New Video Footage of Flight 77 Hitting Pentagon Released

Actually, it was 33 minutes after air traffic control could not communicate with the plane that the F16 made visual contact with that aircraft in which the famous golfer died.

At 0927:18 EDT, N47BA acknowledged the clearance by stating, "three nine zero bravo alpha." This was the last known radio transmission from the airplane.
............
About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA.

www.ntsb.gov...

BTW, the F16 was part of the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida.

I know that someone went over the details of the flights on 9/11 and there is a link somewhere about all the intineraries. i will see if i can dig it up.

BTW, that link which you gave gives at least one lie...there were several large parts of the plane found inside the Pentagon, and outside there was at least one that we know about. And the small hole found in the innermost rings of the Pentagon could very well have been made by one of the engines, or parts of the engine as if appears that parts went flying everywhere inside the Pentagon, of the aircraft falling off and punching through the wall. i will see if i can find the dimensions of the engines.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Wow, thanks a lot, you made me find a very interesting site...

Let me give some excerpts from this site. At the beginning of the site someone asks the following question..

Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've seen pictures of engine wreckage at the Pentagon after 9/11. Your site says the engine of a 757 is over 6 feet across but this piece is way smaller than that. Does it prove that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a 757 and the government is lying about it?
- Leroy Mulligan
.....................

After a lot of pictures and facts about 757 engines the following is the conclusion....

To give a better idea of how the three engine components we have discussed relate to one another, the above image shows a diagram of the high pressure system within the RB211-535 engine. Also included are the objects identified in the Pentagon wreckage and their relative locations within the engine. As discussed in the main article, all three of these pieces of debris are identical matches to or at least consistent with the components found in the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan aboard a Boeing 757.

All of the above excerpted from.
www.aerospaceweb.org...

I wonder what the "no plane crowd" are going to say now...

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]

If we accept that the Pentagon's new fortifications were an engineering failure and that
Flight 77 did in fact penetrate those reinforcements, that still does not explain how a novice
pilot managed to maneuver the aircraft with such skill.

I would sure like to see the maintenance logs and computer logs of flight 77 for 30 days prior
to the event.

I imagine that an engineer might want to look for any hints of a remote control test or the installation of certain control hardware.

Could you tell us what exactly is your evidence that there was any "control remote device" in the 757?....

Because according to the flight school instructor and some of the class mates of the hijacker said he would never be a good pilot?...

Perhaps you didn't notice that "he didn't take off, nor did he land the plane".... he flew it into a building....

We do know that there have been hijackers who have asked only to learn how to control a plane in the sky. If he wasn't able to land the plane, or take off, could very well have been the reason why the instructor and his classmates said he would never be a good pilot...

I can't remember exactly who wrote an article about the request of some hijacker wannabes only to learn how to control a plane in the sky, but I remember having seen it in these forums.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]

I can only submit my own speculation knowing that the technology was available.

British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings. If this were true, it would raise some very interesting questions. On the one hand, if the systems were used to control the aircraft and pilot them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then who was at the controls? How did they get access to the secret codes?

In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.
From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run’s top secret computer codes would be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001.

www.911-strike.com...

Now if in fact these controls were available on flight 77, there might be a record of a link test
revealing the address of the controller.

This would sure be an interesting FOIA request to submit.

humm, could you show us a link, and excerpts, to a website that is not a "conspiracy site" and corroborates what this alledged Aeronautical engineer is saying?

i have seen the tendency lately for some conspiracy sites to suddenly have some "experts" who noone else seems to know, I could be wrong thou.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Well, i did a search about this Joe Vialls and found the following sites.

Australians on the eastern seaboard knew nothing of “Joe” Vialls until long after 1996. His first article published by The Strategy newspaper of May 1997, erroneously promoted a 'fake video', which at the time was claimed to have been handed to a journalist by a Tasmania Policeman.

For Australians and by this article, “Joe” had arrived! Soon, logging-on to ‘surf the Web’, hits and links to "Joe Vialls" popping up like mushrooms after warm autumn rain.

These articles confirmed an ability to gather obscure photographs, maps, diagrams and include them in his now familiar eye-catching, breaking-news articles on the Web, sometimes within hours of the event – that to the unwary - marks him as a remarkable, armchair internet journalist.

judicial-inc.biz...

thewebfairy.com...

Interesting indeed. Peruse the sites at your pleasure.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
How about you made a request for that to the government, or the hotel owners.....

And still, for some reason, you want to dismiss those people who were there and saw it happen, you want to dismiss the pictures and evidence found that there were plane parts...and bodies of people who were passengers..

The fact of the matter is, no matter what evidence is given, some people will always want to proclaim that there was no plane, and it was done by the U.S government....

Requests have alreadt been made for those videos, if there were national security implications, they wouldnt allow 3rd partys to film in that area, would they?

Originally posted by Muaddib
No, the BS comes when people like yourself proclaim "there is no government secrets to keep".... Try asking the same thing from other countries, maybe you should try China or even Russia to release videos of cameras in their military buildings and see what they tell you...

[edit on 20-5-2006 by Muaddib]

I highly doubt all the hotel and petrol station videos even had the pentagon in view. Even if they did, tell what more theyd show of the pentagon than the videos weve already seen and explain to me how theyd be of national security implications.

Youve dodged that question for several pages now.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Flyer]

Originally posted by Muaddib
humm, could you show us a link, and excerpts, to a website that is not a "conspiracy site" and corroborates what this alledged Aeronautical engineer is saying?

The systems do exist Muaddib. I flew on a Republic Airlines DC9 into Minot ND that was equipped with an automated system in the 90s and I forget the nickname the pilot gave it but it was one of the smoothest landings I have ever experienced.

I am not sure this is the very same system but it does confirm they do in fact exist.

Successful test of satellite-based landing system may open new era in aircraft navigation

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That 'road' is the shadow of the smoke from the fire. Use your mouse to run the film back and forth and watch the 'road' change with the smoke.

Agreed.
I also suggest you use your mouse to go back and forth and check out how the sun is suddenly higher in a space of just one frame, right after the impact, because you can see the change in lens flares shape and size, and you can also see that it clearly shines a little bit higher over the endge of the building - while none such drastic change takes places in first or last half of the video.

I agree with you, the car gives us some perspective, adding to the evidence that the projectile wasn't a plane, but a road didn't appear.

Yes - let's see that in a little blow-up overlay of both frames:



Car and the Boeing?

Ooh! Good one Souljah! The size and perspective is not the important thing to notice in that picture however, as far as I'm concerned. Look at the focus on the two objects. The car is pretty blurry but I'm still confident that I can tell what it is, especially having seen it enter from the left.

But the 'plane' seems more in focus than the car! That would be impossible seeing as how it's on the far side of the car by quite some distance. It should be an unrecognizable blob. The pointy part at least, seems far too pointy and in focus to be in proper perspective.

Just observations from an amateur. Too many questions...

Originally posted by Muaddib
humm, could you show us a link, and excerpts, to a website that is not a "conspiracy site" and corroborates what this alledged Aeronautical engineer is saying?

i have seen the tendency lately for some conspiracy sites to suddenly have some "experts" who noone else seems to know, I could be wrong thou.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]

It appears Mr. Vialls is just another tithead using his degree to promote an unfounded theory. According to this New York Times article in the Technology section (dated April 11, 2002), experts in the industry began to discuss ways to deter what happened on 9/11, but there were no systems in place (and especially on 757's and 767's) that would allow this:

Can Computers Foil Air Pirates?

On a side note, as the article states, there are only a couple of commercial aircraft that have fly-by-wire. The debate over whether going to fly-by-wire on commercial airliners would even be a healthy endeavor has raged since I was in college. The main incident used to argue against such a move is the Hawaiian flight where the fuselage skin ripped away and the pilot successfully brought the flight to a safe landing under near impossible conditions. This event is used to show the dangers of a fly-by-wire because the pilot did the counter-intuitive as far as pilot reaction to control loads. It is postulated a fly-by-wire system would have probably resulted in a crashed aircraft in this situation.

I'll do some more research to see if AIAA has any papers that would hint at the April 11, 2002 NY Times article not knowing all there was to know, but for the time being, it looks like Mr. Vialls is talking out his backside.

Well I think that perspective and dimensions are kind of important in this frame. The car looks kind of big, compared to "Boeing757" in that picture, especially if we check out the version made by AgentSmith and also use the overlay of frames to see the comparison, which he thinks is right and compare that to the car on that frame:

Guys,

Okay, if you click this link: www.judicialwatch.org... and look closely on video 2, it is the shape of a plane. I don't see how you all manage to say that this thing is a missile because it's not!

If the camera displays frames per second, then you would not be able to see a missile. Do you realize how fast a missile is compared to a plane? It would be so fast that you would not be able to see parts of it on this camera. If it were to not show any bits and pieces of a plane, then chances are it would've been a missile, but if you can see a piece of the plane on here; it's a plane!!

And those who say that it's a coeincidence that the police car left the gate 15 seconds before it hit the building, you must realize that security patrols the entire area 24/7, and they are constantly monitoring the vicinity of the Pentagon.

I'm sorry, but I don't trust that Agent Smith's opinion of the perspective is correct. The 'plane' in the actual incident came in from a much different angle than this picture protrays so it's hard for me to buy that theory. As it approached the Pentagon, the plane would have appeared to 'grow' in size if we could see the real thing, so I believe that picture is just very misleading.

Maybe the plane would have been that size as it came in from the right side, but the angle of approach would change everything.

Not to mention that the highly magnified pictures in this post look nothing like a plane OR a missile.

In fact, I'm leaning toward the Global Hawk-painted-with-the-right-colors theory...

Originally posted by BJonesLHS
If the camera displays frames per second, then you would not be able to see a missile.

WHAT? That depends on which moment in time the camera captured. Unless you saying a missile goes so fast it can't be seen by the naked eye...

I'm no expert, but it seems more logical to me that an expert pilot would have had to be at the controls in order for flight 77 to manage such an extreme manuvere especially at such a low altitude.

This article dated 3/20/2000 states that Boeing was usuing the technology with pilot overide capabilites, but then also states that the technology was only available in 777's
seattlepi.nwsource.com...

Wikipedia also covers this technology, but again only mentions the 777 having pilot overide
capabilites.

en.wikipedia.org...

What is not covered, is the probablility that earlier versions such as 757 and 767 may have also
used this technology, but without the pilot override refinements of the 777.
www.aerospace-technology.com...

Apparently the 757 and 767 did have partial FBW technology as well.
According to this forum the earlier version was not fully augmented.

"JetCaptain - I am not aware of any fully FBW aircraft that don't also include some level of augmentation. Boeing 757 and 767, however, are examples of aircraft with partial FBW control systems that don't include augmentation. These two use FBW for the flaps, slats, and spoilers."

www.airdisaster.com...

another link mentions the FBW system in the Boeing 757
www.answers.com...

So it does appear that the 757 was using some version of FBW technology.




[edit on 21-5-2006 by FallenFromTheTree]

Right, which goes right along with the April 11, 2002 NYT Technology article. I'd like to add Mr. Viall's insinuations step over the line of logic in that you now have to incorporate a bunch of systems engineers into a vast conspiracy of silence on this matter. Engineers tend to be a bit more ethical than that.

As you increase the number of controllable assets, you diminish the possibility you're still thinking in a rational form.

The 757 and 767 FBW's for certain control services isn't the same as a full-on FBW aircraft. The best I can do to compare the two is this:

I have an electric waterbath system in one of the labs at work that I use to heat samples to a given temperature limit at a given rate. This waterbath system has two analog knobs - one sets the temperature limit and the other sets the rate at which it heats.

There is also available an AutoClave curing chamber in which I can enter a heating schedule that can have various phases, isotherm holds, etc. I enter the heating program I want to run and then walk away.

The waterbath equates to the systems on the 757/767's, the AutoClave curing chamber equates to the 777. Hopefully that helps in some small measure.

Search 757 + FBW does come up with a few more links.

The difference is that the 777 used the first FULLY DIGITAL FBW systems.

Unfortunately, no one mentions how a ground to air overide might be used in any
of these planes.

It's not difficut to imagine why any such capability would not be widely published.

I see people are warping what I originally was pointing out with my image, I was merely showing that the so called 'joke' GIF touted around by the 'Truth Seeking' crowd is a gross exaggeration and little more than disinformation.
I thought I made it quite clear in what I wrote when I presented the image and the context it was in the original thread, allow me to retort:

Originally posted by DirtyPete
www.infowars.com...


Anyone else see this on infowars? Looks like they must pay attention to these boards..

Image for reference:

Originally mosted by AgrentSmith
Shame that the aircraft in this one is from The Land of the Giants, as the tail height of the 757 is about 44' and the Pentagon is 77' tall.
Not only that, the aircraft in that GIF is touching the ground so it really is incredibly big for something slightly over half the height of the building including the flimsy tail. As well as what Zaphod pointed out of course, the aircraft in that GIF going at snails pace. I'm not surprised it crashed if it was like that, it probably stalled
I guess gross exaggerations like this are OK when looking for the truth are they? It's just that I see it an increasing amount from the truthseeking crowd.... Kind of scary really..

Still, as long as you get people rallied up for the path to civil war it's all dandy - a few lies and misinformation never hurt anyone as long as it's for their own good..

Emm... deja vu.

Originally mosted by AgentSmith
You'll have to excuse this, it's a rush job and I'm sure someone else can make a more accurate one - I didn't count pixels or anything (I tihnk the depiction of the aircraft may actually be a wee bit on the large side), but it's close enough to demonstrate what a gross exaggeration the joke GIF is, and why it is a prime example of 'truthseeker' disinformation:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As I said, it wasn't mean to be accurate, it was a demonstration of how exaggerated the 'Truth Seeker' GIF is, I think I made it pretty clear.
In the future I'd appreciate people not misquoting me, using my words or images out of context or employ any other 'disinfo' tactics in a feeble attempt to make me look foolish, I can normally do a good enough job all by myself thanks.

If people can't even collate a few scraps of information accurately off one Internet board then what makes you think you're going to find out the world's mysteries?

Still, it's useful to see how easily things are spun and twisted - some of you should consider working for the Government..

Thank you, Agent Smith, for clearing that up.

Here are some pictures I've come across in researching the "Global Hawk" theory. I'm really quite amazed and I'm also getting closer and closer to what I think happened on that fateful day at the Pentagon.

Some of these are from other ATS threads and one I found and 'blurred' for effect.

The highly magnified picture I mentioned in my last post:


An excellent picture from another ATS thread:


A 'blurred' version of a Global Hawk in flight (The angle is away from us instead of toward us, but use your imagination):


Unblurred original:


What do people make of this?