Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Q24

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

1,812 posts in this topic

Further, kinetic energy or not, aluminum airframes will not penetrate through six walls, or whatever the number is, and leave a perfect exit hole as we are told to believe.

You might want to look at the landing gear. It is clearly evidence the hole from punched out from the inside.

Wrecking balls and hammers are not made out of aluminum for a very good reason--aluminum is far too soft and light a metal to act in that capacity. Maybe a jeweler's small hammer, but not something to crush concrete with.

Are you implying that this aircraft is made out of iron?

teb05tv_42.jpg

For the record, you are claiming that no aircraft struck the Pentagon?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

We have already discussed that in your picture of the exit hole, there is no landing gear to be seen. Where is it?

We have already discussed that the wall at Teterboro you show, and the wall at the Pentagon are not constructed in the same way. I think we have already discussed that the several 'rings' within the Pentagon constitute 4 or 6 walls, however you want to count it.

I must admit Sky, that your picture of the F-18 striking the building is persuasive.

That said, and I know already that you don't agree, the structural differences between a supersonic F-18 and a 757 are significant.

And I'm happy to admit, for the sake of discussion, that maybe a 757 could indeed penetrate through several rings of the Pentagon.

But that does not right all the other wrongs, such as the incredible maneuver by Hani, the absence of wreckage consistent with a 757, and the statements of several of the survivors who walked right through and saw nothing suggesting an airliner or passengers.

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

We have already discussed that in your picture of the exit hole, there is no landing gear to be seen. Where is it?

I guess you missed pieces of the tire and other aircraft sections in the photo at the punch out hole, but then again, you have been missing quite a few things lately.

We have already discussed that the wall at Teterboro you show, and the wall at the Pentagon are not constructed in the same way.

Doesn't matter. You made the claim the no aluminum airframe could penetrate such a wall, and yet, that small jet wasn't even at flying speed when it penetrated the wall, and additionally, that punch-out hole was not much thicker, yet the larger and heavier B-757 was traveling at a high rate of speed when it blasted into the Pentagon. A smaller, B-25 penetrated the Empire State Building as well. And, remember, the B-25 was much slower and lighter and not built as strong as a B-757, and yet , it penetrated that building as well, so what was that you were saying about no aluminum airframe can penetrate buildings?

.

esb-crash01.jpg

What that means is your claim that no aluminum airframe can penetrate buildings has been proven false time after time.

I think we have already discussed that the several 'rings' within the Pentagon constitute 4 or 6 walls, however you want to count it.

Are you claiming that no aircraft struck the Pentagon?

I must admit Sky, that your picture of the F-18 striking the building is persuasive.

That was just a simulation to show what happened at the Pentagon.. The B-757 penetrated through the Pentagon and eventually punched out a hole

That said, and I know already that you don't agree, the structural differences between a supersonic F-18 and a 757 are significant.

You have to remember that the structural components of a B-757 is much heavier and stronger than those of a FA-18.

And I'm happy to admit, for the sake of discussion, that maybe a 757 could indeed penetrate through several rings of the Pentagon.

What did Ameircan Airlines have to say about American 77 striking the Pentagon?

But that does not right all the other wrongs, such as the incredible maneuver by Hani,...

Apparently, he carried out the maneuver and the result is what you see in the photos.

the absence of wreckage consistent with a 757,...

For the record, are you claiming that these parts are not consistent with a B-757?

debris2_engine.jpg

800px-Wheel_Compilation.jpg

Pentagon_Debris_13.jpg

911plane-video.jpg

Apparently, that is the vertical stabilizer of a B-757 in the background.

Aand the statements of several of the survivors who walked right through and saw nothing suggesting an airliner or passengers.

On the contrary, many people saw American 77 strike the Pentagon and here are just a few.

ELAINE McCUSKER: "Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon [...]. I don't know what made me look up, but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating. My first thought was just 'No, no, no, no,' because it was obvious the plane [...] was going to crash."

MIKE WALTER: "I saw this plane, a jet, an American Airline's jet [...it] slammed right into the Pentagon."

OMAR CAMPO: "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire."

RYAN JAMES: "When I looked up on my left [...] I see an American Airline plane. A silver plane. I can see 'AA' on the tail. I noticed that the landing gear were up. [...then] he hit full gas [...] and went straight in [to the Pentagon ...] I recognized it immediately as a passenger plane."

JAMES CISSELL: "Out of my peripheral vision I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board."

STEVE RISKUS: "I took these pictures seconds after the plane hit the pentagon. I was traveling on route 27 towards 395 when the plane crossed my path from the right about 100ft in front of me and crashed into the pentagon."

CBS News Special Report (CBS News transcripts, 9/11/01): Witness: The plane "clipped this pole over here. Hit this other pole and slammed right into the building. Huge explosion and then utter pandemonium, as you might imagine. I mean, everybody was screaming, 'Oh, my God.' [...] There was no doubt about it, it was American Airlines, slammed right into the building. And there was no doubt about it, whoever was piloting that plane was aiming for the Pentagon."

KOVR 13 News Tonight, KOVR-TV (Video Monitoring Services of America abstract, 09/11/01): "Interview - Jennifer Brower, witness, says she can't believe she saw an American Airlines plane crash into The Pentagon."

NBC News Special Report (NBC News Transcripts, 09/11/01): "Now, according to eyewitnesses, it was a American Airlines 757 that came sort of from the direction of National Airport."

MSNBC Special Report (transcript 091100cb.455, Sept 11, 2001): REP. BRIAN BAIRD (D), WASHINGTON: "We had been watching the coverage in New York [...] Maybe a minute later, my staff was looking out the window and said, 'You know, there are not supposed to be any airplanes in the air, but there's an airplane.' She looked and said, 'Hey, everybody, there's an airplane out here. What's going on?' And the next minute, she looked out the window said, 'My God, it hit the Pentagon.'"

TV 6 Prime Time News WITI-TV (Video Monitoring Services of America abstract, 09/11/01) "Interview - Mike Walter, witness to Pentagon attack, saw American Airlines jet coming."

NBC Nightly News (Video Monitoring Services of America abstract, 09/11/01): "Interview - Unidentified woman, witness, says she say a commercial plane go right into the side of the Pentagon."

The Press Association Limited (09/11/01): "A woman eyewitness told CNN of the plane crashing into the Pentagon: 'A commercial plane came in. It was coming too fast, too low and then I saw the fire that came up after that.'"

The Washington Post (09/12/01, A1): "In the hazy hours that followed the attack, it was unclear which of four hijacked planes ended up where. But witnesses soon identified the aircraft that smashed into the Pentagon as an American flight, and then as Flight 77, which was unusually light on passengers this day."

The San Diego Union-Tribune (09/12/01, A3): "Several witnesses said the twin-engine Boeing 757 came in low and fast and may have clipped light stanchions before hitting near the ground level on the west side of the building."

The Guardian (09/12/01): "A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. 'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"

Now, what was that you were saying about no parts of an aircraft at the Pentagon?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have already discussed that the wall at Teterboro you show, and the wall at the Pentagon are not constructed in the same way. I think we have already discussed that the several 'rings' within the Pentagon constitute 4 or 6 walls, however you want to count it.

The outer three rings of the Pentagon are joined on the lower two floors. There would only have been one exterior wall, multiple interior walls made of drywall and the final wall inside the ring with the exit hole

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, I know very well that me and a handful of Boeing pilots are right in calling out the very high improbability of the Hani maneuver.

And I know that alotg more than a handful of qualified ATPs aren't in...

Wrecking balls and hammers are not made out of aluminum for a very good reason--aluminum is far too soft and light a metal to act in that capacity. Maybe a jeweler's small hammer, but not something to crush concrete with.

But a man is entitled, if he wishes to, to believe any group of pathological liars he sees fit. I'll pass.

man is also entitled not to understand.

he really good reason for wrecking balls and hammers not being made out of Al is becuase they are designed not to be propelled at 800 FPS toward their targets. If they were, they could've been made out of polycarbonate!

KE again. It's a real deal closer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We must simply agree to disagree. For the sake of argument I'm happy to admit that it is possible for a 757 to have penetrated through the various drywall-composed rings there, but still we have the questions of the lack of debris, and that your argument seems to want to have it both ways--the 757 was so shattered that much of the aluminum was blown backwards onto the lawn, some in conveniently large pieces with legible paint jobs on them, and at the same time it retained enough structural integrity to leave a perfectly symmetrical exit hole. That seems intellectually dishonest to me.

But I understand how difficult it is to defend a fairy tale, for I've done the same thing from 2001 to about 2005. 'tis frustrating indeed because so many things don't make sense.

But looking at the Big Picture, we know that there was fraud and deception and coercion at Shanksville, fraud and deception at WTC. Then the question becomes: why should there NOT be fraud and deception at the Pentagon? And of course there is.

MID, there might be some Boeing types claiming Hani's maneuver is easy to do, but my bet is that NOT ONE of them would be willing to put his money where his mouth is in attempting to demonstrate it. Not to a fatal ending, of course, but just to, say 100 feet off the ground. We'll never know.

Perhaps they can become temporary muslims so that their flying skills could be improved? Would Allah allow that? :w00t:

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We must simply agree to disagree. For the sake of argument I'm happy to admit that it is possible for a 757 to have penetrated through the various drywall-composed rings there, but still we have the questions of the lack of debris, and that your argument seems to want to have it both ways--the 757 was so shattered that much of the aluminum was blown backwards onto the lawn, some in conveniently large pieces with legible paint jobs on them, and at the same time it retained enough structural integrity to leave a perfectly symmetrical exit hole. That seems intellectually dishonest to me.

Why wouldn't pieces of the wreckage be blown backwards? You can determined that the hole was punched outward, not inward, and the thickness of the exit hole is not very thick at all.

But I understand how difficult it is to defend a fairy tale, for I've done the same thing from 2001 to about 2005. 'tis frustrating indeed because so many things don't make sense.

What doesn't make any sense are claims of the 9/11 folks. For an example, switched aircraft without accounting for the original flights nor victims of those flights and ignoring the reports from the operators of United 93, United 175, American 11, and American 77, and that is, their aircraft were hijacked and the crashed in New York City, Shanksville, and at the Pentagon.

But looking at the Big Picture, we know that there was fraud and deception and coercion at Shanksville, fraud and deception at WTC.

What do you mean, WE??? Those are simply empty words considering that none of the documented evidence does not fit what you are claiming.

Then the question becomes: why should there NOT be fraud and deception at the Pentagon? And of course there is.

For the record, how about posting the evidence that backs what you are claiming. Simply talking of fraud and presenting no evidence to back up your argument when the true evidence has already proven you wrong beyond any doubt, isn't going to get you anywhere either. Taking a look back, you have supported Unted 93 landing at Cleveland, when in fact, you didn't bother to read the rest of the story, which painted a Delta flight, which was a B-767, and a KC-135, as aircraft the 9/11 folks confused as United 93. Then, you claim that aluminum airframes cannot smash through walls of buildings, yet historical records and photos have proven you wrong once again.

You brought up remarks from an air traffic controller in regards to the maneuver of American 77, yet the air controller you used as a reference has slammed back at the 9/11 folks for taking his remarks out of context. At no time did he state that American 77 was a military aircraft, and it should be of no surprise that he slammed the 9/11 crowd. You made another fatal mistake when you used a coroner as a reference, who later confirmed that United 93 did in fact, crash at Shanksville and that remains of the victims of that flight were recovered and identified, and you didn't bother to check the facts before you posted a reference to that coroner.

What it is, you tend to make claims, yet you have not posted any evidence to back up your claims, so basically speaking, your remarks lack substance, so is it any wonder that the 9/11 folks continue to make a mockery of themselves?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a certain part of the fuselage was blown backwards, as evidenced by the fuselage debris on the lawn, then that shows that the fuselage had lost its structural integrity sufficiently to have been propelled backwards, in pieces, on the lawn. The fuselage was utterly ruptured, and while some of it mysteriously blew backwards, other parts maintained enough integrity, mass and inertia to penetrate a certain number of walls in the rings.

It cannot do both, it seems to me.

"WE"? Sky, there are many many people who understand that deception was employed. Many people are afraid to talk about it, but they understand that 3 modern buildings, 1 of which was not even struck by an airplane, don't just simply fall down whilst having parts of it ejected outwards several hundred feet. And, they COMPLETELY understand how the government lies as a matter of practice, on almost any given topic.

Links are proof of nothing at all Sky. Off topic here, but Andrew Breitbart just put 17 links to support his argument, and close examination showed them to be utterly misleading and inaccurate.

I would like to think that once rational adults have a working knowledge of the facts of any given case, deliberation can move on to a higher level.

You guys still claim that any old body could climb in a strange airplane and perform superhuman feats, but many of us know that is silly and basically irrational.

Having gone through it myself, I know that attempting to defend a lie can lead to irrational statements and claims. Remember what your dad told you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a certain part of the fuselage was blown backwards, as evidenced by the fuselage debris on the lawn, then that shows that the fuselage had lost its structural integrity sufficiently to have been propelled backwards, in pieces, on the lawn. The fuselage was utterly ruptured, and while some of it mysteriously blew backwards, other parts maintained enough integrity, mass and inertia to penetrate a certain number of walls in the rings.

What you see on the lawn is not the whole fuselage, just parts with the main body, which continued into the Pentagon.

"WE"? Sky, there are many many people who understand that deception was employed. Many people are afraid to talk about it, but they understand that 3 modern buildings, 1 of which was not even struck by an airplane, don't just simply fall down whilst having parts of it ejected outwards several hundred feet. And, they COMPLETELY understand how the government lies as a matter of practice, on almost any given topic.

Once again, you are ignoring the fact that American Airlines has confirmed the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon, and the fact that the crash wreckage are the remains of a B-757, which you denied despite the evidence.

Links are proof of nothing at all Sky.

In this case, it is, especially since the 9/11 conspiracy folks have nothing to dispute the evidence.

I would like to think that once rational adults have a working knowledge of the facts of any given case, deliberation can move on to a higher level.

How rational is it when someone claims that no aircraft struck the Pentagon despite the fact there are pieces of a B-757 spread outside and inside the Pentagon? I hope the 9/11 folks don't think that the wreckage was trucked in.

You guys still claim that any old body could climb in a strange airplane and perform superhuman feats, but many of us know that is silly and basically irrational.

We have the evidence, not the 9/11 conspiracy folks who have a habit of getting the facts all wrong and still have yet to present any evidence to prove a government conspiracy.

Having gone through it myself, I know that attempting to defend a lie can lead to irrational statements and claims. Remember what your dad told you?

Irrational statements have been flowiing from the 9/11 conspiracy folks on a continuing basis. After all, I wasn't the person who has claimed that an aluminum airframe cannot penetrate a wall of a building, or that a pod was attached in the exact location where the main landing gears and doors operate on a B-767.We are not the people who have been claiming that airliners were swticted in flight despite evidence to the contrary, and not account for the original airliners. We are not the folks who have claimed that no aircraft crashed at Shanksville despite the overwhelming evidence that Unted 93 had indeed, crashed at the location, and confirmed by the coroner you used as a reference..

We are not the folks who have claimed that undamaged lght poles were placed on the grounds of the Pentagon the night before the attack despite the fact there are damaged light poles near the Pentagon. What it is, the 9/11 folks are simply making things up as they go, which is why they have no evidence to present.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We must simply agree to disagree. For the sake of argument I'm happy to admit that it is possible for a 757 to have penetrated through the various drywall-composed rings there, but still we have the questions of the lack of debris, and that your argument seems to want to have it both ways--the 757 was so shattered that much of the aluminum was blown backwards onto the lawn, some in conveniently large pieces with legible paint jobs on them, and at the same time it retained enough structural integrity to leave a perfectly symmetrical exit hole. That seems intellectually dishonest to me.

Well, agreeing to disagree is fine.

However, my argument has never stated that any but certain debris flew out onto the lawn.

My argument does state the confirmed identities of the passengers and crew of AA77, recovered and mapped in specific places, with debris, inside the building.

It isn't intellectually dishonest not to consider the liberated energy of such a collission. I'd say it ignores intellectual pursuits in favor of a lazier way of perceiving things.

But I understand how difficult it is to defend a fairy tale, for I've done the same thing from 2001 to about 2005. 'tis frustrating indeed because so many things don't make sense.

Understanding why they don't make sense to you could bne a key to understanding why they do actually make sense in the light of physical principals.

But agiin, I completely understand people's general reticence to accept the actual facts of 9-11-01.

!

But looking at the Big Picture, we know that there was fraud and deception and coercion at Shanksville, fraud and deception at WTC. Then the question becomes: why should there NOT be fraud and deception at the Pentagon? And of course there is.

In looking at the "big picture" that you paint in the above small paragraph, it seems apparent that you have a huge burden on your hands.

You certainly may make a statement as you have, but--

It will require you to provide some meager substantiation for the contentions made.

Deception and coersion at Shanksville.

Fraud and deception at WTC.

And then of course, since you accept the unproven and unprovable in those two scenarios, you extend the illusion into the pentagon, and then state, "And of course there is..." as if there's a shred of anything to substantiate it anywhere.

You're certainly allowed. I can't object, but it really rather renders the conversation somehwhat irrelevant.

It's speculative musing, not argumentation of fact-based material.

:hmm:

MID, there might be some Boeing types claiming Hani's maneuver is easy to do, but my bet is that NOT ONE of them would be willing to put his money where his mouth is in attempting to demonstrate it. Not to a fatal ending, of course, but just to, say 100 feet off the ground. We'll never know.

Perhaps they can become temporary muslims so that their flying skills could be improved? Would Allah allow that? :w00t:

As a pilot, I don't claim that Hani's maneuver was "easy" to do.

I don't think any of those nut-cases that day had an easy time flying their airplane at cruise power into a building facade, knowing full well that their lives would be ending in a flash in a moment or two.

What I claim is that basic airmanship, straight and level flight, turns...even if semi-coordinated, push the throttles forward to speed up, point the nose at that thing over there, hold it somewhat steady, and scream alot...isn't necessarily technically difficult.

It didn't take an ATP to be able to do it...any of it.

That's all.

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MID

Have you studied the G's required to pull out of that 3500FPM descent?

Because of this conversation here, I went back to PFT and reviewed the calculations that I had last seen several years ago, regarding this event.

I knew I had rounded down with the 3500 number--the actual number required to make the government story work is closer to 4500FPM, throttles wide open, airspeed on the redline or over. If you go play with any airplane in a similar maneuver, you will see that such conditions will cause a huge overshoot of the target because of all the energy.

Based on precise mathematical calculations, the pullout would have required something over 4G to terminate over the lawn of the Pentagon. Check you Boeing handbook to see how many Gs the 757 can pull. It ain't 4. I doubt if Hani had pulled over 2 in his entire life. Have you pulled 4 lately? In a Boeing transport?

C'mon.

Q provided us a picture of a full metal jacket bullet penetrating some piece of fruit. His point was the blowback, and I happily accept that. Pieces of the fruit, NOT the penetrating round, blew back. And that is supposed to somehow strengthen his and your contention that the reason for the several pieces of fuselage on the lawn in the opposite direction of travel for this Boeing projectile is this blowback phenomenon. It seems that if that comparison were valid, pieces of the building would have been blown backward, not pieces of the projectile.

In any event, you are defending that the pieces of fuselage on the lawn belonged to an aluminum projectile that had penetrated the building, and that somehow that projectile, after coming apart with pieces of it actually travelling backwards from its direction of travel, still maintained enough structural integrity to leave a perfectly round, fuselage shaped, exit hole after penetrating through several walls.

Sorry sir, no can buy that. :wacko:

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew I had rounded down with the 3500 number--the actual number required to make the government story work is closer to 4500FPM, throttles wide open, airspeed on the redline or over.

At what pointe were the throttles advanced?

In any event, you are defending that the pieces of fuselage on the lawn belonged to an aluminum projectile that had penetrated the building, and that somehow that projectile, after coming apart with pieces of it actually travelling backwards from its direction of travel, still maintained enough structural integrity to leave a perfectly round, fuselage shaped, exit hole after penetrating through several walls.

Sorry sir, no can buy that. :wacko:

Explosives didn't bring down the Pentagon nor created that punch-out hole. Look at that hole.

Pentagon_Debris_15.jpg

That wall is nowhere near 24 inches of solid concrete and there are aircraft debris in that photo as well.

Flight 77 Debris

Claim:

Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT:

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Pentagon - Popular Mechanics

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing in that picture even REMOTELY resembling the nose gear of a 757. The "aircraft debris" you have circled could not have blown a perfect circle in that wall, and you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing in that picture even REMOTELY resembling the nose gear of a 757. The "aircraft debris" you have circled could not have blown a perfect circle in that wall, and you know it.

The hole was made by the landing gear.

trou1moyenne.jpg

The following is not indicative of planted explosives.

floorplan_757traj.png

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MID

Have you studied the G's required to pull out of that 3500FPM descent?

Because of this conversation here, I went back to PFT and reviewed the calculations that I had last seen several years ago, regarding this event.

I knew I had rounded down with the 3500 number--the actual number required to make the government story work is closer to 4500FPM, throttles wide open, airspeed on the redline or over. If you go play with any airplane in a similar maneuver, you will see that such conditions will cause a huge overshoot of the target because of all the energy.

Based on precise mathematical calculations, the pullout would have required something over 4G to terminate over the lawn of the Pentagon. Check you Boeing handbook to see how many Gs the 757 can pull. It ain't 4. I doubt if Hani had pulled over 2 in his entire life. Have you pulled 4 lately? In a Boeing transport?

C'mon.

I rthink your question should be....

How many G's do you think it would load to stop a descent rate of 34 MPH, which is what you're talkling about?

That's a function of time involved in arresting the rate.

It could be done with judicious trim tab settings.

4 Gs woud mean that the descent rate was arrested in <1/4 second. No such abrupt maneuver was ever executed by AA77. They never exeeded 2-2.5 g during any jerking aound during that final descent.

Doing it in a second is a 1.3 g thing.

Hani didn't do any such thing. he was understandably erratic with the sensitive controls and pulled no more than 2gs, but, in erratic short bursts of non-control.

He wasn't attempting to pull out of a dive. he was attempting to direct a descent into a facade, which he did.

It takes no fancy calculations to determine G loads here, and you'll never be able to show me apositive g load of 4 g (129fps 2) to simply remain level. Jerking around for a bit on the yoke would've done it without making anyone puke or breaking the airplane (despite the fact that he wanted to break it!).

And yes, I've pulled in excess of 6 gs....never in heavy iron, but if tyou think the design load factors of a transport category aircraft cannot exceed 4, you're mistaken.

However, it'somewhat complicated and depends upon the flighht envelope you're in, airspeeds and such, to determine when a load factor can cause some structural damage.

Q provided us a picture of a full metal jacket bullet penetrating some piece of fruit. His point was the blowback, and I happily accept that. Pieces of the fruit, NOT the penetrating round, blew back. And that is supposed to somehow strengthen his and your contention that the reason for the several pieces of fuselage on the lawn in the opposite direction of travel for this Boeing projectile is this blowback phenomenon. It seems that if that comparison were valid, pieces of the building would have been blown backward, not pieces of the projectile.

babe,

It depends on the penetrating configuration and what is encountered in the synamics of the collision.

I don't think you understand the complexities.

A piece of nacelle, largely unattached from the penetrating mass, could've been shorn off by concrete, while the main fuselage, including passenger cabin, could've made a nice uniform hole in concrete before vaporizing inside the building in various complex ways. Winglets torn off etc., etc...

blown about by wind, exploding fuel, etc....

You over simplify a very complex dynamic scenario in an effort to satify your illusions about something you don't really understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you studied the G's required to pull out of that 3500FPM descent?

Because of this conversation here, I went back to PFT and reviewed the calculations that I had last seen several years ago, regarding this event.

The PfffT calculation assumed a straight line descent and hard pull up to meet the first light pole.

There is however a more curved line of descent which required far less G’s.

PfffT deliberately chose an impossible path and then presented it as the only path.

Edit: Of course this curved approach makes the manoeuvre more difficult for a manual pilot. Rather than lining up the Pentagon in the cockpit window and gunning the engines straight for it, Hanjour would have required somewhat more skill to swoop in low and travel the final approach level, feet above the ground. I’ve only ever seen guided systems perform this type of manoeuvre.

There is nothing in that picture even REMOTELY resembling the nose gear of a 757. The "aircraft debris" you have circled could not have blown a perfect circle in that wall, and you know it.

There is no evidence the hole was a ‘perfect circle’ at time of the impact. As there is no smoke damage visible to either side of the hole, it appears the opening was later widened to allow safe access. I have put this suggestion to you before, Babe Ruth. After you agreed it is possible, I don’t think you can then reasonably continue to claim the aircraft debris made a ‘perfect circle’ in the wall.

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q

Clearly you have not reviewed the calculations over at PFT in awhile, perhaps because you let personal feelings interfere with proper analysis.

They DO INDEED calculate the parabolic approach path. They also calculate straight line. Take your choice, but please make your criticism precise.

I had forgotten about the obstacle of the VDOT tower which would greatly complicate the approach and the calculations in analyzing the official story.

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. ;)

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q

Clearly you have not reviewed the calculations over at PFT in awhile, perhaps because you let personal feelings interfere with proper analysis.

They DO INDEED calculate the parabolic approach path. They also calculate straight line. Take your choice, but please make your criticism precise.

You are right - that’s what happens when PfffT lie and obfuscate one too many times.

The bottom line is there are paths available, fitting the topography, physical damage, eyewitness testimony, security camera footage, radar and flight data recorder, which put the aircraft at less than 2 G’s – within the capabilities of a 757.

The official narrative at the Pentagon fits except for two areas: -

  1. Difficulty of the manoeuvre/hijacker piloting skill.
  2. Identity of the aircraft.

These two areas provide answer for lack of aircrash investigation and limited evidence of the event (leading people to question if any plane impacted at all).

Just tell me, Babe Ruth - how do you think the light poles came to be knocked down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understanding that the Pentagon, obviously, is the house of those most likely to be the perpetrators of any false flag operation (hypothetical or otherwise), and that the grounds are its yard, rigging those light poles to come down would be child's play.

I'm no expert in demolition, but I did my time in the Army and understand how it works in general terms. I think rigging those poles would be very easy indeed.

I appreciate your candor regarding your feelings about PFT, and that candor reinforces my respect for your posts. I too see them as being quite dogmatic, but that does not mean that they are entirely wrong. In this case, the calculations simply pay homage to the scientific method, and that's fine by me.

I assume you are not a pilot and thus cannot appreciate what a 4g pull really means. You cannot appreciate how a rookie pilot would be so far behind such an airplane, flying in a completely strange cockpit with all its knobs, buttons and such, and flying at speeds more than twice as fast as he has ever flown in his life.

And another thing my review over at PFT reminded me was the issue of ground effect. It is an aerodynamic phenomenon that occurs when an airplane gets within half its wingspan of the ground. Obviously, it comes into play on every landing. And the faster the airspeed, the more pronounced the cushioning effect. While I had failed to mention the term before, it is a major player in why low level, terrain-following flight is so tricky.

In short, the story of Hani and 77 are simply preposterous when viewed in context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understanding that the Pentagon, obviously, is the house of those most likely to be the perpetrators of any false flag operation (hypothetical or otherwise), and that the grounds are its yard, rigging those light poles to come down would be child's play.

I'm no expert in demolition, but I did my time in the Army and understand how it works in general terms. I think rigging those poles would be very easy indeed.

How do you suggest the light poles were ‘rigged’?

I assume you are not a pilot and thus cannot appreciate what a 4g pull really means.

In short, the story of Hani and 77 are simply preposterous when viewed in context.

Again, there did not have to be a 4G pull… that’s just what PfffT want you to think is necessarily so. It depends upon exactly how the flight path is plotted.

I agree it highly unlikely that Hanjour was at the controls, but don’t see the physical manoeuvre itself as impossible.

The Boeing website states what remote guidance systems are capable of: -

Speed: 500 mph

Flies complicated, low-altitude routes to a target by utilizing a terrain-contour-matching guidance system and GPS/INS

That sounds very like the Flight 77 approach.

Hani ‘guided missile’ Hanjour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Of course this curved approach makes the manoeuvre more difficult for a manual pilot. Rather than lining up the Pentagon in the cockpit window and gunning the engines straight for it, Hanjour would have required somewhat more skill to swoop in low and travel the final approach level, feet above the ground. I’ve only ever seen guided systems perform this type of manoeuvre.

With guided systems, there would have been no need to conduct such a maneuver, and when an aircraft is skims close to the ground, things begin to happen.

260x174b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find some sort of remote controlled airplane involvment as being plausibe to probable. That was the issue over which I parted company with PFT, or at least certain members. They became dogmatic that no flying machine was involved there, and I said that they could not prove that claim. C'est la vie.

I understand and agree your cite from Boeing regarding low level navigation. But my bet is that if you read that closely, they are NOT talking about such a system being on a 757 or any of their transport category aircraft. And certainly NOT out of a 4000FPM circling overhead approach.

Fighter aircraft and other highly maneuverable aircraft, by all means, but not lumbering transports designed to carry passengers at 35000 feet.

As for the light poles, some sort of explosive charges would have done nicely IMO, to sever them from their bases.

Not to go off topic, but there is an account that I read some years ago at PFT, regarding the efforts of the pilot for a news helicopter as I recall, and I want to say he was a former military pilot and driven by patriotic duty on that day.

Somehow or other he offered his services with the helicopter to go into Pentagon airspace to assist in anyway he could, understanding that they had taken casualties there, etc etc. I think he went through his supervisor who was on the phone to the Pentagon somehow or other.

Anyway, they told him not just "no", but "hell no", stay clear of the place.

Point being that there were things to be kept out of the public view. I wonder if that might be the reason for the confiscation of certain civilian surveillance video, and the refusal to release such Pentagon videos--to keep secrets regarding the creation of certain "debris trails" and other physical evidence put into place, like damaged light poles?

If they had found a way to haul in 2 wrecked 757 engines, and a full set of wrecked landing gear assemblies, we probably would not be having this discussion, at least from my end.

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understanding that the Pentagon, obviously, is the house of those most likely to be the perpetrators of any false flag operation (hypothetical or otherwise), and that the grounds are its yard, rigging those light poles to come down would be child's play.

Where's your evidence? Who rigged those light poles?

What you are implying doesn't make any sense at all when there would have been many witnesses on the roads and in the general area, yet no one reported that the light poles were rigged nor saw anyone pulling down light poles, which were incidently, standing before American 77 struck the Pentagon.

In short, the story of Hani and 77 are simply preposterous when viewed in context.

Then, why did American Airlines report that American 77 had crashed at the Pentagon? We have radar trackings of American 77 from the airport where that flight embarked, and since you cannot account for the victims of American 77, you have no case.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find some sort of remote controlled airplane involvment as being plausibe to probable. That was the issue over which I parted company with PFT, or at least certain members. They became dogmatic that no flying machine was involved there, and I said that they could not prove that claim. C'est la vie.

I understand and agree your cite from Boeing regarding low level navigation. But my bet is that if you read that closely, they are NOT talking about such a system being on a 757 or any of their transport category aircraft. And certainly NOT out of a 4000FPM circling overhead approach.

Fighter aircraft and other highly maneuverable aircraft, by all means, but not lumbering transports designed to carry passengers at 35000 feet.

As for the light poles, some sort of explosive charges would have done nicely IMO, to sever them from their bases.

The Boeing link was just to show what guidance systems are capable of.

Back to the light poles…

If you believe there was a flying machine at the Pentagon, and that it was plausibly under remote guidance, then why can’t it have knocked down the light poles?

Do you see any explosive damage at the bases?

image035.jpg

a10a-DSC_0472-1.JPG

Also the top end is crimped/severed which would suggest impact damage.

Or were separate charges placed at each end of the light poles that actually caused nothing like explosive damage?? :unsure2:

Furthermore there are a number of eyewitnesses who saw or perceived that the plane clipped and knocked down the light poles. Can you provide one single eyewitness who claims the light poles popped out of the ground independently of the plane impact? Of course not.

The claim the light poles were ‘rigged’ is completely unfounded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find some sort of remote controlled airplane involvment as being plausibe to probable.

In that case, you have to show where American Airlines, the operator of American 77, registration number; N644AA, had allowed that particular B-757 to be taken out of service for several weeks and modified for the purpose of flying under remote control. Then, you have to provide the names of those who modified and flew the aircraft under remote control. In addition, you have to explain why the registration number for that aircraft is no longer valid.

My link

If you are going to claim that American 77 was flown under remote control, then you have to provide the evidence that the aircraft was modified, and the time and location where the modification was completed, and explain how the modication was done under the eyes of technicians and inspectors of American Airlilnes and of the FAA.

I understand and agree your cite from Boeing regarding low level navigation. But my bet is that if you read that closely, they are NOT talking about such a system being on a 757 or any of their transport category aircraft. And certainly NOT out of a 4000FPM circling overhead approach. Fighter aircraft and other highly maneuverable aircraft, by all means, but not lumbering transports designed to carry passengers at 35000 feet.

The maneuver that the terrorist conducted prior to slamming American 77 into the Pentagon, has also been performed by other large aircraft, such as the KC-10, C-141, and even the C-5. In fact, the same maneuver was conducted by Air Force One, when it landed in Iraq with President Bush.

As for the light poles, some sort of explosive charges would have done nicely IMO, to sever them from their bases.

The light poles suffered from impact damage, and nothing to do with explosives. This taxi was struck by one of the light poles and yet, there are those who have said that the light poles were planted the night before the attack..

022.jpg

damagedpole.jpg

pent12_close2.JPG

polepinched4.jpg

187b.jpg

My link

There is nothing there that suggest the light poles were rigged.

If they had found a way to haul in 2 wrecked 757 engines, and a full set of wrecked landing gear assemblies, we probably would not be having this discussion, at least from my end.

There is no way to dump aircraft engines and landing gears at the Pentagon in the presence of hundreds of people, including news reporters, and not draw attention. Don't you think that people would become suspicious if they saw trucks dumping aircraft engines and landing gears at the Pentagon after the impact?

In addition, jet engines have their own unique serial numbers that can be tracked as well.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.