It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What Level Of Skill Was Required To Fly A Plane Into The Pentagon ?
page: 11share:
So there are two trains of thought here:
1) Any inexperienced pilot could have made that strike in that particular plane.
2) Even the most experienced pilots would be challenged to make that strike in that particular plane.
Some more info
Also of note
Sounds like a bit of test to me; kill 2 birds with one stone type of deal.
Another interesting comment-
1) Any inexperienced pilot could have made that strike in that particular plane.
2) Even the most experienced pilots would be challenged to make that strike in that particular plane.
Some more info
According to the official account, an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was 'Flight 77' (remember, the transponder needed to identify the aircraft had been turned off) then suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. 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.'"
Also of note
The official story of Hanjour's flight path continues in an even more bizarre narrative. Having successfully entered D.C. airspace, with no idea how soon fighter aircraft would show up to shoot him down, he finds himself pointed in the ideal direction toward the East wing of the Pentagon, where all the top brass in the military are known to be stationed. But then he apparently changes his mind as to his heading, and pulls off that incredible, sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph to approach the Pentagon from the opposite direction. There, he inexplicably lines up the less valued West wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day, September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees. "The section known as Wedge 1 (the West Wing) had been under renovation and was scheduled for final completion on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001."......
"It's ironic says Pentagon Renovation Manager Lee Evey that the hijacked airliner smashed into the very area of the Pentagon that had just undergone a renovation to strengthen the building against a terrorist attack. The death toll could have been much worse. Evey said the hijacked aircraft hit a portion of the building that had been renovated and reinforced with blast resistant windows, a special reinforced steel construction, and even fire-resistant Kevlar cloth."?
Sounds like a bit of test to me; kill 2 birds with one stone type of deal.
Another interesting comment-
"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, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs 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 jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)
edit on 25-6-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
That info is inaccurate. The official story doesn't require precise maneuvers at 400 mph. The maneuvers were anything but precise, and they were performed at a lower speed than claimed.
Read this thread. It shows very conclusively that an inexperienced pilot was indeed at the controls. The official flight track is in there. There's graphs tracking the altitude, speed, etc. All of it is all over the place like a rookie is at the controls.
Credit to neutronflux for posting that. It's a good read.
That info is inaccurate. The official story doesn't require precise maneuvers at 400 mph. The maneuvers were anything but precise, and they were performed at a lower speed than claimed.
Read this thread. It shows very conclusively that an inexperienced pilot was indeed at the controls. The official flight track is in there. There's graphs tracking the altitude, speed, etc. All of it is all over the place like a rookie is at the controls.
Credit to neutronflux for posting that. It's a good read.
edit on 25 6 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
He was already lined up, but too high. He would have had to dive into the building. Diving like that in a 757 would almost guarantee that he would miss.
One mile, at 400 mph is less than 10 seconds.
He was already lined up, but too high. He would have had to dive into the building. Diving like that in a 757 would almost guarantee that he would miss.
One mile, at 400 mph is less than 10 seconds.
edit on 6/25/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: face23785
Interesting
In this video recording the police officer has seen enough that he thinks it's an American airliner, so I am going to say unless this guy is lying or this is doctored which is possible, but this is pretty raw footage, that we have something automated painted in American airline colors.
The critical point is made from the 25 second mark.
If this guy is telling the truth, there was no cruise missile.
Interesting
In this video recording the police officer has seen enough that he thinks it's an American airliner, so I am going to say unless this guy is lying or this is doctored which is possible, but this is pretty raw footage, that we have something automated painted in American airline colors.
The critical point is made from the 25 second mark.
If this guy is telling the truth, there was no cruise missile.
edit on 25-6-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: face23785
Logic says it's harder to land a plane than crash one. Not being concerned if you take the plane past its safety limits allows you to make any aircraft do some amazing things. There has been aircraft that returned to base with half there wing missing. The pilot by all logic should have crashed.
But as with anything in life you can push things to the limit and get amazing results. A real pilot wouldn't have been able to do what they did because they would have believed it impossible. The hijackers did it because they didn't know it was impossible.
Logic says it's harder to land a plane than crash one. Not being concerned if you take the plane past its safety limits allows you to make any aircraft do some amazing things. There has been aircraft that returned to base with half there wing missing. The pilot by all logic should have crashed.
But as with anything in life you can push things to the limit and get amazing results. A real pilot wouldn't have been able to do what they did because they would have believed it impossible. The hijackers did it because they didn't know it was impossible.
and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute
Never happened. It was 270 deg over 4 minuets. and it wasn't close to precise.
"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, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs 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 jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)
This man, Nila Sagadevan, is out right lying.
Wake turbulence decreases with speed. The slower a plane flies the stronger the wake turbulence is.
Jet blast is dynamic thrust. Dynamic thrust decreases with speed. If it didn't there would be no limit to the speed a plane could obtain.
Down wash reaction happens when the wing is 1 cord width above the ground. In this case about 1/4 of a second before the plane hits.
Ground effect happens behind the aircraft not underneath it. it is a disruption of the vortices behind the aircraft. It also decreases with speed because the vortices decrease with speed.
Vortex compression just another name for the disruption of the vortices near the ground.
Every thing he told you was a lie. Why would you believe someone like that.
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
This is Canadian Truther Jeff Hill who called up witnesses to AA77 hitting the pentagon and ask them what they saw.
Are all of these people lying ?
This is Canadian Truther Jeff Hill who called up witnesses to AA77 hitting the pentagon and ask them what they saw.
Are all of these people lying ?
For a point of argument, this is the best description in English of the flight 77 maneuvers?
Title: American Airlines Flight 77 Evidence
therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz...
Title: American Airlines Flight 77 Evidence
therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz...
The "Maneuver" - AAL77's Final Turn and Dive:
Section Summary: It is a very common misconception that AAL77 performed some professional rated aerobatic stunt moments before impact. They claim AAL77's hijacker pilot performed a 360 degree spiral "cork-screw" turn at over 500 mph, leveling out to the ground just in time to hit the Pentagon. This is far from the truth. In reality the turn itself was closer to 300 degrees over about a 5 mile radius, with the speed fluctuating between 260 and 300 knots and the throttles at near idle. The total time of the turn took over 3 minutes, making it even less than the very gentle "rate-1-turn" (360 degrees in 2 minutes). The turn was very sloppy with the angle of bank fluctuating between 15 and 42 degrees. The pitch angle was even worse, with some parts of his "dive" gaining altitude. AAL77 finished its descending turn 6 miles from the Pentagon, at an altitude of 2,500ft. It is in this 6 mile leg that the pilot advanced the throttles to full, accelerating and diving the aircraft to over 500mph and aiming it as his 900ft wide target; the Pentagon wall.
The final part of this section has a Dutch conspiracy show which takes a novice pilot, with similar experience to the pilot hijacker, and shows him using a full motion flight simulator to impact the Pentagon wall, 3 out of 3 times.
In Summary:
Provided is a combination of security camera footage, eye witness accounts, RADAR data, Air Traffic Control recordings, NTSB Flight Data Recorder data, damage to the Pentagon, damage to the surroundings, over 60 images of American Airlines and Boeing debris, full explanation and time line excerpt, DNA results, hijacker profile, and all round overwhelming evidence that American Airlines 77, and only American Airlines 77, impacted the Pentagon on 9/11.
Final points:
No, the Pentagon does NOT have surface to air missile emplacements surroundings it. Airliners from Regan National Airport (less than 2 miles away) overfly the Pentagon dozens of times an hour. It should also be point out that not one witness reported seeing a missile hit the Pentagon. Not one saw a 'fly over' plane. If, after viewing this entire page, you still support the Pentagon no planer theory, then there is truly nothing more I can do to change that.
a reply to: Salander
What ? And the plane didn't instantly break apart?
You do realized that Vmo is reduced at lower altitudes because the windshield cannot withstand bird strikes above 313 knots?
The most I've ever exceeded Vmo, then only accidentally 2 or 3 times, is 10 or 20 knots.
What ? And the plane didn't instantly break apart?
You do realized that Vmo is reduced at lower altitudes because the windshield cannot withstand bird strikes above 313 knots?
originally posted by: waypastvne
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
This is Canadian Truther Jeff Hill who called up witnesses to AA77 hitting the pentagon and ask them what they saw.
Are all of these people lying ?
Thank you for the video. It's more on what proof is there to discredit them. To say a person is lying with no rational argument or proof is approaching slander? With the pentagon, its over 100 individuals.....
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
So there are two trains of thought here:
1) Any inexperienced pilot could have made that strike in that particular plane.
2) Even the most experienced pilots would be challenged to make that strike in that particular plane.
Some more info
According to the official account, an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was 'Flight 77' (remember, the transponder needed to identify the aircraft had been turned off) then suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. 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.'"
Also of note
The official story of Hanjour's flight path continues in an even more bizarre narrative. Having successfully entered D.C. airspace, with no idea how soon fighter aircraft would show up to shoot him down, he finds himself pointed in the ideal direction toward the East wing of the Pentagon, where all the top brass in the military are known to be stationed. But then he apparently changes his mind as to his heading, and pulls off that incredible, sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph to approach the Pentagon from the opposite direction. There, he inexplicably lines up the less valued West wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day, September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees. "The section known as Wedge 1 (the West Wing) had been under renovation and was scheduled for final completion on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001."......
"It's ironic says Pentagon Renovation Manager Lee Evey that the hijacked airliner smashed into the very area of the Pentagon that had just undergone a renovation to strengthen the building against a terrorist attack. The death toll could have been much worse. Evey said the hijacked aircraft hit a portion of the building that had been renovated and reinforced with blast resistant windows, a special reinforced steel construction, and even fire-resistant Kevlar cloth."?
I agree with the other members, this information isn't accurate, the flight track can be seen here from the actual radar replay
www.abovetopsecret.com...
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.'"
I don't believe controllers refused to believe. I think that is someone else language, it's not from Miss O'Brien or the other controllers.
This maneuver was not extraordinary with what I have seen as an air traffic controller. What Daniel O'Brien was stating is correct in the context of what was being described and what was out of the ordinary for normal daily activity in that immediate region.
Why she and the other controllers thought it was a military was because of the speed which was unusual for the traffic in the region which was normally slower because they are either landing or departing nearby airports. Flights, by federal requirements aren't allowed to exceed 250 kts when operating below 10,000 unless the aircraft needs the speed to maintain safety. So although the flight appeared faster than normal, it was just relative to daily observance.
Her statement is further expounded on here
abcnews.go.com...
"And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien.
The awareness was heightened and they were looking the abnormal flights. AAL77 tracked inbound at what was a higher rate of speed when they started to watch it on radar, they saw the flight approaching DCA Airport . The flight then went into the right turn which, once again, an unusual maneuver for routine traffic normally seen in the airspace.
Not only were they vigilant for unusual flights on the radar, they were also expecting military fighters. The events in NYC was known at this time and the controllers were expecting military fighters for defense. The assumed this flight was a fighter for the unusual maneuvering but this was in context to routine traffic arriving or departing, it's not that it was impossible, just unusual.
edit on 6/25/2017 by pale5218 because: (no
reason given)
a reply to: pale5218
Her quote is constantly cut short to make it seem like she said something she didn't.
abcnews.go.com...
Her quote is constantly cut short to make it seem like she said something she didn't.
"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," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
abcnews.go.com...
I'll be happy to settle the mystery now in one fell swoop post
Stay with me now on this....we use only physical findings like two videos apparently onsite......one was from a newish four color Jet long ranger with the four color factory paint job, with a news crew yep they had video...and said not enough debris to fill a suitcase
Same at Shanksville.....but the second video is ABC at the Pentagon on the friggin ground said the same thing live in front of God and everybody
Now I don't just mean they said the same....yup they showed live and nationwide
Go from there,,,,,do not skip going from that " spring point " of logic, it's serious
Heart heart smiley
Stay with me now on this....we use only physical findings like two videos apparently onsite......one was from a newish four color Jet long ranger with the four color factory paint job, with a news crew yep they had video...and said not enough debris to fill a suitcase
Same at Shanksville.....but the second video is ABC at the Pentagon on the friggin ground said the same thing live in front of God and everybody
Now I don't just mean they said the same....yup they showed live and nationwide
Go from there,,,,,do not skip going from that " spring point " of logic, it's serious
Heart heart smiley
edit on 25-6-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-6-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason
given)
edit on 25-6-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)
a reply to: GBP/JPY
And clearly they were wrong.
Are you going base your entire beliefs on what news crews said in the heat of the moment?
I'll bet a lot of them said "This is unbelievable". Are you going to believe that too?
and said not enough debris to fill a suitcase
And clearly they were wrong.
Are you going base your entire beliefs on what news crews said in the heat of the moment?
I'll bet a lot of them said "This is unbelievable". Are you going to believe that too?
Sorry about that ....
The fact that those unencumbered by the thought process don't realize video went out
Live.....
That's what I meant by news crew with a Jet Ranger and had.....what was that....can't come up with it.....see ya
Edit to add.....I want you to say it....he....he, and then do not skip that primary step that allows us to kick off the rest of the discussion. I want a base of truth, you see.......what does that make you?
editby]edit on 25-6-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)
The fact that those unencumbered by the thought process don't realize video went out
Live.....
That's what I meant by news crew with a Jet Ranger and had.....what was that....can't come up with it.....see ya
Edit to add.....I want you to say it....he....he, and then do not skip that primary step that allows us to kick off the rest of the discussion. I want a base of truth, you see.......what does that make you?
edit on 25-6-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)
edit on
25-6-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-6-2017 by GBP/JPY because: Im having fun tonite
editt.....starred
ya!!....I'm a peacemaker! editby]edit on 25-6-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-6-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)
a reply to: GBP/JPY
I'd say you're putting a lot of responsibility on a statement that was simply a figure of speech, in this case hyperbole (exaggeration for dramatic effect) which is very common in the language of journalists in order to convey an idea in a colourful way.
'it hit me like a ton of bricks'
'could knock me down with a feather'
'not enough pieces to fill a suitcase'
and countless others we probably hear every day.
The idea being conveyed in this case being there weren't large familiar looking large plane parts lying around outside the building like wings, tail, fuselage etc etc, just metallic confetti on the lawn.
I'd say you're putting a lot of responsibility on a statement that was simply a figure of speech, in this case hyperbole (exaggeration for dramatic effect) which is very common in the language of journalists in order to convey an idea in a colourful way.
'it hit me like a ton of bricks'
'could knock me down with a feather'
'not enough pieces to fill a suitcase'
and countless others we probably hear every day.
The idea being conveyed in this case being there weren't large familiar looking large plane parts lying around outside the building like wings, tail, fuselage etc etc, just metallic confetti on the lawn.
originally posted by: waypastvne
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Ok this video is important
I like Russ, he's an entertaining kook. He likes to make up his own numbers and tell us its impossible.
"make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's"
But when you look at the real numbers, the numbers from the FLT 77 FDR readout:
www.ntsb.gov...
You find out his numbers don't match the real numbers at all.
The maximum bank angle was 42 deg. BFD
The max G's pulled was 1.7 Again BFD
The Over Speed Warning, an alarm that tells the pilot he's going too fast, only went off twice. Once for about 8 seconds and again for about 12 seconds just before the crash.
And the plane spent less than 2 seconds in ground effect.
I would like to see Russ make a video telling us the real numbers are impossible
Did we ever find out where Russ got his numbers from or did that one get swept under the carpet with all those other questions the Truth movement doesn't like?
Naw, no metallic bits at all, it was plain in the live video......
Went out live first.......in front of God and everybody....I was watching......the next segment was expert bystanders witnesses on the event for explanation seeming official.......remember those guys, guys? Hours later, they had his passport.......SLAMM..case closed in one day on live tv verdict.....had his friggin passport.....found it on the, get this, the fariggin stareetttttt!
Went out live first.......in front of God and everybody....I was watching......the next segment was expert bystanders witnesses on the event for explanation seeming official.......remember those guys, guys? Hours later, they had his passport.......SLAMM..case closed in one day on live tv verdict.....had his friggin passport.....found it on the, get this, the fariggin stareetttttt!
edit on 26-6-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason
given)
a reply to: GBP/JPY
You make no sense. As in what is your point? This is coming from a person that has trouble editing their own posts. You really haven't stated anything.
One, cameras have a hard time picking up detal when used with a wide angle lens.
The resolution of video was low in the early 2000s
Cameras have a hard time picking up detail if compensating for extremes in light and shadow. Like sun and smoke.
Cameras only represent a 3D world in two 2d.
There are many eyewitness accounts of debris spread from the pentagon helicopter pad to the pentagon.
You never cited or referenced the size of the entrance hole into the pentagon.
The jet left its mark on a concrete lip in front of the pentagon.
You have nothing to discredit the body of evidence presented.
It's been pointed out the majority of the jet was strung out inside the pentagon.
The DNA evidence, other accounts, FDR, radar data, the interior of the pentagon shows the jet was inside the pentagon.
All you have is a news crew that was confused?
You never answered how or why there was so little interior of the pentagon on the front lawn. So the news crews and cameras saw little of wreckage and Interior of the pentagon on the front lawn? What does that indicate and support what theory.
You make no sense. As in what is your point? This is coming from a person that has trouble editing their own posts. You really haven't stated anything.
One, cameras have a hard time picking up detal when used with a wide angle lens.
The resolution of video was low in the early 2000s
Cameras have a hard time picking up detail if compensating for extremes in light and shadow. Like sun and smoke.
Cameras only represent a 3D world in two 2d.
There are many eyewitness accounts of debris spread from the pentagon helicopter pad to the pentagon.
You never cited or referenced the size of the entrance hole into the pentagon.
The jet left its mark on a concrete lip in front of the pentagon.
You have nothing to discredit the body of evidence presented.
It's been pointed out the majority of the jet was strung out inside the pentagon.
The DNA evidence, other accounts, FDR, radar data, the interior of the pentagon shows the jet was inside the pentagon.
All you have is a news crew that was confused?
You never answered how or why there was so little interior of the pentagon on the front lawn. So the news crews and cameras saw little of wreckage and Interior of the pentagon on the front lawn? What does that indicate and support what theory.
edit on 26-6-2017 by neutronflux because:
Fixed wording
edit on 26-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more
a reply to: face23785
You link me to a post by neutronflux? Is that a joke?
I don't have any questions sir, I've been in the aviation business for a number of decades. Having never flown for the airlines, I place trust in those politically incorrect but brave airline pilots at Pilots For 911 Truth who have examined the evidence, and who have flown airliners for a living.
I don't have any questions. I am very familiar with certification of aircraft and what the various categories mean. Yes, a Boeing test pilot rolled a 707 back in the 60's. I get it. No problem, no questions.
You and NF want me to believe that because an experienced Boeing pilot rolled a 707, that a horribly inexperienced 300 hour Cessna pilot could jump in a Boeing and do what Hanjour is said to have done. Sorry Charlie, with all due respect, all I can do is laugh out loud, rolling on the floor.
You link me to a post by neutronflux? Is that a joke?
I don't have any questions sir, I've been in the aviation business for a number of decades. Having never flown for the airlines, I place trust in those politically incorrect but brave airline pilots at Pilots For 911 Truth who have examined the evidence, and who have flown airliners for a living.
I don't have any questions. I am very familiar with certification of aircraft and what the various categories mean. Yes, a Boeing test pilot rolled a 707 back in the 60's. I get it. No problem, no questions.
You and NF want me to believe that because an experienced Boeing pilot rolled a 707, that a horribly inexperienced 300 hour Cessna pilot could jump in a Boeing and do what Hanjour is said to have done. Sorry Charlie, with all due respect, all I can do is laugh out loud, rolling on the floor.