See other 9/11 Articles
Title: The 9/11 conspiracy plots thicken
Source:
Seattle Times
URL Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht ... /2003250424_911conspire09.html
Published: Sep 09, 2006
Author: Michael Powell, wapo
Post Date: 2010-07-19 22:23:35 by Dakmar
Keywords: None
Views: 19506
Comments: 989
They are politically diverse and include academics, ex-officials and Web surfers. All share a belief that the Bush administration played a role in the 9/11 attacks. Their numbers seem to speak to Americans' innate distrust of their government. The Washington Post NEW YORK — He felt no shiver of doubt in those first terrible hours. He watched the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and assumed al-Qaida had wreaked terrible vengeance. He listened to anchors and military experts and assumed the facts of Sept. 11, 2001, were as stated on the screen. It was a year before David Ray Griffin, an eminent liberal theologian and philosopher, began his stroll down the path of disbelief. He wondered why Bush listened to a child's story while the nation was attacked and how Osama bin Laden, America's Public Enemy No. 1, escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. He wondered why 110-story towers crashed and military jets failed to intercept even one airliner. He read the 9/11 Commission report with a swell of anger. Contradictions were ignored and no military or civilian official was reprimanded, much less cashiered. "To me, the report read as a cartoon," Griffin said. "It's a much greater stretch to accept the official conspiracy story than to consider the alternatives." Such as? "There was massive complicity in this attack by U.S. government operatives." If that feels like a skip off the cliff of established reality, more Americans are in free fall than you might guess. There are few more startling measures of American distrust of leaders than the extent of belief that the Bush administration had a hand in the attacks of Sept. 11 to spark an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. 36 percent suspicious A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Distrust percolates more strongly near Ground Zero. A Zogby International poll of New York City residents two years ago found 49.3 percent believed the government "consciously failed to act." Establishment assessments of the believers tend toward the psychotherapeutic. Many academics, politicians and thinkers left, right and center say the conspiracy theories are a case of one plus one equals five. It's a piling up of improbabilities. Thomas Eager, a professor of materials science at MIT, has studied the collapse of the twin towers. "At first, I thought it was amazing that the buildings would come down in their own footprints," Eager says. "Then I realized that it wasn't that amazing — it's the only way a building that weighs a million tons and is 95 percent air can come down." But the chatter out there is loud enough for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to post a Web "fact sheet" poking holes in the conspiracy theories and defending its report on the towers. Motley crew The loose agglomeration known as the "9/11 Truth Movement" has stopped looking for truth from the government. A cacophonous and free-range a bunch of conspiracists, they produce hip-hop inflected documentaries and scholarly conferences. The Web is their mother lode. Every citizen is a researcher. Did you see that the CIA met with bin Laden in a hospital room in Dubai? Check out this Pakistani site; there are really weird doings in Baluchistan ... Peter Knight, senior lecturer in American studies at the University of Manchester and editor of the 2002 book "Conspiracy Nation: The Politics of Paranoia in Postwar America," called the movement "a strange beast, an amalgam of elements. You've got the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war crowd — you know, if they lied about the war, maybe they lied about 9/11. Another part is people merely interested in the anomalies, with no preconceived political agenda. "Then you have the more traditional right-wing conspiracy part of the continuum that believes a vast cabal has taken over the United States, the mega-conspiracy of the right's new world order. To them, all of these things are connected. Each group inserts 9/11 into its pre-existing conspiracy model." The academic wing is led by Griffin, who founded the Center for a Postmodern World at Claremont University; James Fetzer, a tenured philosopher at the University of Minnesota; and Daniel Orr, retired chairman of the economics department at the University of Illinois. Professor suspended The movement's de facto minister of engineering is Steven Jones, a tenured physics professor at Brigham Young University who has studied vectors and velocities and tested explosives and concluded that the collapse of the twin towers is best explained as controlled demolition, sped by a thousand pounds of high-grade thermite. Jones has been placed on paid leave while the Mormon-church-owned school investigates his claims, it was announced Friday. The physicist published his views two weeks ago in the book "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out." Former Reagan aide Barbara Honegger is a senior military-affairs journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School in California. She's convinced, based on her freelance research, that a bomb went off about six minutes before an airplane hit the Pentagon — or didn't hit it, as some believe the case may be. Then there's Morgan O. Reynolds, appointed by George W. Bush as chief economist at the Labor Department. He left in 2002 and doesn't think much of his former boss. "Who did it? Elements of our government and M-16 and the Mossad. The government's case is a laugh-out-loud proposition. They used patsies and lies and subterfuge and there's no way that Bush and Cheney could have invaded Iraq without the help of 9/11," Reynolds asserts. They are cantankerous and sometimes distrust each other — who knows where the double agents lurk? But unreasonable questions resonate with the reasonable. Colleen Kelly's brother, a salesman, had breakfast at the Windows on the World restaurant on Sept. 11. After he died she founded September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows to oppose the Iraq war. She lives in the Bronx and gives a gingerly embrace to the conspiracy crowd. "Sometimes I listen to them and I think that's sooooo outlandish and bizarre," she says. "But that day had such disastrous geopolitical consequences. If David Ray Griffin asks uncomfortable questions and points out painful discrepancies, good for him." Griffin's book, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11," sold more than 100,000 copies and became a movement founding stone. Last year he traveled through New England, giving speeches. One evening in West Hartford, Conn., 400 mostly middle-aged and upper-middle-class doctors and lawyers, teachers and social workers sat waiting. Griffin took the podium and laid down his ideas with calm and cool. He concluded: "It is already possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt one very important thing: The destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. The welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed." The audience rose and applauded for more than a minute. No patience Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, a Boston-based left-leaning think tank, is no fan of the 9/11 Commission. He believes a serious investigation should have led to indictments and the firing of incompetent generals and civilian officials. But he has no patience with the conspiracy theorists. "They don't do their homework; it's a kind of charlatanism," says Berlet. "They say there's no debris on the lawn in front of the Pentagon, but they base their analysis on a photo on the Internet. That's like analyzing an impressionist painting by looking at a postcard. "I love 'The X-Files' but I don't base my research on it. My vision of hell is having to review these [conspiracy] books over and over again." In the days after Sept. 11, experts claimed temperatures reached 2,000 degrees on the upper floors. Others claimed steel melted. Nope. What happened, says Eager, the MIT materials-science professor, is that jet fuel sloshed around and beams got rubbery. "It's not too much to think that you could have some regions at 900 degrees and others at 1,200 degrees, and that will distort the beams." The truth movement doesn't really care for Eager. A Web site casts a fisheye of suspicion at the professor and his colleagues. "Did the MIT have prior knowledge?" notes one chat room. "This is for sure another speculative topic ... " Professsor Jones' suspension was reported Friday by The Associated Press. Peter Knight was quoted by McClatchy Newspapers.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 950.
#14. To: Dakmar (#0)
Are you in teenage-wasteland?
P.S. Your thread was closed before I posted a response to this: That isn't the author of the article of this thread. "we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET buckeroo posted on 2010-07-23 21:14:55 ET [Locked] Trace Private Reply Reply: I know Loizeaux wasn't the author of the article. He was part of AGA's list (#9) that you quoted in a post to him (#1137 You To: AGAviator #1096) . The title of the thread was mentioned in my post to you to bring the topic back to the subject of CD and Loizeaux's statement about it at #9 in AGA's list, the premise of which was already debunked with an alert to that fact at Post #982 and again at Post #1109. Just wanted to clarify that for you. ______________________ Replying to AGAviator @ Post #857 of the 9/11 demolition theory challenged: What satelite phones with noise filters? I don't understand your next question about sotto voce. There were places in the alleged phone call recordings without anyone speaking and no engine-noise heard. And the Right Here link you posted to me is the very same NTSB pdf footnote link I posted to you from your Wikipedia page reference for Flight 77 that had nothing in it at all about 40 hours and 11 flights prior to 9/11 on the FDR.
It brings to tears to my eyes since several REAL attempts to persuade and convince a pile of rabble rousers, HELL bent on pushing a conspiracy agenda killed the thread. That thread could have gone stellar here at 4um bringing the truth about some of the silly conspiracy plots. I shall renew the effort, too.
P.S. Your thread was closed before I posted a response to this It brings to tears to my eyes Yes buckie, you cried like a little girl when nobody wanted to buy the BS you were selling, and instead, people posted facts and evidence which tore your little fairie tale to shreads.
Oh, did the widdle buckywoo cwy? Maybe he should go running home to his mama and tell her the big kids on the internet are beating the crap out of him for lying.
when he wakes up in the morning he uses the quarter found in his teeth as proof some one loves him.
Good one.
Good one. How does this comment rate on your vulgarity scale?
For general antagonistic attitude and creating dissent without contributing to the discussions on this site, your account has been closed. I've reviewed your past remarks, and you have ridiculed, defamed, and made rude remarks. Although I think you are intelligent, and capable of good research you are not using those skills in a way that promotes our Constitutional Republic, and in fact is more in line with harming same. I wish you well - but not on this website. Goldi-Lox posted on 2009-11-15 21:12:12 ET And your first post at LP.... You practice, promote and tolerate the rawest racial vilification of these people. Objet posted enough of your stomach-turners to make THAT point... You fling around vile personal attacks -- e.g., personally charging ME with "hating Jews" and hating YOU because you are a Jew... But then, in addition to your down-and-dirty resort to smears of anti-semitism, you also adopt the weepy-therapeutic-narcissistic vaporing of the Left -- namely: you were oh-so-offended and hurt and "personally attacked" by posts like mine that talk about Palestinian ambulances and medics have the hell shot out of them (and killed -- and beaten and tortured in alarming numbers -- by IDF war criminals... You prance and preen as a Joan of Arc seeking "truth" and combating "haters"...instead, you are a blatant censor and a vile racist (gotta look out for them "P's", remember) who cheerfully admits she censors. THEN you had the nerve to blast away all day yesterday about how these unnamed troglodyte "haters" on the other side -- presumably those who might post something critical of Israel and of your hero, Ariel Sharo Same ol' stuff, different site, eh Jaunty? AGAviator posted on 2002-08-26 16:52:15 ET There is no question that you have capability and know your stuff.... but will anyone research your posts? Will anyone care to realize that on LP you were tried and convicted of objective opinions based on both MadDog and yukon with hostess, there. You are an outstanding poster, AG... I don't give a damn what the others say about ya.
You are an outstanding poster, AG... I don't give a damn what the others say about ya. Sheesh, buck, have you no shame? Can't you post this sychophant butt kissing on the PM? You two look like idiots fawning over one another ad nauseum. Not that I care, but, egads, try to muster up an iota of dignity. And the answer is: NO, NOBODY WILL CARE, NOBODY WILL RESEARCH THE POSTS.......only you buck--you are the wind beneath AG's wings.
You two look like idiots fawning over one another ad nauseum. Not that I care, but, egads, try to muster up an iota of dignity Continuing your obsessive, vulgar, and pathological attacks after being asked by the forum manager in Post #187 40 minutes ago to give it a rest, I see.
That right there is funny. Butt kissing, brown nosing--I call it like I see it. No attack, just the facts and you two were just whining for facts. I think even you know that it's true. Take it to PM. Christine is going to tire quickly of your pings. This isn't a sand box. Grow up.
Seems like it hasn't dawned on you that Christine is the one who locked down the other thread because she thought it unproductive, and who asked everybody in Post #187 to give it a rest. Your reply: "I'm not vulgar. No, not me. Calling someone a brown nose is not vulgar when I do it. I'm just calling like it see it." Looks like you're due for some ***edification.***
We all know why the other post was locked down. Only you and Buckie dream that it was on the verge of "stellar" when the lot of us accepted it needed to be flushed. Giving it a rest doesn't mean pinging her to every post YOU DEEM not up to forum decorum. Nobody asked you to be the self proclaimed site monitor. You were simply asked to take your butt kissing and brown nosing to PM. You sure aren't qualified to give edification to a piss ant, let along any posters here at 4um.
And you were told to "please" stop the vulgar remarks, which you naturally are incapable of doing because you have nothing of content to communicate and you can't bear the thought of not saying anything at all.
Brown nosing and butt kissing are the appropriate verbs to describe the verbal exchanges between you and buck. That right there is a fact. It should also be taken to PM. Aren't you going to ping Christine to buck's response about butt licking that didn't describe any content at all. Come on, now, if you are going to be the self proclaimed site monitor, you best turn buckie in for his vulgar remark. Or shall you carry on with more hypocricy?
As you yourself say, he's responding to a "butt kissing" remark by you. If it's vulgar it's because you made it so originally. Hey buck, on Post #198 I said I would no longer reply in kind to the provocations by the usual subjects, and see how quickly they run out of gas by being unable to cite data and facts. Care to give it a try?
Butt licking doesn't describe the content of the posts between the two of you.....butt kissing does. We all know what the terms brown noser and butt kisser mean, so don't play stupid. I didn't make if vulgar, it is what it is. I do not, and will not, deflect from my remarks. You are attempting to make an issue out of a non issue because you want to be self proclaimed site monitor. Another epic failure on your part. Like I said, when you and buck want to brown nose and butt kiss, do it on PM. And if you are going to respond to folks noting your butt kissing and brown nosing, don't bring butt licking into the exchange......or anus as you like to do.
I'm not the one who decided to lock down the other thread, and I had nothing to do with the locking down. You're the one sniveling about my post to you, and you'll lose if either the high road or the low road is taken. All I'm doing is pointing out that none of you can live by the standards you demand of your detractors. And none of you can go for any length of time citing facts and keeping away from the vulgar and off-topic. Like now.
I'm not sniveling, I merely voted your post most vulgar as you were hypocritically pointing out the how vulgar other posts are. Your vulgar posts had a big part in shutting down that thread. It's extremely dishonest to deny that FACT. Man up and accept your responsibility. Sheesh, you've been playing the victim card ad nauseum, moaning, bitching, complaining and sniveling about others doing WHAT YOU DO. I don't play the victim card and you've never stepped foot on the high road. Enough with your lies.
Lying seems to be part of the "debunker" mentality. Their patron un-saint "The Less Than Amazing Randi" and the Septical Inquirer crowd have been caught more than once. Their mindset also seems to be "The Champions of Official Orthodoxy" whatever the current official orthodoxy is. The debunkers have made more twists and turns than a corkscrew. Every time the "received" wisdom from the Holy Establishment changes their opinion immediately changes with it - "and that's the way it's been forever".I have little patience for them because "the lights are on but there is nobody home". They do not think they regurgitate. And because it is either a fixation or something that they are, in some cases, paid to believe the likelihood of their ever waking up is vanishingly small. Still they are useful for one thing and that is making us think and to refine our understanding of the facts. We do have a couple of advantages over them though. The truth is the basic fundamental isness and is the reality and because of that their lies have to constantly be repeated over and over and over to keep them in place whereas the truth just is. The other advantage we have is that we can be wrong a thousand times and still be right as it only takes "1" incontrovertable fact to show that what they are pushing is a lie whereas they cannot admit error even once or else their entire edifice of lies crumbles.
LIE Original_Intent posted on 2010-07-23 16:49:06 ET REALITY: 14 CFR 61.133 - Commercial pilot privileges and limitations CHAPTER I - FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUBCHAPTER D - AIRMEN PART 61 - CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS subpart f - COMMERCIAL PILOTS 61.133 - Commercial pilot privileges and limitations. (a) Privileges(1) General. A person who holds a commercial pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft (i) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation; and (ii) For compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation.
Careful there - you might throw your elbow out patting yourself on the back. Once again you demonstrate your willingness to twist and distort the data to suit your distorted misrepresentations. A Commercial Pilot's Certificate DOES NOT convey at certification the ability or right to Pilot a multi-pilot Airliner. While it does convey the right to be a co-pilot on most major airlines an Airline Transport Pilot License is the norm AND IS REQUIRED to sit as Pilot and Captain. It is a considerably higher rating and requires a minimum of 1,500 hours of flight time logged on flights of greater than 50 NM and has a night flying and instrument requirement as well. A Commercial Pilots Certificate, while conveying the ability to fly for pay on a LIMITED level, DOES NOT CONVEY A LICENSCE TO FLY AN AIRLINER and as such is A LEARNER'S PERMIT to learn to fly one and to accumulate the hours necessary to qualify for an Airline Transport Pilot License which is what is required to set in the Pilot Seat of a multi-pilot Airliner. Your attempt to misrepresent Hanjour's qualifications to inflate them beyond their level is simply an attempt to confuse and to obscure the fact that by all accounts Hanjour was an INCOMPETENT. From your own link: Hanjour met none of the requirements for an Airline Transport Pilot's License and given his poor command of English it is doubtful that he truly met the requirements for the Commercial Pilot's Certificate. Further we know from every reliable witness testimony from his schools and instructors, including his attempt to rent a single engine Cessna for which he was turned down THREE TIMES, that Hanjour WAS INCOMPETENT as a pilot. We also know that he HAD NEVER sat behind the stick on a Jet Aircraft OF ANY KIND. The largest aircraft he is ever known to have flown is a Piper Apache Twin Engine Propeller Driven 4 seater. Your attempts to misrepresent Hanjour's Licensing and Qualifications amount to nothing more than an attempt to inflate and overstate his abilities and qualifications as a pilot. The bottom line is that Hanjour had never under any circumstances flown a jet aircraft whether single or multi-engine, was not qualified or licensed to fly a Jetliner, and by all evidences from witness testimony of his instructors likely should never have been given a Commercial rating in the first place as he was incompetent as a pilot and his command of English was insufficient to meet the criteria stipulated for the rating.
(b) Limitations. A commercial pilot's license is not a learner's permit. A commercial pilot license does authorize a pilot to be a pilot in command for a sinble aircraft engine - remember saying he couldn't even fly a single engine airplnane, huh? - and a co pilot on a multi pilot aircraft. Once again, contrary to your claims, you are WRONG, and once again you try to move the goalposts after your statement is debunked. Additional type certifications can and are completed on ground school, simulators and other methods than getting direct instruction from a right seater.
(b) Limitations. A commercial pilot's license is not a learner's permit. A commercial pilot license does authorize a pilot to be a pilot in command for a sinble aircraft engine - remember saying he couldn't even fly a single engine airplnane, huh? - and a co pilot on a multi pilot aircraft. Once again, contrary to your claims, you are WRONG, and once again you try to move the goalposts after your statement is debunked. Additional type certifications can and are completed on ground school, simulators and other methods than getting direct instruction from a right seater. How charming. Caught in your disinformational inflation of Hanjour's/Hanjoor's abilities and qualifications as a pilot you are now trying to wiggle out of the trap of your own devising. As far as flying a Jet Airliner a Commercial Pilot's Certificate IS a Learner's Permit. It does not convey a license to fly a multi-engine Jumbo Jet using a Pilot and Co-Pilot. The most it conveys, and only if someone is willing to hire him for it (HA!) is to sit in the Co-Pilot's seat. And the evidence and record of testimony is quite clear - HE WAS TURNED DOWN THREE TIMES on the rental of a single engine Cessna 172 because in the opinion of the instructor checking him out he was not capable enough to fly it alone. Twist and turn as you might that is documented in testimony. As for any other certifications there is nothing in evidence showing that he had any. I presume you have something which documents any other certifications (saving a single engine VFR license which he had to have prior to the botched Commercial Certification)? I didn't think so. We have been over and over and over this territory. Hanjoor/Hanjour has been repeatedly characterized in testimony, and in interviews, as INCOMPETENT as a pilot, your cavils and quibbles and diversions do not change that FACT.
Wrong as usual. A "Learners Permit" is an off-the-wall goofball term you have just invented to try to avoid being wrong on claiming that Hanjour was not a pilot. There is no such term in aviation as a "Learners Permit." The correct license for a "Learner's Permit" is called a "Student Pilot" which Hanjour was clearly not at the time. He was authorized as a pilot in command in a Single Engine Aircraft, and a Co- Pilot in Multi Engine Aircraft. The fact that he may have been required to take additional type class training, such as operating landing gear or operating a seaplane for Single Engine, or being type certified for Multi Engine, does not take away from his pilot status. You are debunked and pwned.
Still engaging in evading the point I see. I am not going to mince details and join you in hair-splitting. Hanjour/Hanjoor was by all credible evidence INCOMPETENT as a pilot, who spoke broken English (thus making his Commercial Certificate, to say the least, questionable). Why don't you argue the point with the author of this article: Al-Qaeda's Top Gun ... - after all he only included fifty-some odd foot notes. I am sure you can find a few microscopic points to distort and quibble over.
You're the one who keeps shifting the goalposts and making up goofball definitions. Hanjour was a marginal pilot. But he was a licensed pilot. His reviewers at the private flight school correctly saw his marginality and refused to put their own aircraft on the line renting to him. Good for them. However they explicitly and clearly say he was capable of taking over a hijacked plane and crashing it. That is the only "qualification" that is relevant for Hanjour. He did not need to speak English, he did not need to take off, and he did not need to land.
He did not need to speak English, Yes he did, in order to successfully complete the FAA exam, and to understand and speak with air traffic controllers over the radio. It is an FAA requirement that a pilot speak, understand, read, and write English. That's what makes it suspicious that he somehow obtained both a private pilot's license and commercial license with his extremely poor language skills, especially since he lacked the skills and abilities required to actually fly an airplane. he did not need to take off He needed to be able to do that in order to obtain any sort of pilot's license. That he couldn't yet somehow got his license, raises serious questions as to the abilities of pilots flying the skies of America to this day. That, or it indicates he had some "help" getting those credentials from high level officials. , and he did not need to land. He ALSO would have needed to be able to land in order to obtain the FAA certifications that he possessed, yet he COULDN'T land a Cessna properly. HOWEVER, and this is a BIG HOWEVER, whoever flew the alleged Flight 77 into the Pentagon DID virtually land the aircraft, as the aircraft had somehow descended to 20 feet off the ground at 530 mph over the Pentagon lawn, and hit the wall with the aircraft level, all without even touching the lawn.
You are presuming he did not regress from 1999. The fact is, immediately after receiving his certificate in 1999, he sought work at Saudi Arabian Airlines. Only when he could not get hired did he start hanging around jihadis and losing interest in maintaining his conventional piloting skills. The plane hit the Pentagon with the starboard wing striking the 2nd floor and the port wing almost hitting the ground. The hit was neither straight on, nor level. It was a barely controlled attempt to hit any part of a huge building he could.
A) If the nose had been up, he would have climbed over the Pentagon. None of those things happened, no matter how much you try to spin it. Additionally, it was close to impossibile to get the aircraft down to that altitude at that speed, where even professional pilots would have been unable to do it and not have climbed over the Pentagon or hit the lawn. The aircraft was under incredible control to be able to perform as it did. In fact, the author of the article I just posted above, Nila Sagadevan, who is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft, has issued a challenge to any pilot in the world to fly a large heavy aircraft with low wing loading (such as a Boeing 757) below 60 feet at a speed of 400 mph in a flat trajectory for over a mile, which is what Hani Hanjour (Hanjoor) is alleged to have accomplished, even though he was unable to fly a Cessna 172.
"Looking at the face of the building, it can be seen that this damage perfectly matches the remaining nearby damage, which stretches for several meters and is compatible with the hypothesis of an impact of the right wing of an aircraft of the same size as a Boeing 757/200."
Uh huh. Where are the engines and wings then? That looks much more like missile blast damage than it does an aircraft crash.
Scattered all over the crash site, as one would expect. 911 Debunked - Pentagon Flight 77 Photo Evidence
Where's all the fire damage from the jet fuel in the front of the Pentagon? Oh that's right, there wasn't much fire there, so the fuel must have magically disappeared.
Yup, no fires and no fire engines either. That's the ticket
Where's the fire damage in the EARLIER pictures you posted, such as this one?
Fires appear not to have consistently reached that high. Not really relevant. Something made a big gash in the exterior, and it couldn't have been a missile.
Not relevant? The fire is INSIDE the building, not the OUTSIDE, which would be the case if thousands of gallons of jet fuel splashed all over the outside wall, which it WOULD have done if the wing of a 757 hit it.
The 757 engines are suspended from pylons several feet below the wings. The wings getting ground up hitting the wall, does not equal jet engines and fuselage not making holes in the wall lower down on 1st floor. A fuselage and jet engines going into the building over 400 mph creates a substantial vacuum behind them, which pulled the fuel fireball into the backdraft and into the building. And none of these objections furthers the cause of "therefore we must conclude a missile or means unknown caused the impact - not a 757 which was reported missing and had scores of passangers who died at the crash scene, and were identified by forensic DNA."
Where did the wing and its engine pass through in the image below? That blue section certainly won't fit a wing, and since the FUEL is stored IN the wing, if the wing had disintegrated outside the building, the FUEL would ALSO be outside the building. There IS no wing damage visible, so you truly ARE grasping at straws here, and actually confirm that a 757 DID NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.
Numerous 757 parts including landing gear, parts of APU's, fuselage aluminum in the AA paint scheme, jet engine parts, and landing wheel pieces were found both inside and outside the building, frequently scorched, and broken into pieces. Including, ahem, the charred cockpit voice recorder and flight instrument recorder cited by you know whoooo. Crashes involving 450 mph aircraft crashing into buildings don't happen that frequently, and nattering over minutiae of how something ended up where it did, when it was propelled by huge impact, fuel explosion, and kinetic energy forces, does not in any way lead to the conclusion "Therefore it had to have been a missile."
Oh some sort of aircraft struck the Pentagon, and some debris was "found" inside the Pentagon (who knows what sort of "construction" was really going on, I mean, they could have been placing those parts in there at that time). BUT, there is NO wing damage visible where the wing is alleged to have entered the Pentagon, and there is NO fuel fire where the wing is claimed to have impacted, so there COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A WING from a 757 that hit that building.
Ruh roh! Look at who's coming down squarely on the side of the "Official Gubmint Theory" Why none other than 911 Research itself! HAHAHAHA! 911 Research.com: The Pentagon Attack, What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman psychology In this essay I look exclusively at the physical evidence of the Pentagon attack -- post-crash photographs and verifiable information about the building, the Boeing 757-200 aircraft, and the physics of aircraft crashes based on case studies. In some cases I mention elements of eyewitness accounts, but only to frame my analysis of what the photographs show about the crash. I show that the physical evidence is consistent with the crash of a 757, noting flaws in popular arguments to the contrary. The many eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack constitute a rich body of evidence that strongly supports the conclusion that the attack plane was either a Boeing 757 or a very similar aircraft. The physical and eyewitness evidence are thus mutually corroborating, a fact that is obscured by common errors in evaluating the physical evidence. Many researchers have dismissed the body of eyewitness evidence out of hand, primarily for two reasons: Allegations that the body of witness evidence as a whole is plagued by bias, contamination, and unreliability (addressed here) have been widely promoted and have not been effectively countered, apparently because the ponderous volume of the witness reports discourages analysis. Assertions that physical evidence trumps witness evidence in any crime investigation have fostered a reflexive disdain for witness evidence while lending a false sense of infallibility to arguments based on photographs. Factors such as these have contributed to the creation of a false dialectic, which has eyewitness evidence supporting the Boeing theory and physical evidence supporting the no-Boeing theory. By focusing on the physical evidence here, I hope to sidestep that dialectic and clarify what conclusions the physical evidence actually supports. The Pentagon No- 757- Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics by Jim Hoffman Many researchers have ignored or dismissed this eyewitness evidence in favor of a seemingly overwhelming physical evidence case that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon, based on photographs of the crash site. As I show below, however, each of the pieces of evidence adduced in favor of the no-757-crash theory can be reconciled with the crash of a 757. The controversy over this issue has eclipsed the many documented facts linking the 9/11/01 attacks to insiders. Defenders of the official story have seized on this issue as representative of the gullibility and incompetence of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists"
People such as you have planted those sorts of stories across the web, fooling otherwise rational people into believing such crap. In order to cover the very obvious fact that NO WING FROM A 757 HIT THE PENTAGON, since there was NO FUEL FIRE WHERE THE WING SHOULD HAVE HIT THE WALL, and there is NO HOLE FOR THE WING TO HAVE PENETRATED THE WALL, you folks have played the part of "concerned researchers" literally IGNORING ALL THE EVIDENCE, and claiming that those who see the obvious are DISINFO AGENTS. How ingenious of you, it's rather sad that people actually fall for it. The fact is, Hanjour would NOT and COULD NOT have had even the REMOTEST chance of flying that alleged 757 the way it was flown that day, and the damage to the Pentagon doesn't match that of a Boeing 757. You can't change those facts, all you have is spin.
You can't change those facts, all you have is spin. Once again you make assertions with no proof or rebuttals of your own. Denying existing facts is not sufficient for evidential conclusions. You must supply your own independent verifiable facts to withstand equal or greater scrutiny.
Once again you make assertions with no proof or rebuttals of your own. Hanjour's instructors have stated that he was an extremely poor pilot, that he lacked the basic skills required to pilot an aircraft, in fact, one said "he could not fly at all". I'll take their observations over your unfounded allegations any day of the week. Denying existing facts is not sufficient for evidential conclusions. Yet that is the crux of your argument. You deny existing facts, ignore highly credible eyewitness testimony, and then insist that proves you're right. You must supply your own independent verifiable facts to withstand equal or greater scrutiny. Besides your unfounded asssertions, what sort of "verifiable facts" have YOU presented? All evidence related to Hanjour's abilites indicates he could NOT have piloted a 757 at all, never mind manuevering it as the alleged Flight 77 was observed to have manuevered the morning of 9/11. Hell, you won't even acknowledge the OFFICIAL account of how that jet was flown, since it shoots your "he was a bad pilot yet managed to pull it off" story right out of the water. The lack of jet fuel in the vicinty where the left wing should have struck the Pentagon wall indicates it was NOT a 757 that hit the building. Yet you INSIST it was, because you say so. Sorry, but I never did believe in faerie tales, not even when I was a kid.
The principal person who refused to rent to Hanjour said although he was a crummy pilot as far as takeoffs, landings, and English was concerned, there was no question Hanjour could have piloted a hijacked plane, and crashed it into the target. As I repeatedly note, he didn't even do that too well, but he did manage to salvage something out of a botched attempt to hit the north facing offices. 103 eyewitnesses are not unfounded allegations. 103 eyewitnesses are credible eyewitness testimony. So are 2 police officers. It is not uncommon to have variations in eyewitness accounts. That is where forensic analysis and careful reconstruction of statements comes in. The supposed "fighter pilot turn" of the 757 did not even generate 1 G of extra gravitational pull on the cockpit. Boeing aircraft have been observed to have withstood 3.9 G's in turbulence with zero structural damage. To pass a private pilot test a student pilot must do a banked 60 degree turn rolling out within + or - 200 feet of altitude the turn started. A 60 degree banked turn generates total 2 G's of force right there. So everybody who has any kind of license has demonstrated on a check ride he or she can control an aircraft generating 2 G of force, and the 757 descending turn did not even generate that much force. The claims of "fighter pilot maneuvers" are from people who are not thinking critically. As one of my ground school instructors said, even though airline pilots are expected to fly their aircraft so they don't spill passenger drinks, the aircraft themselves are engineered to withstand far more abrupt maneuvers. As I have already said, in a 450 MPH crash of a 200,000 pound aircraft there are lots of unprecedented forces of momentum, kinetic energy, and fuel explosions at work, and to simply deny that something could have happened without knowledge and reconstruction of all factors at work is not appropriate methodology.
Basically anybody off the street, given the motivation and ability to enter the cockpit and overtake the flight crew, could grab the controls and crash a plane. Thing is, Hanjour didn't crash it, he FLEW IT from Ohio to Washington DC, descended into a precision turn, and flew it at an incredible speed of over 400 mph at treetop level, then descended down to 20 feet off the Pentagon lawn and flew it level into the Pentagon wall, which was only 71 feet high. Some of his instructors said he could fly a CESSNA single engine straight once in the air, other than that, he basically couldn't fly at all.
A .52G turn is not a "precision turn" by any stretch of the imagination, when a student pilot must pull off a full circle 2G banked turn within 200 feet and a few degrees of starting heading, just to get a private pilot license. The standards for commercial license, which Hanjour had at one time, until he let his medical lapse, are even tighter. Furthermore the plane was wobbling and clipping items on its way in. It was not head on, or straight and level. The pilot was struggling to control the craft, and wanted speed over control to maximize damage.
It's not the gravity involved that made it a precision turn, it was the speed, turn radius, and rate of descent. So you know more than an aeronautical engineer who has flown heavy aircraft, eh? From The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane." And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him. But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon - and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway - -, there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing. - - I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.) Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000 pounds airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing- loading (such as a commercial jets), i.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.
Nila S is a fly by night commentator who does not have the working email address his blurb claims. I know because I emailed him and got a bounce back. A much better analysis is done by former Air Force Pilot Steve Koeppel of Palm Springs, who explains the 270 degree turn and the reasons for the overshoot of the Pentagon by an inexperienced hijacker.
Virtually ANYONE could have decreased power on the jet and dove DOWN into the Pentagon roof, being that it has an area of 22 football fields. If it were actually an "inexperienced hijacker" flying the plane, that is what he would have done, not the precision manuevers which resulted in lining up a 71 foot tall target while traveling at over 400 mph at treetop level, then descending to 20 feet off the ground the last split second, keeping the nose level, and impacting the 71 foot tall target.
There were no precision maneuvers. A 1/2 G turn, wings wobbling on final approach, and missing the original target by 270 to 330 degrees do not qualify as "precision" by any definition.
There were no precision maneuvers. A 1/2 G turn, wings wobbling on final approach, and missing the original target by 270 to 330 degrees do not qualify as "precision" by any definition. As usual you are serially dishonest, misrepresenting and mischaraterizing the observed events. From Al-Qaeda's Top Gun A pilot with a major carrier for over 30 years told CNN that "the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators."8 An air traffic controller from Dulles International Airport told ABC News, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."9 CBS News suggested that according to its sources, Flight 77, "flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a- half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed. The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph."10 The Washington Post similarly noted that the plane "was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm." Hanjour was so skilled, in fact, that "just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot" – later identified as Hanjour – "executed a pivot so tight it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver."11 The Post reported in another article that "After the attacks ... aviation experts concluded that the final maneuvers of American Airlines Flight 77 – a tight turn followed by a steep, accurate descent into the Pentagon – was the work of ‘a great talent ... virtually a textbook turn and landing.’"12 According to the report of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) cited by the 9/11 Commission, information from the flight data recorder recovered from the Pentagon crash site and radar data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) show that the autopilot was disengaged "as the aircraft leveled near 7000 feet. Slight course changes were initiated, during which variations in altitude between 6800 and 8000 feet were noted. At 9:34 AM, the aircraft was positioned about 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon, and started a right 330-degree descending turn to the right. At the end of the turn, the aircraft was at about 2000 feet altitude and 4 miles southwest of the Pentagon. Over the next 30 seconds, power was increased to near maximum and the nose was pitched down in response to control column movements. The airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots (530 miles per hour) at impact with the Pentagon. The time of impact was 9:37:45 AM."13 The NTSB created a computer simulation of the flight from the flight data recorder information showing that the plane was actually at more than 8,100 feet and doing about 330 mph when it began its banking turn at 9:34 am. 14 At that point, the alleged pilot Hanjour could have simply decreased thrust, nosed down, and guided the plane into what would have been 29 acres, or 1,263,240 square feet of target area – the equivalent of about 22 football fields.15 From this angle, proverbially speaking, it would have been like trying to hit the side of a barn. Hanjour could have guided the plane into the enormous roof of the building, including the side of the building where the office of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was located, and where he happened to be that morning.16 Instead, the plane began a steep banking descent, circling downward in a 330- degree turn while dropping more than 5,600 feet in three minutes before re- aligning with the Pentagon and increasing to maximum thrust towards the building. The nose was kept down despite the increased lift from the acceleration, while flying so close to the ground that it clipped lamp posts along the interstate highway before plowing into the building at more than 530 mph, precisely hitting a target only 71 feet high, or just 26.5 feet taller than the Boeing 757 itself.17 In other words, by performing this maneuver, Hanjour reduced his vertical target area from a size comparable to the height of the Empire State Building to an area just 5 stories high. Instead of descending at an angle and plowing through the roof and floors of the building to cause the greatest possible number of casualties, including possibly taking out the Secretary of Defense, Hanjour hit wedge 1 of the Pentagon, opposite to Rumsfeld’s office, which happened to be under construction, and where the plane, travelling horizontally, had to penetrate through the steel- and kevlar-reinforced outer wall of the building’s southwest E-ring in addition to the numerous additional walls of the inner rings of the building.18
You are intentionally misrepresenting their full in context statement, you are bull$hitting once again. The explicit statement of the controllers, including ATC Danielle O'Brien, on a video I have repeatedly posted, they say "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Not that it was not a 757. But they did not expect 757's to be flown in the manner they saw the 757 shown. The full in context quote, not your half-a$$ed, Half Truth cherry pick, is on 0:44 to 1:25 of the following video, Debunked. Again. Oh yeah. How did Danielle O'Brien pick a 757 in her quote if the plane was not in fact a 757? Why didn't she say it was a 767 or a 737 or a 747? Hmmm? Wack- job
Oooooooooo! I am so impressed. You even know how to quote out of context and avoid every other point in the post. Well just so you don't forget "Play it again Sam." As usual you are serially dishonest, misrepresenting and mischaraterizing the observed events. From Al-Qaeda's Top Gun A pilot with a major carrier for over 30 years told CNN that "the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators."8 An air traffic controller from Dulles International Airport told ABC News, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."9 CBS News suggested that according to its sources, Flight 77, "flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a- half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed. The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph."10 The Washington Post similarly noted that the plane "was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm." Hanjour was so skilled, in fact, that "just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot" – later identified as Hanjour – "executed a pivot so tight it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver."11 The Post reported in another article that "After the attacks ... aviation experts concluded that the final maneuvers of American Airlines Flight 77 – a tight turn followed by a steep, accurate descent into the Pentagon – was the work of ‘a great talent ... virtually a textbook turn and landing.’"12 According to the report of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) cited by the 9/11 Commission, information from the flight data recorder recovered from the Pentagon crash site and radar data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) show that the autopilot was disengaged "as the aircraft leveled near 7000 feet. Slight course changes were initiated, during which variations in altitude between 6800 and 8000 feet were noted. At 9:34 AM, the aircraft was positioned about 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon, and started a right 330-degree descending turn to the right. At the end of the turn, the aircraft was at about 2000 feet altitude and 4 miles southwest of the Pentagon. Over the next 30 seconds, power was increased to near maximum and the nose was pitched down in response to control column movements. The airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots (530 miles per hour) at impact with the Pentagon. The time of impact was 9:37:45 AM."13 The NTSB created a computer simulation of the flight from the flight data recorder information showing that the plane was actually at more than 8,100 feet and doing about 330 mph when it began its banking turn at 9:34 am. 14 At that point, the alleged pilot Hanjour could have simply decreased thrust, nosed down, and guided the plane into what would have been 29 acres, or 1,263,240 square feet of target area – the equivalent of about 22 football fields.15 From this angle, proverbially speaking, it would have been like trying to hit the side of a barn. Hanjour could have guided the plane into the enormous roof of the building, including the side of the building where the office of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was located, and where he happened to be that morning.16 Instead, the plane began a steep banking descent, circling downward in a 330- degree turn while dropping more than 5,600 feet in three minutes before re- aligning with the Pentagon and increasing to maximum thrust towards the building. The nose was kept down despite the increased lift from the acceleration, while flying so close to the ground that it clipped lamp posts along the interstate highway before plowing into the building at more than 530 mph, precisely hitting a target only 71 feet high, or just 26.5 feet taller than the Boeing 757 itself.17 In other words, by performing this maneuver, Hanjour reduced his vertical target area from a size comparable to the height of the Empire State Building to an area just 5 stories high. Instead of descending at an angle and plowing through the roof and floors of the building to cause the greatest possible number of casualties, including possibly taking out the Secretary of Defense, Hanjour hit wedge 1 of the Pentagon, opposite to Rumsfeld’s office, which happened to be under construction, and where the plane, travelling horizontally, had to penetrate through the steel- and kevlar-reinforced outer wall of the building’s southwest E-ring in addition to the numerous additional walls of the inner rings of the building.18
Huh? Aren't you Half Tw00fers claiming the 757 didn't hit the lamps? Now in your haste to put up some misrepresented shlock, you don't even bother to check your details with your talking points. LOLOL!!!!
You Full Liars are claiming that a 757 did in fact do that, yet witnesses place the 757 NORTH of that approach, and two Pentagon police officers state those poles WEREN'T knocked down immediately after the impact. The news reports assume that the government wasn't lying about the light poles. So why did YOU lie about what the air traffic controllers said about the manuevers the alleged 757 performed?
The controllers gave an account consistent with what eyewitnesses observed. Where you Half Tw00fers miss the mark is your a$$umptions that a suicide pilot would need the necessary skills a pilot interested in being safe would need - which he would not. And that a suicide pilot would fly a passenger aircraft in the same manner that a safety-conscious regular pilot would fly the craft - which he would not. So basically your half Two00fer spiel about Hanjour's piloting the 757 is supposed to be impossible, are the numerous observations that Hanjour lacked the skills and the inclination to be a safe pilot, and the 757 observed by the ATC's making a descending turn before disappearing from their screens was not being flown safely. Well, DUHHHHHH! Of course it wasn't going to be flown safely by a safety-conscious pilot! It was being flown by a suicide hijacker. LOLOL!!!!!!
Where you Half Tw00fers miss the mark is your a$$umptions that a suicide pilot would need the necessary skills a pilot interested in being safe would need - which he would not. And that a suicide pilot would fly a passenger aircraft in the same manner that a safety-conscious regular pilot would fly the craft - which he would not. Are you neglecting the reports from experienced pilots and aviation experts? CBS News suggested that according to its sources, Flight 77, "flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a- half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed. The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph."10 The Washington Post similarly noted that the plane "was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm." Hanjour was so skilled, in fact, that "just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot" – later identified as Hanjour – "executed a pivot so tight it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver."11 The Post reported in another article that "After the attacks ... aviation experts concluded that the final maneuvers of American Airlines Flight 77 – a tight turn followed by a steep, accurate descent into the Pentagon – was the work of ‘a great talent ... virtually a textbook turn and landing.’"12
Looking up footnote 8, it is a paraphrase and not a direct, specific quote. An air traffic controller..." You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."9 Yes, a suicide hijcaker will fly a 757 in an unsafe manner. Why did he just so happen to mention a 757? How did he know it was a 757 and not a PA-135? HAHAHAHAHA! So they are saying it was Flight 77. Any questions about what flight it was, LOL? Those things will happen when you start out a$$uming someone who had a valid commercial pilot certificate "couldn't fly at all." So that puts the lie to the claims he "couldn't fly at all." That being said, there is nothing really extraordinary about a 1/2 G turn that is not even up to the 2G standards required to get a private license, let alone a commercial certificate. Flight 77's turn was 1/2 G. Private pilot standards are 2G. Figher pilots pull 8 to 9 G's. Not even close. Debunked and pwned.
Private pilot standards are 2G. Figher pilots pull 8 to 9 G's. Not even close. Debunked and pwned. From The Washington Post Controllers had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed -- full throttle. But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said. Less than an hour after two other jets demolished the World Trade Center in Manhattan, Flight 77 carved a hole in the nation's defense headquarters, a hole five stories high and 200 feet wide. Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious. Details about who was on Flight 77, when it took off and what happened on board were tightly held by airline, airport and security officials last night. All said that the FBI had asked them not to divulge details. "Because of the heightened security due to the nature of today's events," American Airlines said in a statement, the airline "is working closely with U.S. government authorities and will not release more information at this time."
Debunked and wrong. The tighter turn, the more G's the pilot pulls. An 8G - 9G turn is tight. US, NATO, and Russian military fighter pilots regularly pull 8 G+ turns. A 2G turn is required to get a private pilot license. A 1/2 G turn is not even up to private pilot standards.
An 8G - 9G turn is tight. US, NATO, and Russian military fighter pilots regularly pull 8 G+ turns. A 2G turn is required to get a private pilot license. A 1/2 G turn is not even up to private pilot standards. The quote was from experts, live with it. The fact is, it is NOT EASY to properly control a large heavy jet aircraft, where the thrust needs to be precisely controlled and tuned for a precision turn involving descent, along with proper usage of the lift of the aircraft, where Hanjour NEVER FLEW A JET AIRCRAFT before, and was an EXTREMELY POOR STUDENT in flight school. Experienced pilots would have been challenged to control the aircraft in the manner it was controlled, and air traffic controllers DID compare it to the performance of a military aircraft, not a passenger jet.
Wtong. The quote is a paraphrase, and the facts of the turn contradict the paraphrases. That's why he hit the back of the building instead of the front, and why the plane was wobbling as it came in to crash, and why it clipped light poles and ingested a luminary into the right engine, and why it hit the face of a recently renovated part of the building with extra reinforcement, at an oblique angle instead of straight on.. None of those specifics are examples of skilled piloting, much less fighter pilot quality piloting. Live with it.
That's why he hit the back of the building instead of the front So instead of the EASIEST approach, and most EFFECTIVE approach in terms of what a suicide pilot would perform in order to cause as much damage and fatalities as possible, he picked a DIFFICULT manuever to line up with a LOW VALUE target which would be typically IMPOSSIBLE to hit at that speed due to ground effect, yet he managed to overcome that and FLY INTO THAT 71 foot tall target, because he was an "EXTREMELY POOR PILOT"? No, the evidence is such that WHOEVER flew that aircraft certainly DID know what they were doing, and it ALSO points to the fact that person couldn't have been Hani Hanjour. and why the plane was wobbling as it came in to crash, and Post a link to that allegation. Whether it "wobbled" or not, it had accomplished precision manuevers then flew at over 400 mph at tree top level, then descended to 20 feet off the ground without touching the lawn at 530 mph, FLYING into a target only 71 feet tall. It couldn't have been "wobbling" on it's final approach BTW, otherwise its wings would have gouged the lawn and broken up there, causing the aircraft to spin, much like you are doing here on this thread.
LOL! And here we go around the Fruit Loop again as Bloviator reprises his greatest, failed, talking points. The words "Epic Fail" seem to resonate somehow.
It is a documented fact that the 757's wings clipped light standards and also partially but not completely knockeded the tops of construction equipment on the lawns. So your self-serving claims of either he had to bury the wings in the ground, or else fly perfectly straight and level, is a crock, as are all the rest of your Half Truths. He did what he needed to do, just barely, and in the wrong location. Deal with it. 17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. So what government and media sources are acceptable to you as evidence, Oink? I'm seeing a near perfect adherence to the disinfo tactics you pretend everybody else except you engages in.
It would HAD to have knocked over light poles to reach the target while flying 20 feet off the ground. Same goes for anything else in the alleged path. So what? Its wings had to be level or they would have HIT THE GROUND.
They barely cleared the ground as they wobbled and the plane banked 1 way and then the other. One eyewitness said he had to hit the deck to avoid being hit by the airplane wings. And he did say it was an airplane.
One eyewitness said he had to hit the deck to avoid being hit by the airplane wings. And he did say it was an airplane. Being the fact the fuselage is said to have been at an altitude of 20 feet, how high where the bottom of the engines? Between 2 to 3 feet off the ground, that's how high. ANY wobble would have buried an engine, pulled the wing down, gouged the lawn, and made the aircraft tumble or spin out of control. AT MINIMUM it would have gouged the lawn, yet it didn't, so IT didn't happen.
"Is said to" Additional panel instruments that may not be found in smaller aircraft include: Course Deviation Indicator Radio Magnetic Indicator Busted again. You really have to stop wasting my time with your reflexive ritualistic challenges that have no basis of your own to support them.
Now show where the FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM is located on a Cessna 172. You know, the one that controls various aspects of flight on a commericial airliner, such as NAVIGATION.
You don't need a ***Flight Management System*** to navigate by using a VORTAC/DME. Go look it up, I'm getting tired of you wasting my time.
Now where on the 757 is the VORTAC/DME? Answer: It's on the FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, isn't it?
No. It may be connected to the FMS on planes that have an FMS, but exists independently of the FMS and does not need an FMS to be installed to work.
BTW, what do you think of those guys with full bags of something, getting off the bus, walking towards the Pentagon after the attack? You know, the ones at 0:43 in this video...
Sorry, forgot to ping you to the above post. I wonder how long it'll take AGAviator to find some "explanation"...
And we are still waiting. He hasn't touched it, he got back off into minutiae again. I think he prefers cherry picking.
So I wonder what those guys WERE up to, the ones which get off the bus carrying large bags full of SOMETHING, starting right about 0:43 into the video? What was in those bags I wonder....
It's a good question and open to speculation, but there is nothing definite to go on. They could be Hazmat suits or they could be carrying in "debris".
Haven't seen any pictures of people wearing hazmat suits at the Pentagon "crash site", although I HAVE seen images of guys with suits "picking up debris"...
Haven't seen any pictures of people wearing hazmat suits at the Pentagon "crash site", although I HAVE seen images of guys with suits "picking up debris"... Whatever was in the bags was fairly heavy - you can tell that by the way they are leaning to support the weight. However, other than it is suspicious there is insufficient data to draw a conclusion.
Doesn't the guy with the balding head and white shirt left of center in the CNN video snapshot look similar to either suited individual in the Pentagon "debris pickup" photo? The one in the first image is wearing a short sleeve shirt, where in the 2nd photo each person is wearing a long sleeved shirt. I'm sure they could fit a shirt in those bags, and the long sleeve shirts DO appear to be a bit wrinkled.
Flagging Original_Intent and RickyJ to this post because I forgot to flag them to the previous one at #897 where they were mentioned. Look at the pole in front of the men in the picture you posted, FL. [also at 0:42 sec. in wudidiz's video at #729, #740, and #857] I wonder how what looks like a medical helicopter got parked so close to it. Must have been towed there when the propeller wasn't turning or it doesn't have a propeller, is all I can figure. I don't see how it could be started up in that parking space to be of any emergency use if it did have a propeller with that pole in the way. "Mr. Aviator", does that seem at all unusual to you or do you think maybe the lawn at the Pentagon was used like a storage junkyard for vehicles that didn't work good? Also, there's a picture of a 757 cockpit @ #730 which O_I posted but I oddly haven't been able to locate one for a Boeing 767-223ER like AA11 reportedly was. Could you plz see what you can do to find an example for the 223ER extension and post it for us? TIA.
I'm guessing that the distance from the pole to the helicoptor is actually greater, and that it is perceived as being so close due to the depth of field of the camera lens. In fact, if you look at where the bus is in relation to the men walking out of it at the further away shot at 0:46, it appears that the helicoptor isn't anywhere close to the pole, although it IS hidden behind the bus, so there's no way to get a good comparison. About them poles (especially those at the beginning). They wouldn't be the ones that were supposedly "clipped" and knocked down by the aircraft, are they?
In fact, if you look at where the bus is in relation to the men walking out of it at the further away shot at 0:46, it appears that the helicoptor isn't anywhere close to the pole, although it IS hidden behind the bus, so there's no way to get a good comparison. Yes, the comparison only raises even more questions and thanks for pointing that out. I'm gonna have to vote "No", though, on an optical illusion of depth perception as the explanation for such a big disparity between those 2 examples. Could be but aren't those to the right of the reporter around 0:46 the ones the guvbots say were knocked down? Sure does seem like one side or the other shouldn't still be in the area, according to the Official Storytellers.
Michael Script - Dialogue Transcript What can you do? Small miracles, only so many. Some angels aren't so smart. They use them up in stupid ways. Like the parking space angel? I don't like to criticize other angels. ...I'll be with you in a minute... Excerpt from Don't transform, restore values by Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady (U.S. Army retired) - Express-News: [Charles Kelly] was the commander of the only air ambulance unit in Vietnam when Dust Off operations were little understood. Kelly’s boss decided that Dust Off should be a part-time mission of the air ambulances. The aircraft would be used for ash and trash until there was a patient then a portable red cross would be slapped on the bird to fly the medical mission. This was, of course, insane and Kelly was outraged. He openly denounced his leadership and set about to prove that no one could do the medical mission better than medics. Patient survival drove everything. He flew at night, in weather and landed on battlefields often during the battle. He became known as Mad Man Kelly and his exploits were legendary. On July 1, 1964, Kelly came under heavy fire as he landed to rescue wounded soldiers. The ground forces screamed at him to get out. Kelly responded: “When I have your wounded.”
#956. To: GreyLmist (#950)
(Edited)
So the men getting off the bus are likely medics. Young, fit, carrying large bags with lots of equipment in them, heading to the action. So where's the conspiracy?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#16. To: buckeroo, AGAviator (#14)
(Edited)
The title of this topic is: 9/11 demolition theory challenged. The info accesible through Post #982 refutes claims like Mark Loizeaux's
#19. To: GreyLmist, christine (#16)
P.S. Your thread was closed before I posted a response to this
#29. To: buckeroo, GreyLmist (#19)
#32. To: FormerLurker (#29)
Yes buckie, you cried like a little girl when nobody wanted to buy the BS you were selling, and instead, people posted facts and evidence which tore your little fairie tale to shreads.
#163. To: James Deffenbach (#32)
#166. To: IRTorqued (#163)
when he wakes up in the morning he uses the quarter found in his teeth as proof some one loves him.
#175. To: christine, buckeroo (#166)
when he wakes up in the morning he uses the quarter found in his teeth as proof some one loves him.
#200. To: AGAviator (#175)
#494. To: AGAviator, LP Banning notice. (#480)
#265. To: JauntyBeesting (#246)
#203. To: buckeroo, AGAviator (#200)
There is no question that you have capability and know your stuff.... but will anyone research your posts? Will anyone care to realize that on LP you were tried and convicted of objective opinions based on both MadDog and yukon with hostess, there.
#205. To: abraxas, christine, buckeroo (#203)
(Edited)
Can't you post this sychophant butt kissing on the PM?
#207. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#205)
obsessive, vulgar, and pathological attacks
#210. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#207)
(Edited)
Christine is going to tire quickly of your pings. This isn't a sand box. Grow up
#213. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#210)
#216. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#213)
You were simply asked to take your butt kissing and brown nosing to PM
#219. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#216)
#226. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#219)
Aren't you going to ping Christine to buck's response about butt licking that didn't describe any content at all
[quote] And, I am discussed as butt-kissing your ass by recognizing a damned good poster? [/quote]
Any other attempts to deflect from your own remarks which initiate these exchanges?
#230. To: AGAviator (#226)
#235. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#230)
(Edited)
I didn't make if vulgar, it is what it is. I do not, and will not, deflect from my remarks. You are attempting to make an issue out of a non issue because you want to be self proclaimed site monitor.
#236. To: AGAviator (#235)
I had nothing to do with the locking down. You're the one sniveling about my post to you, and you'll lose if either the high road or the low road is taken.
#238. To: abraxas (#236)
#245. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#238)
Lying seems to be part of the "debunker" mentality
You, and AGGravator, have been misrepresenting Hanjour's LEARNER'S PERMIT as a license to BE a commercial pilot, when all it did was give him a license to LEARN to be a commercial pilot UNDER SUPERVISION.
TITLE 14 - AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
#270. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, critter, HOUNDDAWG, farmfriend, christine, all (#245)
(b) Limitations. (1) A person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category or powered-lift category rating and does not hold an instrument rating in the same category and class will be issued a commercial pilot certificate that contains the limitation, The carriage of passengers for hire in (airplanes) (powered-lifts) on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited. The limitation may be removed when the person satisfactorily accomplishes the requirements listed in 61.65 of this part for an instrument rating in the same category and class of aircraft listed on the person's commercial pilot certificate.
#284. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#270)
From your own link:
#295. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, christine, wudidiz, abraxas, Critter, IRTorqued, all (#284)
From your own link:
#299. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#295)
(Edited)
As far as flying a Jet Airliner a Commercial Pilot's Certificate IS a Learner's Permit. It does not convey a license to fly a multi-engine Jumbo Jet using a Pilot and Co-Pilot.
#301. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, critter, HOUNDDAWG, farmfriend, christine, all (#299)
#306. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#301)
(Edited)
I am sure you can find a few microscopic points to distort and quibble over
#326. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, buckeroo, RickyJ, All (#306)
#329. To: FormerLurker (#326)
(Edited)
HOWEVER, and this is a BIG HOWEVER, whoever flew the alleged Flight 77 into the Pentagon DID virtually land the aircraft, as the aircraft had somehow descended to 20 feet off the ground at 530 mph over the Pentagon lawn, and hit the wall with the aircraft level, all without even touching the lawn.
#338. To: AGAviator (#329)
The plane hit the Pentagon with the starboard wing striking the 2nd floor and the port wing almost hitting the ground. The hit was neither straight on, nor level. It was a barely controlled attempt to hit any part of a huge building he could.
B) If the nose had been down, he would have created a crater at the wall, and not penetrated.
C) If the wings weren't level, they would have hit the ground, ripping off the lower wing, leaving a huge gash in the lawn, and would have caused the plane to twist and spin, with the nose hitting the ground and the plane hitting the wall sideways.
#350. To: FormerLurker (#338)
#355. To: AGAviator (#350)
Incompatible With Missile
#360. To: FormerLurker (#355)
(Edited)
Uh huh. Where are the engines and wings then?
#366. To: AGAviator (#360)
#370. To: FormerLurker (#366)
(Edited)
Where's all the fire damage from the jet fuel in the front of the Pentagon? Oh that's right, there wasn't much fire there, so the fuel must have magically disappeared.
#373. To: AGAviator (#370)
#379. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#373)
Where's the fire damage in the EARLIER pictures
#386. To: AGAviator, buckeroo, Original_Intent, ALL (#379)
Fires appear not to have consistently reached that high. Not really relevant. Something made a big gash in the exterior, and it couldn't have been a missile.
#389. To: FormerLurker (#386)
The fire is INSIDE the building, not the OUTSIDE, which would be the case if thousands of gallons of jet fuel splashed all over the outside wall, which it WOULD have done if the wing of a 757 hit it.
#393. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, James Deffenbach, ALL (#389)
A fuselage and jet engines going into the building over 400 mph creates a substantial vacuum behind them,
#397. To: FormerLurker (#393)
(Edited)
Actually confirm that a 757 DID NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.
#399. To: AGAviator (#397)
#401. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#399)
(Edited)
Oh some sort of aircraft struck the Pentagon, and some debris was "found" inside the Pentagon
In late 2004 I wrote The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics . In it, I examined the no-Boeing theory from several perspectives including analysis of its:
That essay presents a cumulative argument against the no-Boeing theory using each of these perspectives. Critics of this essay failed to acknowledge this and instead zeroed in on one point or another to highlight it as if the entire case against the no-Boeing theory hinged on that point. For example, several critics have misstated my position as relying exclusively on the accounts of eyewitnesses, ignoring my detailed examination of the 'physical evidence case' for the no-Boeing theory.
history
evidentiary support
propaganda
misinformation The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.
Think I'll roll me a fattie and watch this one from the sidelines, LOL.
#405. To: AGAviator, buckeroo, turtle, Original_Intent, bush_is_a_moonie, ALL (#401)
The Pentagon No- 757- Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics by Jim Hoffman
#433. To: FormerLurker, Bush_Is_A_Moonie, buckeroo, turtle (#405)
The fact is, Hanjour would NOT and COULD NOT have had even the REMOTEST chance of flying that alleged 757 the way it was flown that day, and the damage to the Pentagon doesn't match that of a Boeing 757.
#436. To: AGAviator (#433)
(Edited)
#453. To: FormerLurker (#436)
(Edited)
Once again you make assertions with no proof or rebuttals of your own.
Hanjour's instructors have stated that he was an extremely poor pilot, that he lacked the basic skills required to pilot an aircraft, in fact, one said "he could not fly at all".
I'll take their observations over your unfounded allegations any day of the week.
Denying existing facts is not sufficient for evidential conclusions.
Yet that is the crux of your argument. You deny existing facts, ignore highly credible eyewitness testimony, and then insist that proves you're right.
Besides your unfounded asssertions, what sort of "verifiable facts" have YOU presented?
All evidence related to Hanjour's abilites indicates he could NOT have piloted a 757 at all, never mind manuevering it as the alleged Flight 77 was observed to have manuevered the morning of 9/11.
Hell, you won't even acknowledge the OFFICIAL account of how that jet was flown, since it shoots your "he was a bad pilot yet managed to pull it off" story right out of the water.
The lack of jet fuel in the vicinty where the left wing should have struck the Pentagon wall indicates it was NOT a 757 that hit the building. Yet you INSIST it was, because you say so.
#457. To: AGAviator (#453)
The principal person who refused to rent to Hanjour said although he was a crummy pilot as far as takeoffs, landings, and English was concerned, there was no question Hanjour could have piloted a hijacked plane, and crashed it into the target.
#504. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#457)
Thing is, Hanjour didn't crash it, he FLEW IT from Ohio to Washington DC, descended into a precision turn
#514. To: AGAviator (#504)
A .52G turn is not a "precision turn" by any stretch of the imagination
According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees per minute while descending at 3,500 feet per minute, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver, - - one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the word if his life depended on it. - -
#520. To: FormerLurker, budkeroo, turtle (#514)
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
#610. To: AGAviator, ALL (#520)
A much better analysis is done by former Air Force Pilot Steve Koeppel of Palm Springs, who explains the 270 degree turn and the reasons for the overshoot of the Pentagon by an inexperienced hijacker.
#612. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#610)
If it were actually an "inexperienced hijacker" flying the plane, that is what he would have done, not the precision manuevers which resulted in lining up a 71 foot tall target while traveling at over 400 mph at treetop level, then descending to 20 feet off the ground the last split second, keeping the nose level, and impacting the 71 foot tall target.
#629. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, critter, HOUNDDAWG, farmfriend, christine, all (#612)
If it were actually an "inexperienced hijacker" flying the plane, that is what he would have done, not the precision manuevers which resulted in lining up a 71 foot tall target while traveling at over 400 mph at treetop level, then descending to 20 feet off the ground the last split second, keeping the nose level, and impacting the 71 foot tall target.
#636. To: O_Ink, buckeroo (#629)
(Edited)
An air traffic controller from Dulles International Airport told ABC News, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."9
#640. To: AGAviator (#636)
#644. To: OInk, buckeroo (#640)
The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph."10
#651. To: AGAviator, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#644)
Aren't you Half Tw00fers claiming the 757 didn't hit the lamps?
#661. To: buckeroo, (#651)
So why did YOU lie about what the air traffic controllers said about the manuevers the alleged 757 performed?
#666. To: AGAviator (#661)
The controllers gave an account consistent with what eyewitnesses observed.
A pilot with a major carrier for over 30 years told CNN that "the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators."8 An air traffic controller from Dulles International Airport told ABC News, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."9
#675. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#666)
A pilot with a major carrier for over 30 years told CNN that "the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators."8
CBS News suggested that according to its sources, Flight 77, "flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a- half minutes.
And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed. The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph."10
Hanjour was so skilled, in fact, that "just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot" – later identified as Hanjour – "executed a pivot so tight it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver."11
#677. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, ALL (#675)
Flight 77's turn was 1/2 G.
#679. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#677)
the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said.
#681. To: AGAviator, ALL (#679)
The tighter turn, the more G's the pilot pulls.
#686. To: FormerLurker (#681)
The quote was from experts, live with it.
Hanjour NEVER FLEW A JET AIRCRAFT before, and was an EXTREMELY POOR STUDENT in flight school
#691. To: AGAviator (#686)
(Edited)
#696. To: FormerLurker, AGBloviator, AGAviator, all (#691)
It couldn't have been "wobbling" on it's final approach BTW, otherwise its wings would have gouged the lawn and broken up there, causing the aircraft to spin, much like you are doing here on this thread.
#707. To: Former Lurker, Oink, buckeroo (#696)
It couldn't have been "wobbling" on it's final approach BTW, otherwise its wings would have gouged the lawn and broken up there, causing the aircraft to spin, much like you are doing here on this thread
The words "Epic Fail" seem to resonate somehow.
#712. To: AGAviator (#707)
It is a documented fact that the 757's wings clipped light standards and also partially but not completely knockeded the tops of construction equipment on the lawns.
#715. To: FormerLurker (#712)
Its wings had to be level or they would have HIT THE GROUND
#717. To: AGAviator (#715)
They barely cleared the ground as they wobbled and the plane banked 1 way and then the other.
#723. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#717)
(Edited)
Being the fact the fuselage is said to have been at an altitude of 20 feet
Most aircraft built since about 1953 have four of the flight instruments located in a standardized pattern called the T arrangement. The attitude indicator is in the top center, airspeed to the left, altimeter to the right and heading indicator under the attitude indicator. The other two, turn-coordinator and vertical-speed, are usually found under the airspeed and altimeter, but are given more latitude in placement. The magnetic compass will be above the instrument panel, often on the windscreen centerpost. In newer aircraft with glass cockpit instruments the layout of the displays conform to the basic T arrangement.
#725. To: AGAviator (#723)
#734. To: FormerLurker (#725)
Now show where the FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
#735. To: AGAviator (#734)
You don't need a ***Flight Management System*** to navigate by using a VORTAC/DME.
#737. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#735)
Answer: It's on the FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, isn't it?
#740. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, James Deffenbach, abraxas, christine, IRTorqued, RickyJ, ALL (#737)
#741. To: wudidiz (#740)
#855. To: FormerLurker (#741)
I wonder how long it'll take AGAviator to find some "explanation"...
#857. To: Original_Intent, wudidiz, AGAviator, ALL (#855)
And we are still waiting. He hasn't touched it, he got back off into minutiae again. I think he prefers cherry picking
#861. To: FormerLurker (#857)
What was in those bags I wonder....
#863. To: Original_Intent (#861)
They could be Hazmat suits or they could be carrying in "debris".
#865. To: FormerLurker (#863)
They could be Hazmat suits or they could be carrying in "debris".
#871. To: Original_Intent, ALL (#865)
(Edited)
#906. To: FormerLurker, Original_Intent, RickyJ, wudidiz, AGAviator (#871)
(Edited)
#907. To: GreyLmist, Original_Intent, RickyJ, wudidiz, AGAviator (#906)
Look at the pole in front of the men in the picture you posted, FL. [also at 0:42 sec. in wudidiz's video at #729, #740, and #857] I wonder how what looks like a medical helicopter got parked so close to it. Must have been towed there when the propeller wasn't turning or it doesn't have a propeller, is all I can figure. I don't see how it could be started up in that parking space to be of any emergency use if it did have a propeller with that pole in the way.
#908. To: FormerLurker (#907)
(Edited)
I'm guessing that the distance from the pole to the helicoptor is actually greater, and that it is perceived as being so close due to the depth of field of the camera lens.
About them poles (especially those at the beginning). They wouldn't be the ones that were supposedly "clipped" and knocked down by the aircraft, are they?
#950. To: All (#908)
Replies to Comment # 950.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 950.