What Level Of Skill Was Required To Fly A Plane Into The Pentagon ?

a reply to: neutronflux

More nonsense and bunk. If the government has nothing to hide, why is it hiding so much?

One could argue that the cover-up is more egregious and obvious than the crime itself.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

More nonsense and bunk. If the government has nothing to hide, why is it hiding so much?

One could argue that the cover-up is more egregious and obvious than the crime itself.

Now you are going to say the physics of photography is a conspiracy?

You do know and understand wide angle lenses? They make things look small by putting a wide angle view on a small space. They are used in security cameras. They cause distortions...

LENS DISTORTION: WHAT EVERY PHOTOGRAPHER SHOULD KNOW

clickitupanotch.com...

*This post contains affiliate links. Thank you for supporting Click it Up a Notch.
Ever wondered why your subjects look disproportioned in certain images compared to real life? Or why buildings look like they are tipping? Chances are it’s due to lens distortion. And no matter how expensive your lens, all have some distortion. The good news is it’s usually fixable in post processing and can even be desirable!

Lens distortion is an important factor to be aware of in the photography world. It can make or break our images as artists, depending on the look and feel we are trying to achieve. Today I’ll explain what distortion is, why it’s good or bad, and how to correct it in post processing if needed.

What is lens distortion?

In a nutshell, it’s when a lens produces curved lines where straight lines should be. The two most common types of lens distortion are barrel distortion and pincushion distortion.

Your faith in no jet at the pentagon makes you blind, or willfully ignorant, of basic facts is beyond ignorance.....

a reply to: Salander

Take a deep breath.....

Can you form a rational and faceted base rebuttal to this explanation why the jet images are distorted in the pentagon security footage..


Blink Comparator Views of
the Plane at the Pentagon

By David Chandler, based on prior work by Ken Jenkins

911speakout.org...

Except for the white smoke trail, the presence of a plane was not recognized by most people due to several factors:

The low contrast between the backlit plane and the complex background.
The extreme wide angle lens and low resolution of the video camera/recorder.
Some blurring due to the motion of the fast moving plane.
The small scale, low quality images that have circulated on the internet.
Blink comparators are commonly used to detect subtle differences between pairs of astronomical photographs. Variable stars show up as blinking lights. Asteroids move from night to night, even from hour to hour, so they appear to jump back and forth when blinked. Blinking two frames can also make a low contrast object stand out against a noisy background. This technique, applied to the security camera frames, allows the eye to more easily discern the presence of a plane, allowing it to pop out from the background each time it flashes into view.

So your denial of a large jet impact at the pentagon hinges on your misconceptions of camera lenses...... pretty much sums up the truth movement.....

a reply to: Salander

Again, you can hand wave away reality. It still is not going to change it.

a reply to: Imagewerx

It's been covered but in short:
There were 2 security cameras that covered the area traversed by AAL77 and were operating on the day - it was a newly installed system being set up & evaluated and only a few cameras were operational at the time. The cameras were fairly basic analog units that fed back to a central control station via coaxial cable where 1 frame/second was recorded from each camera. The 2 cameras of interest had their frame captures about 140mSec apart so the plane's position is different in the 2 frames recorded capturing the plane and, yes, the cameras had a higher native frame rate than 1 frame/sec (maybe 30/sec) but the recording was only done of a single frame/sec of every camera in the system as all inputs had to be converted to digital and recorded on a HDD.

Let's suppose the camera frame rate was 30/sec and the 'shutter speed' twice that at 1/60th second. The plane was moving at over 200m/sec which means it travelled over 3m in a single frame's exposure time resulting in a lot of blurring. The only way to capture crisp clear video of the event would have been by using specialised high speed 'slo-mo' cameras and recording equipment IE 1000 frames/sec or better.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Exaggerate?

Lest do DNA first. Recover remains from the pentagon and establish persons stationed at the pentagon vs flight crew and passengers of flight 77.

So you are talking about people that survived the pentagon that witnessed remains and jet wreckage. The recovery crews and first responders that collected the human remains probably in conjunction with a coroner's office. The lab that conducted the DNA tests to get the remains to the right military families, pentagon worker's families, the flight crew families, and the passenger's families. Then the coroner's office that held remains, document the human remains being held, oversaw DNA testing, and issued death certificates.

Definitely concede the DNA would be the hardest part. Although DNA is one of the easiest kinds of evidence to plant because it can take so many forms.

Or if you've got a guy in the lab, you can make some false matches.

Flight 77. The airport staff and airlines staff that load luggage and persons on flight 77. Then who loaded the fake flight 77 with luggage and human DNA from who knows where. Personal to modify the fake flight 77, a control stations to fly fake flight 77, workers to load fake 77. Harvesters to gather the human DNA for fake 77. A airstrip to launch fake 77. Then did fake 77 fly low under the radar? Or is all of air traffic control and NORAD part of the conspiracy. All the regional control towers all the way way to Indianapolis?

Right.... but why not just use real hijackers? You can find arabic speaking mercenaries in North Africa, or somewhere like that.

They won't be willing to commit suicide, but they'd probably have no problem killing passengers and hijacking the plane.

Then things go one of two directions:

1 - Perhaps a drone plane with a legitimate flight plan takes off from a private airfield somewhere, and switches with the hijacked plane somewhere along the way.

The hijacked plane flies to where the drone plane's flight plan says to land (where the passengers are killed and the bodies disposed of.)

Or

2- None of the hired mercenaries actually knows how to fly a plane but the hijackers have practiced using prefabricated equipment to bypass the controls and put the plane under remote control.

They have been told the plane will just fly around for a while until some demands are met, and then land somewhere and they'll go retire in the Bahamas (since their crimes are now being blamed on people whose passports they used.)

but.......... that was a lie. In the last few seconds before the crash, they suddenly realize they've been played, but it's really too late to do anything about it.

Then retrieving the flight that took off as flight 77. The planted family histories and financial records that bought passage in flight 77. Again, did the jet fly low under radar? Was all air traffic control in on the conspiracy. The landing field that received flight 77. The workers that processed the passengers and the flight 77 jet?

And that is just for starts.......

Why would you plant any family histories? Who says the phone calls made to loved ones weren't real phone calls?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: neutronflux

Just the fact that you believe there is not clear video of whatever happened shows how closed minded you are. Someone from a previous post said something about video practically being prehistoric back in 2001, but that isn't the case at all, especially with the Pentagon.

It's crazy to even consider they don't have a clear video. I can't explain why they haven't released it via request, but my guess is they do what they like.

What? What proof do you there is any unreleased flight 77 video. This has been addressed endlessly on ATS.

While you ignore eyewitness accounts. Flight recorder data backed by radar data backed by visual confirmation by an inflight pilot. DNA evidence, coroner's reports, issuing of death certificates, and the release of human remains for burial.

Trial evidence, testimony, record of flight wreckage.

While the released security video of the pentagon shows a large jet hitting the pentagon.

And you don't have the credibility to offer a scenario to supersede a large jet strike and build supporting evidence?

It's likely the Pentagon has a lot more cameras than the few that we have been able to see.

However, if they show footage from those cameras, they are indirectly revealing where those cameras are located (because a skilled enemy could use trigonometry to determine what angle they are viewing the event from). And also revealing what those cameras abilities are (like their resolution, and possibly some of their optical abilities.)

That's my best guess as to why. Because there is no way the Pentagon has only one or two cameras facing any part of its exterior.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Wanted to end this post with this comment, but didn't want it to get lost.

Please state what maneuver Hanjour willing to be on a suicide mission could not do from the flight recorder data and radar data.

It's obvious you are grasping at straws.

It's not a matter of just planting DNA.

There where very large remains of passenger and crew from flight 77 recovered at the pentagon. Not just small. How did they get there. You had persons at the pentagon, emergency response, recover teams, maybe forensic teams, the coroner's office, maybe even the morgue, maybe even funeral homes, and then the burial of remains by families in the handling of the remains. Items pointed out to you, you seem to want to ignore.

The swapping of planes would be near impossible. For reasons stated earlier. Mostly due to the complexity, needed manpower, facilities, avoiding radar and air traffic control.

If flight 77 was rigged like a drone by installing servos to mechanically linked flight controls, how would flight 77 pass pre flight inspections and not be noticed by the pilots, crew, and mechanics.

It's obvious you are grasping at straws.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Let's play the what if game...

Why didn't the government just highjack all the jets with micro-robots and say the pilots were converted to Islam.

Or the government has supper secret tractor-beams.

Or maybe a drone latched on flight 77 mid flight to plant controls and programming to crash flight 77 into the pentagon.

Robots took over the flight of flight 77 from the language hold and made it crash into the pentagon.

Or the government paid millions to a family of a pilot that had terminal cancer, gave the pilot a Muslim ID, gave the pilot facial reconstruction, a tan, and the pilot flew flight 77.

Anything can be imagined if you go off nothing but fantasy.

But you, my grasping at straws person, have to keep changing your not very insightful fantasies to fit reality.

a reply to: neutronflux

You've made it abundantly clear that you only believe the official account of the incident.

You believe the FDR that supports a near impossible maneuver in that plan with an inexperienced unsafe pilot.

You believe all the photos and evidence with no consideration that any of it could be manufactured to support a massive deception.

You often speculate on the purpose and thoughts of the terrorist but criticize any speculation that goes against the official story.

Got it.

Over 80+ videos were confiscated from the surrounding area immediately after the incident. None have been released to the public.

a reply to: m1kelowry

And you refuse to accept that Marcel Bernard (the flight instructor who would not rent a Cessna to Hani Hanjour), has stated that Mr. Hanjour's skills were more than adequate to pilot Flight 77.

Not to mention, you are still hung up on the lie that the 80+ videos were all from the area around the Pentagon.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Wanted to end this post with this comment, but didn't want it to get lost.

Please state what maneuver Hanjour willing to be on a suicide mission could not do from the flight recorder data and radar data.

It's obvious you are grasping at straws.

It's not a matter of just planting DNA.

There where very large remains of passenger and crew from flight 77 recovered at the pentagon. Not just small. How did they get there. You had persons at the pentagon, emergency response, recover teams, maybe forensic teams, the coroner's office, maybe even the morgue, maybe even funeral homes, and then the burial of remains by families in the handling of the remains. Items pointed out to you, you seem to want to ignore.

It's not about grasping at straws. The scientific way to approach the question is to compare hypothesis and go with whatever is the best match to evidence.

But there is lots of evidence that points in lots of directions. No real slam dunks, unless you're one of those people who worships authority figures (in which case the fact an authority figure has endorsed one hypothesis and disapproves of the other would be end of story for you.)

Planting DNA is the biggest weakness of the swapped planes hypothesis. There wouldn't be time to land the hijacked plane and kill the passengers and then get their body parts to the Pentagon.

So the drone plane would have to have corpses on it, and some mistake would have to be made in the matching of their DNA to the DNA that was being compared against.

On one hand, that does seem a bit fabulous.

On the other hand......... I think people put too much faith in DNA. The samples would likely pass through a number of hands before they are finally analyzed. You just need one of those hands to be complicit.

The swapping of planes would be near impossible. For reasons stated earlier. Mostly due to the complexity, needed manpower, facilities, avoiding radar and air traffic control.

Not hard at all. The drone 747 would have been booked as a private plane (perhaps a transport plane) and take off from a private airstrip. Civilian radar is, for the most part, not sophisticated enough to tell the difference between one kind of pane and another.

They meet at a point in the air that is poorly covered by radar. The hijacked plane changes course to follow the drone's original flight plan. The drone heads off to Washington.

If flight 77 was rigged like a drone by installing servos to mechanically linked flight controls, how would flight 77 pass pre flight inspections and not be noticed by the pilots, crew, and mechanics.

It's obvious you are grasping at straws.

I already posted the relevant links for this. You would train your hijackers to install the needed hardware mid flight.

Or one of your conspirators is a high ranking executive at the airline.

The executive arranges for the autopilot to be replaced a long time before take off with a similar looking one with the needed abilities. Any number of justifications could be given for allowing a small team of technicians from a small "fly by night" private company to open up the plane and do maintenance.

Most research and design in the private sector, the engineers are required to sign non-disclosure agreements. So if you need special tech, you can always just hire a bunch of fully legitimate engineers to make it. Naturally you don't tell them you're planning to commit a crime with the device.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Let's play the what if game...

Why didn't the government just highjack all the jets with micro-robots and say the pilots were converted to Islam.

Or the government has supper secret tractor-beams.

Or maybe a drone latched on flight 77 mid flight to plant controls and programming to crash flight 77 into the pentagon.

Robots took over the flight of flight 77 from the language hold and made it crash into the pentagon.

Or the government paid millions to a family of a pilot that had terminal cancer, gave the pilot a Muslim ID, gave the pilot facial reconstruction, a tan, and the pilot flew flight 77.

Anything can be imagined if you go off nothing but fantasy.

But you, my grasping at straws person, have to keep changing your not very insightful fantasies to fit reality.

I haven't changed them since this thread began.

But I did start with two possibilities (the hijacked plane flying by remote control, and the swapped planes.)

I started with two. Ended up with two. I haven't changed anything.


Your plan requires suicide bombers.

My plan requires technology. But I have a background in computer science and IT, and all of the tech required is stuff I could have built myself.

If a conspirator were to approach me, and an identical 747 for me to practice on, and told me to devise a means of taking it over to fly by remote control. One that would work reliably, and which could be taught to a group of paramilitary people so they could practice a few times on a dummy plane, and then reliably do it in real life.

I could do that for them.

And that is why it doesn't strain credibility for me to believe that maybe somebody else did.

a reply to: m1kelowry

Over 80+ videos were confiscated from the surrounding area immediately after the incident. None have been released to the public.

They have ALL been released to the public.
You refuse to accept that face.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

No, you don't want address the specific issues.

----for an inflight install

How do you splice into mechanical controls that directly contect to the flight surfaces without even a bobble in flight.

How do you sneak aboard a control system to splice into mechanical systems. You need servomotors, actuators, pivot points, mechanical stops, frames, mounting brackets, motors, wiring, powers supplies.

Whatever you install needs a central control unit, power supply, and a receiving unit, and antenna.

From what distance and strength was the control single broadcasted from what control antenna. Or was it done by an invisible sister jet, or handed from ground station to ground station.

What was broadcasting to the control station so they could control the drone jet. Now you are talking computers to transmit flight 77 GPS position? Cameras to capture visual data, and how was that transmitted.

What allowed them to remotely lock onto the pentagon and the ability transmit that data? Was it visual?

When did all the installation take place in flight? How big was the team?

Where did they install the flight system. After power assist devices, before power assist devices? In the wings and tail sections. Could you do it from the pressurized Cabin? Or did the pressurized cabin need breeches? Did the airframe need modified. Welders? Sawzalls? Cutting torches? Soldering irons? Bolts and Nuts? Any hydraulics modifications? Tubing, tubing cutters, and hydraulic hoses and connections?

How was all the tools smuggled on board in addition to the equipment, hardware, broadcasting and receiving equipment?

Yes, you are grasping at straws with no basis in reality. Sorry, it's that simple.

----For pre flight installation.

You still need everything functional at take off. Everything needs to be OEM and look factory installed to pass pilot, flight crew, and mechanic inspections.

I am sure nobody would notice cameras, GPS computers, control systems, power supplies, transmission equipment, antennas to broadcast telemetry to the station for remote controlling the jet.

And you still have to match the work with required FAA maintenance logs and system checks.

Was there even break for the flight 77 airframe to do the install.

An install that couldn't be done overnight. We are talking about at least a week to break down the airframe, install, and return the airframe to appear OEM and pass normal checks.

Your scenario has ballooned in equipment, transmission equipment, cost, manpower, technology, maintenance coverups, and system test coverups to an impossible scenario.

You talk about science, and you don't even know of the manpower and exstencive equipment needed to carryout your farce. You posts are of Hollywood plots and right down childish.

Has nothing to do with me. You just don't understand how much crap you really are making up with no baises in reality.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

"My plan requires technology. But I have a background in computer science and IT, and all of the tech required is stuff I could have built myself. "

Great. Where comes your expertise in flight control systems?

I am going to guess....you have none. Which is why your idea of "You would train your hijackers to install the needed hardware mid flight. " seems so plausible to you, but beyond unlikely to those of us with experience in flight control systems.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Debunk the government didn't have the gray space aliens capture flight 77 in a remote control field to remotely control flight 77 into the pentagon.

Just because it is imagined does it mean it has a baises in reality. And what you are pushing is pure fantasy.

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: neutronflux


You believe the FDR that supports a near impossible maneuver in that plan with an inexperienced unsafe pilot.

.

Yet. you don't even have the F'n credibility to state what the maneuver was.

And no. The crap provided by the truth movement is based on half truths, false narratives, photos out of context, quotes out of context.

How is citing Scientists for 9/11 Truth that the large jet impact at the pentagon is the only credible explanation, all other theories are virtually impossible, and the credibility of the truth movement is being killed by large jet strike deniers supporting the official narrative.

You have yet offered a rebuttal to the papers I have quoted that proves the video evidence is legit, there are no more flight 77 videos to release, the FRD is legit, the radar data backs what scores of civilian witnesses attest to.

Thanks for being like the truth movement, and only offering intellectually dishonest arguments. Thanks for supporting those the exploit large jet impact denial for exploiting 9/11.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Let's start simple and prove good faith.

Let's start with flight 77 telemetry, and what data was broadcasted back to the remote control station to help who was flying flight 77 to lock on the pentagon and get it on target? Please be specific with what equipment would be needed, when it was installed, how it was installed, what tools were needed, and how was it missed by pilots, crew, ground crews, and maintenance during system checks and air frame inspections.

The flight 77 flight controls that would required being overridden....

craigmiddleton.co.uk...

PITCH CONTROL Elevators
The pitch control surfaces consist of two elevators and a Stabilizer. A Mach speed trim system operates the stabilizer to improve speed stability.

ELEVATOR
Moving the control column signals hydraulic actuators to move the elevators. Elevator positions are shown on the EICAS status display. Separate pointers indicate the left and right elevator deflection. A full-scale indication corresponds to the maximum elevator deflection.
If one control column should jam, applying significant forward or aft force to the other causes the two columns to override. Pitch control is then available using the free control column path

ELEVATOR ASYMMETRY

FAULT INDICATION
AMM Elevator control system fault monitoring is provided by the Stabilizer/Elevator Asymmetry limiter Module (SAM) and EICAS system. The SAM provides fault monitoring of the elevator/asymmetry limiter actuator.
A PCU monitor system is installed to monitor hydraulic pressure in the Power Control Actuators (PCAs) to detect and warn of an excessive pressure differential (above 1140-1350 psi) between the PCAs (PCA force-fight).

STABILIZER TRIM CONTROL Stabilizer.
The stabilizer is powered by the Center and Right hydraulic systems. Stabilizer position commands are sent to the stabilizer trim control modules, which control hydraulic power to the stabilizer through a motor and brake system. There are two modules, one for each stabilizer hydraulic source.

ELECTRIC TRIM

ALTERNATE TRIM

MACH/SPEED TRIM SYSTEM

YAW CONTROL
Yaw control is provided by a single rudder. Two yaw dampers operate through the rudder control system to improve directional stability.

RUDDER
Rudder position is shown on the EICAS status display. On the ground, a full scale indication corresponds to the maximum rudder deflection.

RUDDER TRIM

RUDDER RATIO CHANGER

YAW DAMPING
Yaw Damper switchesTwo independent yaw damper systems improve turn coordination and Dutch roll damping and provide gust-load relief. Each system has a yaw damper controller which provides signals to operate a yaw damper actuator which in turn generates rudder control inputs. The left and right yaw damper actuators are powered by the Left and Center Hydraulic systems respectively.

INTRODUCTION
The roll control surfaces consist of hydraulically powered ailerons and spoilers that are controlled by rotating either Control Wheel.

ROLL CONTROL
An aileron is located on each wing on either side of the outboard trailing edge flap. Two hydraulic actuators are used for each aileron. Aileron surface deflections are proportional to control wheel displacement. Spoilers begin to extend to augment roll control after several degrees of control wheel rotation. Control wheel forces increase as control displacement increases.
The control wheels are connected so that, if one control wheel jams, using significant force causes the control wheels to override. Roll control is then available using the free control wheel.

AILERONS
Aileron positions are shown on the EICAS status display. A full-scale indication corresponds to maximum aileron deflection.

AILERON TRIM

SPOILERS
There are six spoiler panels located on the upper wing surface of each wing just forward of the trailing edge flaps. Spoilers on opposing wings are symmetrically paired.
Spoiler panels are used as speedbrakes to increase drag and reduce lift, both in flight and on the ground. The spoilers also supplement roll control in response to control wheel commands. In flight, only five pairs of spoilers are used. On the ground, all six spoiler panels function as ground speedbrakes.
The Control Wheels and the Speedbrake Lever send signals to the spoiler controller. The spoiler controller combines the signals from the Control Wheels and the Speedbrake Lever, determines the required spoiler panel deflection and then signals the spoiler panel actuators to operate. A separate hydraulic actuator powers each spoiler panel.

SPEEDBRAKE LOAD ALLEVIATION SYSTEM

SPOILER SPEEDBRAKE OPERATION

The flaps and slats are normally operated with hydraulic power from the Left Hydraulic system.
An Alternate system allows the flaps and slats to be operated by electric motors.
Flap and slat position is controlled with the Flap Lever. Moving the lever provides a signal to the flap Power Drive Unit (PDU) which moves the flaps to the selected position. As the flaps move toward their selected position a signal is sent to the Slat PDU which drives the leading edge slats.
The Flap PDU is located in the left wheel well. The Slat PDU is located in the left wing root.

a reply to: neutronflux

How can anyone find anything from a source you would consider reputable if it is an actual conspiracy? Do you believe the gov't would admit or provide the evidence to destroy it's own plan?

That's why it simply goes back to the belief of a pilot without the skills to pull off the mission.

Some people have actually responded with how easy it is to fly a plane. I call complete B.S. Go speak with an actual pilot who flies a commercial jet and ask him how easy it is if all the training he had was on a Cessna or flight simulator.

That, or just keep on believing in the talents of that pilot.