1810 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

California is a little far to travel Sky, but I'll meet you somewhere between there and Florida.  

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 01 March 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

I want to touch on that. Where did you get the idea we use missile guidance systems during high altitude, 360 degree tactical maneuvers to a landing?  On another note, you failed to read the rest of the story in regards to ATC description of  the maneuver conducted by American 77.


The 9/11 conspiracy folks can consider that a slapped in the face by ATC for misusing its comments.
.

Sorry, as ever you hopelessly misunderstood what I was saying.

I did not refer to “missile guidance systems” in the post you quoted, only “guidance systems”.  Perhaps you are latching on to the previous link I gave to the Boeing cruise missile page?  I already stated this was intended to show what guidance systems are capable of, i.e. the GPS technology and processing systems available.  This is also only applicable to the final approach at high speed, extreme low altitude – a manoeuvre which matched that of the Boeing guidance system quoted:  “500 mph… terrain-contour-matching… low altitude routes”.

On your other note, the claim is that the descent and spiral manoeuvre preceding the final approach was military-like in appearance and the aircraft was unidentified – this is fully confirmed by O’Brien and her colleague’s observations at the time of viewing.

That the whole manoeuvre was military-like is not in doubt.  We have only to decide who was most likely at the controls.  Was it more likely Hani ‘can’t control a Cessna’ Hanjour, or a military-like system behind the military-like manoeuvre?

The leading answer is quite obvious to any neutral.

How likely is it that Hanjour chose to impact the least damaging, recently reinforced segment of the Pentagon against the odds?

Seriously (not you skyeagle), how does it happen that a CIA-linked intelligence agency exercise for a plane crashing into a government building happens to cross path with the time and location of real world events?  Even a government spokesperson described it as “bizarre”.  And I have just clicked on something else, the alleged Flight 77, after disappearing from radar, and never seen turning around, actually reappeared on ATC radar headed for the Pentagon at the very time and location where the simulated plane track was to end.  The two did not just cross paths, one led into the other - that is where the rediscovered track of the unidentified aircraft assumed to be Flight 77 originated.

But that is the official narrative through and through, “unlikely”, “coincidental”, “bizarre”.

What is the matter with people, when they won’t even demand an ID on the aircraft involved?

Where is the true skepticism here?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 01 March 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

California is a little far to travel Sky, but I'll meet you somewhere between there and Florida.  

I want to perform the demonstration here in California at the Nut Tree airport for my buddies who are private, military, and airline pilots, and afterward, we can head on over to Travis AFB, where there are folks who can tell you why the airspace around Travis AFB, is cleared for high-rate banking decents of up to 10,000 feet per minute for aircraft as large as a B-747.

BTW, what type of aircraft do you have?

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 01 March 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

Sorry, as ever you hopelessly misunderstood what I was saying.

I have heard arguments that the aircraft, which slammed into the Pentagon, was under some guidance control. Others have said that it was under remote control.

Quote

...I did not refer to "missile guidance systems" in the post you quoted, only "guidance systems".  Perhaps you are latching on to the previous link I gave to the Boeing cruise missile page?  I already stated this was intended to show what guidance systems are capable of, i.e. the GPS technology and processing systems available.  This is also only applicable to the final approach at high speed, extreme low altitude – a manoeuvre which matched that of the Boeing guidance system quoted:  "500 mph… terrain-contour-matching… low altitude routes".

When flight routes of cruise missiles or even aircraft are planned, why fly at low altitudes among obstacles? Look at the circling maneuver performed by the terrorist. If you going to fly a remote controlled aircraft into the Pentagon, why waste time  with such an overhead banking maneuver? You would want to fly the aircraft directly into the Pentagon, and do so at a diving angle to avoid something like this.







.

Quote

... the descent and spiral manoeuvre preceding the final approach was military-like in appearance and the aircraft was unidentified – this is fully confirmed by O'Brien and her colleague's observations at the time of viewing.

You have to understand that American 77 was flown by a terrorist who was bent on slamming American 77 into the Pentagon and he is going to do all he can to maneuver that B-757 to complete his objective. This China Airlines, B-747SP, was flown to the extremes, but that doesn't mean that it was a military aircraft.

Quote

That the whole manoeuvre was military-like is not in doubt.  We have only to decide who was most likely at the controls.

Since when is a terrorist, whose objective is to crash the aircraft into the Pentagon, is going to fly that aircraft in a normal manner? You can't expect him to play by the rules.

Quote

... Was it more likely Hani 'can't control a Cessna' Hanjour, or a military-like system behind the military-like manoeuvre?

Controlling an aircraft in flight is not difficult at all, because we have taught children in less than 30 minutes how to control an airplane and some have never been in an airplane before. Now, landing an airplane is another story, but who said the terrorist was interested in landing American 77? Landing an aircraft is where many student pilots have problems.

What do you considered a military maneuver? During flight training, civilian student pilots are taught accelerated stall entries and recovery techniques, spin training, and  yet, their aircraft are not considered military aircraft.
.

Quote

How likely is it that Hanjour chose to impact the least damaging, recently reinforced segment of the Pentagon against the odds?

Very likely when you consider the flight path. If he was truely worried about damage control, he would have chose to crash the aircraft on the grass after knocking down the light poles.





In the photo above, it doesn't look like he was too concerned about damage control.

Quote

Seriously (not you skyeagle), how does it happen that a CIA-linked intelligence agency exercise for a plane crashing into a government building happens to cross path with the time and location of real world events?

Perhaps, this might have had something to do with it.

Quote

The Bojinka Plot

The Bojinka plot was a planned large-scale Islamist attack by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to blow up 12 airliners and their approximately 4,000 passengers that would have flown from Asia to the United States.

Phase II, CIA plane crash plot

Phase two would have involved Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in the Langley area in Fairfax County, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot.

My link

Quote

  Even a government spokesperson described it as "bizarre".  And I have just clicked on something else, the alleged Flight 77, after disappearing from radar,...

I want to stop there and pose a question for you.

Where did radar track that aircraft from? In other words, where did the flight originate?

Quote

...and never seen turning around, actually reappeared on ATC radar headed for the Pentagon at the very time and location where the simulated plane track was to end.  The two did not just cross paths, one led into the other - that is where the rediscovered track of the unidentified aircraft assumed to be Flight 77 originated.

What other aircraft are you referring too in regards to crossing paths? For an example, what model?

Quote

But that is the official narrative through and through, "unlikely", "coincidental", "bizarre".What is the matter with people, when they won't even demand an ID on the aircraft involved?Where is the true skepticism here?

What did American Airlines, the operator of American 77, have to say about the loss of its aircraft at the Pentagon?


You might also want to read this.

Remote Takeover on 9/11: A Critical Analysis



A word of thought.

Quote

Ken Hertz

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft,"...agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."


Giulio Bernacchia

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes.

The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 March 2012 - 01:25 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

Sky has a difficult time grasping the difference between an aircraft's capabilities to fly and maneuver, and a HUMAN'S abilities to do the same.

And "skepticism" is not part of his job description.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 02 March 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Sky has a difficult time grasping the difference between an aircraft's capabilities to fly and maneuver, and a HUMAN'S abilities to do the same.

And "skepticism" is not part of his job description.

Why would the terrorist be obligated to fly American 77 in a conventional sense? That terrorist pilot had more than enough flight time to do what he had done, and once again, your claim fails to account for the airframe of American 77 and its passengers and crew.

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 March 2012 - 07:36 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

Several weeks ago I agreed with you that what we used to call "tac approaches" in the Army are maneuvers that are trained for and executed.  I understand that.  You sound like a broken record playing that over and over again.  I copy.

The overhead approach you mention is a legitimate maneuver well within the capabilities of the aircraft AND the well-trained military pilot.

What you either don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge here, is that after the overhead, the aircraft must be stabilized into a normal approach for landing.  That high rate of descent ends at some point, and the aircraft is STABILIZED to a more normal rate of descent.  I don't know the number exactly, but my guess is that it is somewhere around 600FPM to the runway for landing.

By the government provided numbers and scenario, that was never done in the approach to the Pentagon.  According to the official narrative, he went from about 4500FPM to a level off in a very very short space of time.  According to some calculations, that would require AT LEAST a 4g pull.  I wonder if YOU have EVER done a 4g pull, and I know you have not done that close to the ground.

Plus, your 'argument' (for lack of a better word) suggests that well selected and well trained USAF pilots are no better in their flying skills than some 300 hour rookie with a lousy reputation for flying skills.

By that rationale, it seems to me you pass an underhanded insult to the USAF types.

Do they learn nothing from years of training?  Are they really no better than Hani?

You've painted yourself in a corner Sky, or you're being intellectually dishonest.  

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 02 March 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

Sky

Several weeks ago I agreed with you that what we used to call "tac approaches" in the Army are maneuvers that are trained for and executed.  I understand that.  You sound like a broken record playing that over and over again.  I copy. The overhead approach you mention is a legitimate maneuver well within the capabilities of the aircraft AND the well-trained military pilot.

It doesn't take a well-trained military pilot to conduct that kind of maneuver.

Quote

What you either don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge here, is that after the overhead, the aircraft must be stabilized into a normal approach for landing.  That high rate of descent ends at some point, and the aircraft is STABILIZED to a more normal rate of descent.  I don't know the number exactly, but my guess is that it is somewhere around 600FPM to the runway for landing.

Look at this map. From that map, we can determine that the aircraft was American 77, and we can tie in ATC communications as well. Where is that aircraft heading? Where did that flight originate from?



Now, look at this flight profile of American 77, and note that this is not a precision flight profile of a missile nor what you would expect of a military aircraft flown under remote control on a mission. You can see when the autopilot was disconnected and reconnented. That  clearly, is not the flight profile of a highly experienced military pilot flying the aircraft manually in the aircraft or by remote control from a ground station.




Now, let's take a look at this map. As you can see, the pilot had enough time to make adjustments to his flight path after completing his overhead banking maneuver before striking the Pentagon, which is not that difficult.

Quote

By the government provided numbers and scenario, that was never done in the approach to the Pentagon.

What did American Airlines, the operator of American 77,  have to say about the loss of its aircraft at the Pentagon?

Quote

  According to the official narrative, he went from about 4500FPM to a level off in a very very short space of time.  According to some calculations, that would require AT LEAST a 4g pull.  I wonder if YOU have EVER done a 4g pull, and I know you have not done that close to the ground.

At the completion of the turn, he was at 2000 feet and 4 miles from the Pentagon.  That is not much higher than a normal final approach altitude at many airports and all he had to do was to keep the Pentagon within the wind screen.

Quote

Plus, your 'argument' (for lack of a better word) suggests that well selected and well trained USAF pilots are no better in their flying skills than some 300 hour rookie with a lousy reputation for flying skills. By that rationale, it seems to me you pass an underhanded insult to the USAF types. Do they learn nothing from years of training?  Are they really no better than Hani?

Let's be realistic and look at the flight profile of American 77. That is DEFINITELY not the flight profile of a highly experienced USAF pilot by any means, which makes me wonder why you failed to understand the significance of what that flight profile represented.

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 March 2012 - 08:45 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Nice dodge Sky.

So, Hani is as good a pilot as USAF types, eh?  

[Q24]

I’m still fascinated by how flight path of the simulated plane in the NRO drill intersects with the alleged Flight 77 path.

The blue dot is where the simulated flight, after departing Dulles, was to crash into the NRO building and end at approximately 9:32.  The red line is where the alleged Flight 77 for unknown reason turned North, to pass right by the NRO building and doing so at approximately 9:32.  The green line was most direct route to the Pentagon for the alleged Flight 77.



Evidence provided by the 9/11 Commission and FAA timelines indicates it is at 9:32 that the radar track of the alleged Flight 77 was confirmed to be rediscovered, having been lost over 30 minutes earlier, prior to its turn east.

There are a number of options why all this could be, probably a deliberate diversion further ensuring the alleged Flight 77 could impact the Pentagon, or possibly connected with the aircraft itself.

There is no other logical explanation for the alleged Flight 77 turn Northward rather than taking the direct route.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 02 March 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

I'm still fascinated by how flight path of the simulated plane in the NRO drill intersects with the alleged Flight 77 path.

Aircraft flight paths intersect all of the time, not just on 9/11/2001, and another reason why it is advised that pilots on VFR use radar flight following. In fact, American 77 flew near a National Guard C-130, which made visual contact with American 77, and later, the pilot of that C-130 confirmed that the aircraft struck the Pentagon.

Quote

O'Brien's flight tracks AA Flight 77

On September 11, 2001, O'Brien was flying a Minnesota Air National Guard C-130H (Hercules) cargo airplane. He and his crew were on a return journey to Minnesota after having delivered supplies in the Caribbean. He took off from Andrews Air Force Base, just southeast of Washington DC, at about 9:30 am (EDT), and headed "north and west". "[We] had a beautiful view of the Mall", he remarked.

O'Brien noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles or so away. The plane came nearer until it pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn, so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away.

Washington Reagan National Airport air traffic control asked O'Brien to identify the aircraft. He reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 Boeing airliner, and that its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. Controllers asked ("vectored") O'Brien to follow the plane (later identified as the errant AA Flight 77) as it approached Washington DC from the west. He attempted to, having difficulty picking it out in the East Coast haze. O'Brien saw a fireball, and initially believed the aircraft had hit the ground, but then saw the west side of the Pentagon. He reported to the control tower, "Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir".

My link

Quote

The blue dot is where the simulated flight, after departing Dulles, was to crash into the NRO building and end at approximately 9:32.  The red line is where the alleged Flight 77 for unknown reason turned North, to pass right by the NRO building and doing so at approximately 9:32.  The green line was most direct route to the Pentagon for the alleged Flight 77.

Does that mean that aircraft were switched in flight? No! Did American Airlines confirm that Amercan 77 crashed at the Pentagon? Yes.  Did witnesses see an airliner strike the Pentagon? Yes. Is the image of a B-757 vertical stablizer visible in a photo? Yes.

I read where people have claimed that American 77 was switched in flight, but they have to understand that when they make such claim, they still have to account for the passengers and crew and of course, the airframe of American 77. Remains of the passengers and crew were recovered at the Pentagon and have been identified, which throws 'cold water' on claims that American 77 was switched aircraft and substituted for a drone. Look at the altitude flight profile I posted earlier. That is not the profile of a remote controlled drone flown by an experienced  military pilot.

Quote

Evidence provided by the 9/11 Commission and FAA timelines indicates it is at 9:32 that the radar track of the alleged Flight 77 was confirmed to be rediscovered, having been lost over 30 minutes earlier, prior to its turn east.

There are a number of options why all this could be, probably a deliberate diversion further ensuring the alleged Flight 77 could impact the Pentagon, or possibly connected with the aircraft itself.

There is no other logical explanation for the alleged Flight 77 turn Northward rather than taking the direct route.

That turn to the north made it easier for him to set up his approach to the Pentagon.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 March 2012 - 01:03 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 02 March 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Nice dodge Sky.

So, Hani is as good a pilot as USAF types, eh?  

No dodging! Look at the altitude flight profile. Any experienced pilot would have known that is not a flight profile flown by an experienced military pilot after the autopilot was disconnected.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 March 2012 - 01:09 AM.

[Czero 101]

skyeagle409, on 03 March 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

That turn to the north made it easier for him to set up his approach to the Pentagon.

Actually, it didn't. I find myself having to agree with Q that the turn to the North did make for a much more complicated approach, from a "shortest distance between two points being a straight line, not a rambling turn northward followed by a circling dive" point of view.

If I understand what Q is saying correctly, the aircraft was already on a relatively direct flight path towards the Pentagon.

The turn to the North seems unnecessary, although, imo, pilot error can't be ruled out as the reason for the turn.




Cz

[skyeagle409]

Czero 101, on 03 March 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

Actually, it didn't. I find myself having to agree with Q that the turn to the North did make for a much more complicated approach, from a "shortest distance between two points being a straight line, not a rambling turn northward followed by a circling dive" point of view.

If I understand what Q is saying correctly, the aircraft was already on a relatively direct flight path towards the Pentagon.

The turn to the North seems unnecessary, although, imo, pilot error can't be ruled out as the reason for the turn.

Cz

It could have been an error on his part, but upon completion of his turn, all he had to do was to keep the Pentagon in the cross-hairs.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 March 2012 - 01:56 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

You can't have it both ways sir.  Your position raises the question of why the Air Force even trains and practices the "Tac Approach", if we may use that term.

If a 300hour rookie with poor flying skills can get it right on the first attempt within extremely tight tolerances, then it seems that a USAF pilot would never need to train for it.

Further, you have dodged the issue of transition from 4500 FPM to 600 FPM for the landing, and that is really the heart of the matter on this Hani maneuver.

I think the logical implications of your position is that Hani was a far better pilot than a USAF type, and that is an insult to them.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 03 March 2012 - 03:15 PM.