Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 8 votes

911 Pentagon Video Footage


  • Please log in to reply
3292 replies to this topic

#1021    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,384 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 August 2012 - 10:51 AM

View PostKludge808, on 05 August 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:




Skyeagle (Welcome back)?  

Thanks! :tu:

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.

Quote

And finally, what flawless approach?  It has been pointed out numerous times that it was far from flawless.

I heard that! :tu:  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.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1022    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,384 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 August 2012 - 10:56 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 04 August 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

Is that with the gear up or down?

It is very evident you have never been a member of the aviaton community.  Did you really think that such measurements would have been taken with the gear up?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1023    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,384 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:03 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 04 August 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Whatever that flying object was I don't know.

In that case, you have no business  asserting to people that the aircraft was not a B-757. Since you cannot account for the airframe of American 77 and its passengers and crew, nor evidence to backup what you say, then you simply have no case.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1024    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,384 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:42 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 03 August 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Kludge

Speaking of number crunching and degrees in aeronautics and such, have you ever visited the Pilots For Truth forum?

Somewhere in the Flight 175 section as I recall, some guys did some number crunching to determine the G forces required at the bottom of the Hani maneuver in order to clear a particular VDOT antenna there and still successfully the complete the low level move to strike the building.  YOU might be interested in that, if for nothing else, to see if their calculations agree with yours.

How silly of them to forget that the maneuver Hani conducted was within the airframe limitation of a B-757 and was too slow to have been considered a standard 2-minute 360 degree turn rate for an aircraft. In his case, I could have taken a 3-minute nap and sipped a cup of coffee after awakening  before he could have completed a full circle.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1025    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 August 2012 - 01:39 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 04 August 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

So, in other words, you don't know anything about photogrammetry, you don't know how an object's shape and size can be appear to be drastically different depending upon the lens being used on the camera, and therefore your claim of the tail being "too short" is yet another example of you just talking out your hind quarters.

Thanks for clearing that up. :tu:







Cz

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?  :innocent:


#1026    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 August 2012 - 01:46 PM

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? :unsure2:

Edited by Karlis, 05 August 2012 - 02:20 PM.
Deleted denigrating adjective.


#1027    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,384 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 August 2012 - 01:53 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 August 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

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?  :innocent:

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

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1028    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,384 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 August 2012 - 02:13 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 August 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

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? :unsure2:


You might want to check this out.

Quote

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

http://journalof911s...ltimeter_92.pdf


KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1029    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 August 2012 - 02:17 PM

K

My bad, you replied regarding the B&W!! :clap:   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. :no:

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. :santa:

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. :gun:

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.


#1030    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,384 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 August 2012 - 02:41 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 August 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

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 by skyeagle409, 05 August 2012 - 02:56 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1031    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 August 2012 - 02:58 PM

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.


#1032    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 August 2012 - 03:07 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 August 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

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?  :innocent:
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?


#1033    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,384 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 August 2012 - 03:53 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 August 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

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.co...gns-autographs/

http://www.caller.co...ograph-session/

http://www.alicetx.c...534f6bf20b.html


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

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 August 2012 - 04:29 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1034    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,181 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 05 August 2012 - 04:10 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 August 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

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....

Quote

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.

Quote

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 by Czero 101, 05 August 2012 - 04:14 PM.

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#1035    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 August 2012 - 06:33 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 05 August 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

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.... :yes:





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users