1810 replies to this topic

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 23 February 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

MID

Judicious trim settings?  In the same paragraph in which you speculate that he probably overcontrolled the aircraft?  From a guy who had never been in a 757 before?  With a reputation as a poor pilot in a Cessna?

PLEASE don't tell me that his religious zeal enabled his judicious use of the trim.  

You talk too much sometimes, and don't listen.  Again, all in the interest of advancing nonsense.

I didn't say he used trim.  I merely stated that it was not a difficult matter to arrest a descent rate as you describe (which is by your own hand, made to sound so extreme that leveling off ould've blown the plane apart by exceeding design load factors, which of course never were exceeded).

Quote

And the 2 g forces you mention are rather the point--the FDR data was fudged.  A 2g pullout when a 4g pullout was required would have resulted in sudden and fatal ground contact

Ah, ok.   .

That pretty much says it all.
The data was fudged.  How lazy that is!

Didn't bother considering showing me how a 4 g pull out was necessary to arrest a descent that was proceeding at around 55 feet per second down.
that is, of course, because it's not necesary.
Ever heard of ground effect???

Quote

I do very much understand the complexities with the official story.  It is so damn complex that it requires a miracle.  It is so complex that it cannot be true.

I think you understand the complexities you imagine.
You don't understand the variables and complexities that really exist in such a scenario.

And that...is why the 9-11 conspiracy theories ignited.
lack of knowledge and understanding.
It's like any CT.

Edited by MID, 24 February 2012 - 12:49 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

With 10 years of fixed-wing crop dusting sir, it is most likely that I have spent more time in ground effect than you have. And I assure you that coming out of a 4000FPM descent and attempting to transition to terrain following flight is a sure recipe for disaster.

I suspect you already know it, but you are attempting to defend an impossible scenario.  The Official Conspiracy Theory is a fable meant for public consumption, and in a rational and intellectually honest discussion, it cannot be defended successfully.

As for the numbers, you really should revisit PFT and check out their calculations.  Straightforward calculations, including pictures for the doubtful amongst us.  

I'm no Boeing pilot, and I assume that like other jets the trim is controlled NOT by a trim wheel such as in a Cessna or Piper, but by one of the several buttons or rocker switches on the control wheel.  I wonder how long it took that Ace Hanjour to discover that, and use it judiciously?

You're talking theory MID, I'm talking about how the average 300 hour pilot would do, placed in a transport airplane that he had NEVER flown before.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

Yes, I agree that it is entirely possible that an aircraft might have caused the damage to the light poles.  However it was not a 757.

The only trouble I see with that is that depending upon the size of the aircraft, collision with those poles would probably have critically influenced the subsequent flight path.  Pure speculation on my part, but it is certainly possible that they were struck.

I have always considered the light poles as rather a distraction, for the simple reason that they prove nothing, really.

As for whether they were brought down by explosive charges of some sort, or deformed by some other method, I'm completely neutral.  They neither break nor make the official story, all things considered.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 24 February 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Yes, I agree that it is entirely possible that an aircraft might have caused the damage to the light poles.  However it was not a 757.

The only trouble I see with that is that depending upon the size of the aircraft, collision with those poles would probably have critically influenced the subsequent flight path.  Pure speculation on my part, but it is certainly possible that they were struck.

I have always considered the light poles as rather a distraction, for the simple reason that they prove nothing, really.

As for whether they were brought down by explosive charges of some sort, or deformed by some other method, I'm completely neutral.  They neither break nor make the official story, all things considered.

If we accept the light poles were knocked down by an aircraft this proves two points: -

• Flight path the aircraft was on (due to position of the light poles).
  
• Minimum wingspan of the aircraft (due to spacing of the light poles).

But you still hold to the idea that agents might have placed explosive charges at the base and top of the light poles, which somehow caused crimping with no explosive damage, and in opposition to all available witness accounts would believe they popped from the ground untouched?

I’d denounce the claim altogether.  It does not fit and indeed opposes all evidence.  The idea comes purely as an ill-conceived desire of those who would prefer to believe the plane was on a different flight path.  There is no sense in it, just a desperate belief.

Let’s focus on your first statement – that an aircraft possibly caused the light pole damage.  So we have the aircraft very close to the ground on a direct collision course with the Pentagon and... then what do you think happened?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 24 February 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

With 10 years of fixed-wing crop dusting sir, it is most likely that I have spent more time in ground effect than you have. And I assure you that coming out of a 4000FPM descent and attempting to transition to terrain following flight is a sure recipe for disaster.

About that ground effect.

Quote

Ground effect and the B-747

Meanwhile, the ground-effects issue that emerges when the airplane is close to the surface after takeoff and prior to landing, was also explored. Test pilots over several days in October commanded the 747-8 Freighter to basically hover over the runway.

My link

In the case of American 77, it was a disaster. Remember, the terrorist wasn't interested in landing the B-757. In regards to your comment of 4000 fpm, Travis AFB, which flies the C-5, KC-10, and the C-17, has authorized its aircraft to conduct tactical maneuvers of up to 10,000 fpm within 12 NM of the base.

Quote

I suspect you already know it, but you are attempting to defend an impossible scenario.  The Official Conspiracy Theory is a fable meant for public consumption, and in a rational and intellectually honest discussion, it cannot be defended successfully.

It has been more than 10 years, but you have offered nothing that refutes the official account,  so what can you provide that proves that American 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon? Simply saying that a terrorist could not have performed such a maneuver doesn't  work. Mathias Rust, who was a student pilot, did what many would have considered impossible, and that is, he flew a C-172 into the Soviet Union and landed in Red Square.

Quote

As for the numbers, you really should revisit PFT and check out their calculations.  Straightforward calculations, including pictures for the doubtful amongst us.  

The PFT web site is a joke and BooN, and others have made a mockery of PFT. Perhaps, you should have seen the debates between them and Rob Balasamo of PFT.

Quote

I'm no Boeing pilot, and I assume that like other jets the trim is controlled NOT by a trim wheel such as in a Cessna or Piper, but by one of the several buttons or rocker switches on the control wheel.  I wonder how long it took that Ace Hanjour to discover that, and use it judiciously?

If would have taken him less than 2 minutes to figure out the trim on a B-757, and trimming an aircraft is not difficult.

Quote

You're talking theory MID, I'm talking about how the average 300 hour pilot would do, placed in a transport airplane that he had NEVER flown before.

Apparently, he knew enough to strike the Pentagon with a B-757, as confirmed by the operator of American 77.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 February 2012 - 07:50 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 24 February 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Q

Yes, I agree that it is entirely possible that an aircraft might have caused the damage to the light poles.  However it was not a 757.

Where's your proof?

Quote

The only trouble I see with that is that depending upon the size of the aircraft, collision with those poles would probably have critically influenced the subsequent flight path.  Pure speculation on my part, but it is certainly possible that they were struck.

The photos proved the light poles were struck, and judging from the path of destruction, they were struck by a large aircraft.

Quote

I have always considered the light poles as rather a distraction, for the simple reason that they prove nothing, really.

Looking at the path of destruction, the path led straight to the Pentagon, so yes, the light poles are of a major significance.

Quote

As for whether they were brought down by explosive charges of some sort, or deformed by some other method,...

What other method?

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 February 2012 - 07:16 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 24 February 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

If we accept the light poles were knocked down by an aircraft this proves two points: -

• Flight path the aircraft was on (due to position of the light poles).
  
• Minimum wingspan of the aircraft (due to spacing of the light poles).

But you still hold to the idea that agents might have placed explosive charges at the base and top of the light poles, which somehow caused crimping with no explosive damage, and in opposition to all available witness accounts would believe they popped from the ground untouched?

I’d denounce the claim altogether.  It does not fit and indeed opposes all evidence.  The idea comes purely as an ill-conceived desire of those who would prefer to believe the plane was on a different flight path.  There is no sense in it, just a desperate belief.

Let’s focus on your first statement – that an aircraft possibly caused the light pole damage.  So we have the aircraft very close to the ground on a direct collision course with the Pentagon and... then what do you think happened?

...then it struck the building, leaving the single engine debris we see, and the sparse landing gear debris we see, and if it were a fighter-type aircraft, possibly explaining the very neat exit hole we see.  If it was carrying any explosives that would probably help with the exit hole.

I have no strong opinion about explosives, but they seem to be the most likely candidate.  The bending of the poles is the difficult part.

This, stemming from the theory that the events of the day truly were a false flag conducted by military personnel.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 24 February 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

...then it struck the building, leaving the single engine debris we see, and the sparse landing gear debris we see, and if it were a fighter-type aircraft, possibly explaining the very neat exit hole we see.  If it was carrying any explosives that would probably help with the exit hole.

Great – so we have a plane hitting a building.

Now why would an explosive carrying fighter-type aircraft be used that would necessitate…

• Buying all eyewitnesses in the vicinity
  
• Rigging explosives at the top and bottom of light poles
  
• Faking security camera footage
  
• Planting AA debris

… ?

Rather than take the easy option to slam a 757 in there?

If there is no logic, never mind evidence, behind the option, then it’s a non-starter.

Babe Ruth, on 24 February 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

This, stemming from the theory that the events of the day truly were a false flag conducted by military personnel.

Other than Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, I don’t see reason to believe any U.S. military personnel including those at NORAD or the Pentagon would be directly involved in the operation.  It was unnecessary and the more domestic personnel involved the higher the risk.  Foreign agents will have a level less conscience about what they are doing and more reason not to reveal the operation.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 24 February 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

...then it struck the building, leaving the single engine debris we see, and the sparse landing gear debris we see, and if it were a fighter-type aircraft, possibly explaining the very neat exit hole we see.

What makes you think that you have seen all of the photos that were taken inside and outside the Pentagon?

Quote

This, stemming from the theory that the events of the day truly were a false flag conducted by military personnel.

Where's your evidence?

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 24 February 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

With 10 years of fixed-wing crop dusting sir, it is most likely that I have spent more time in ground effect than you have. And I assure you that coming out of a 4000FPM descent and attempting to transition to terrain following flight is a sure recipe for disaster.

Babe...
So is flying a loaded aircraft into a building, which is what was done.  I don't think anyone was thinking about the alleged disaster  as they cruised in on an approximately 5 degree descent slope for the last ten miles.

No one needed to arrest anything there.  just point and shoot.
You keep making it sound like this "4000 FPM descent" was some fancy or overtly incredible dive.  At throttle, it's roughly 5 degrees nose down...

...although I still cannot imagine doing it.

Edited by MID, 24 February 2012 - 10:06 PM.

[Q24]

MID, on 24 February 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

You keep making it sound like this "4000 FPM descent" was some fancy or overtly incredible dive.  At throttle, it's roughly 5 degrees nose down...

The dive itself was not so incredible, rather the way that aircraft pulled out of it so close to the ground and completed the final approach low and level.  It was not simply a case of pointing the aircraft at “5 degrees nose down” and throttling it into the building.  The light pole damage, security camera footage and Pentagon damage characteristics show something else entirely.  After the spiral descent, Hanjour would have had to swoop down and level off feet above the ground at around 500 mph – an incredible feat for someone who could not control a Cessna at a fraction of the speed.

Good heavens - it was a manoeuvre that matched maximum capability of a guided missile!

[Belial]

What i find very interesting is that a member can stand so firmly behind little green men and government cover ups concerning that, YET when it comes to another conspiracy that is actual/physical and in all our faces seen world wide will not even accept it might all be a cover up also?
Just a thought...

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 24 February 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Great – so we have a plane hitting a building.

Now why would an explosive carrying fighter-type aircraft be used that would necessitate…

• Buying all eyewitnesses in the vicinity
  
• Rigging explosives at the top and bottom of light poles
  
• Faking security camera footage
  
• Planting AA debris

… ?

Rather than take the easy option to slam a 757 in there?

If there is no logic, never mind evidence, behind the option, then it’s a non-starter.



Other than Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, I don’t see reason to believe any U.S. military personnel including those at NORAD or the Pentagon would be directly involved in the operation.  It was unnecessary and the more domestic personnel involved the higher the risk.  Foreign agents will have a level less conscience about what they are doing and more reason not to reveal the operation.

IMO, using a fighter type would not necessitate all those things you list.  I have already said that it's possible that a fighter type might have survived impact with the light poles.  If it did, explosive charges would not be necessary.

As for what footage the Pentagon has supplied, I don't see that as fake, but genuine.  It is the footage NOT SUPPLIED that tells the story.

They had to plant AA debris because the narrative said that an AA aircraft was involved.

"Slamming" a 757 is not nearly so easy as you suggest here, for reasons previously discussed.  Far from easy, it requires extreme piloting skills if we go with the official narrative, or extreme technical precision if one asserts it was a drone 757.

I agree with your last paragraph.  IMO there were only a handful of men with prior knowledge that were working that day.  The rest were mere pawns in a game, conducted under the auspices of Vigilant Guardian, and completely ignorant of what was really happening, as they were engrossed in the game.  As in "war games", which the military does all the time.

We know that at least 1 supervisor within the FAA structure appears to have been involved, because he destroyed tapes that might have revealed too much.

I'm curious Q, if you've served in the military and ever participated in such games?

[MID]

Q24, on 25 February 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

The dive itself was not so incredible, rather the way that aircraft pulled out of it so close to the ground and completed the final approach low and level.  It was not simply a case of pointing the aircraft at “5 degrees nose down” and throttling it into the building.  The light pole damage, security camera footage and Pentagon damage characteristics show something else entirely.  After the spiral descent, Hanjour would have had to swoop down and level off feet above the ground at around 500 mph – an incredible feat for someone who could not control a Cessna at a fraction of the speed.

Good heavens - it was a manoeuvre that matched maximum capability of a guided missile!

Thank you, Captain,  for the astute demonstration of aeronautical knowledge and airmanship.




...Perhaps, a discussion of that guided missile might be fodder for another 9-11 CT thread!

[Babe Ruth]

I assume Q is not a pilot and British.  So in terms of aeronautical knowledge and airmanship he is a layman.

But it does seem he understands the dynamics more better than you do.