sure the flight director and autothrottle are engaged and then, you can go to sleep and let the B-757 fly itself. I shot this little joke at the airlne pilots in Las Vegas the other day at the convention when I said: Technology is becoming so advanced, that one pilot and a dog would only be needed in the cockpit; The pilot to monitor the instrument panel and the dog to bite him if he touches anything.

It is a little joke that has been passed around within the aviation community.

Edited August 5, 2012 by skyeagle409