low flyby

reply to post by _Del_


boys, boys, boys, you're just bickering now!

Don't make me stop this car!!

Sometimes, I just take a step back, and wait a while before making a post, just to collect my thoughts....

WW

reply to post by weedwhacker


I just don't think he realizes how high 2300 feet actually is. Or how big the Pentagon is. Flying at 2300 feet gives you a pretty broad view. Hitting the an object the size of the Pentagon isn't the miracle that is being portrayed, nevermind sighting it. I'm trying to lend some perspective in the hopes that once he actually thinks about these things he may actually revise his theory. I'm not real confident it will happen, but I'm hopeful.

Originally posted by _Del_
I guess I'm confused: at what angle are you approaching a pentagon that you can only see one side? Try doing this please.

I was looking at the animation done by the NTSB from the flight 77 FDR.

You mainly see i side, you can see somewhat of a second side but still mainly 1 side is in full view.



[edit on 10-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA, I'd love to see that NTSB animation, do you have the link?

Thanks, WW

[edit] send U2U if you wish, I just 'bought' more U2Us...

[edit on 4/10/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, I'd love to see that NTSB animation, do you have the link?

The animation is on a CD i recieved from the NTSB. You can get the CDs all you have to do is go to the NTSB website and file a FOIA request for the Flight 77 FDR data.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA, please see my reply on the '737 Wheel' thread..

WW

[edit] I second someone else, who called you a 'crew dog' on the F4....it is the singularly most sexy jet ever built!!!

[edit on 4/11/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by beachnut
Sorry, how do you know it is hard again to fly into a 77 foot target?

Who said 500 mph was difficult?

1. Do you know what a 77 foot tall building would look like at several hundred feet and going 500 mph and how hard it would be to line up on just that 1 side?

2. I have proven it with the jet engine sim. Anything over 480 mph on the sim causes an overheat situation.

Also going 500mph at that low of an altitude would casue all kind of turbulence. At least 1 military witness close the the Pentagon stated the plane looked out of control.

1. Too easy to line up and hit. Hani hit it, I tried to explain all pilots do the same thing when landing. Imagine a 77 foot target at the end of the runway, we bust right through the middle each landing and touchdown at 750 feet. It was easier for Hani, he could hit anywhere in the 77 feet, for landing you need to be almost in the middle. This is not an issue for a pilot, and most anyone could do it, even non pilots. Go flying.

2. The plane was only over that speed for how long; looking it up; (355 KIAS is 400 mph, very close to Vmo). 77 was over 400 for 20 seconds. Planes do not stop flying because pilots mess up and overheat engines. Not a show stopper here, the engines were up to 100 percent, the plane was going over 400 for less than 30 seconds and was destroyed. Not the best way to hide an overheated engine but Hani was a murderer. He did not care if the engine overheated, he was too busy over-controlling 77.

500 mph makes more turbulence, nope. When I went too fast in the trusty KC=135, turbulence did not get worse, the momentum seemed to smooth out the turbulence. I noticed more stability.

The plane looked out of control because the idiot terrorist murderer hijacker pilot was crashing it; I would call it out of control. That is why someone says that. Or, better, Hani was all over the place with the Gs.

8 samples a second, last 20 seconds...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by snoopy
Regardless is pretty much dismisses the claims on this forum that it's technically impossible for planes to do this. I believe Mr Lear was the one to bring up this claim and this video alone pretty should make people question his expertise as it unquestionably proves his claim wrong.

NO, it does not dimiss the claims. If anything it porves that it takes an experienced pilot to fly low and fast and that things like turbulence play a big role.

John lear has one of the best backgrounds in aviation and no one has been able to cast any doubt on his expertise.

it does dismiss the claims, the plane only had to hit the building, not pull up again and fly again so there is no need to worry about engine overheating and the likes like your nasa jet propultion sim, and to keep going on like you have been in other threads, you are wrong in your assumptions, a kid could point an aircraft at a building as huge as the pentagon, beleive me it is not hard to hitsome thing 77' high and a 1000' long, thats a huge target to miss. i know you are not a pilot and have no experince in this field so please keep your lack of knowledge to yourself.

2. John lear - just because he has flight hours doesnt make him the best voice of reason now does it, there are plenty of 737/757/767 pilots on here that have more reason and better backgrounds than john. if john couldnt hit a target the size of the pentagon i seriously would suggest that he have his eyes tested and his flying licence revoked until he can.

Wee Mad Mental

Does anyone else find this thread enourmously funny?

Think about it.

Originally posted by weemadmental
you are wrong in your assumptions, a kid could point an aircraft at a building as huge as the pentagon, beleive me it is not hard to hitsome thing 77' high and a 1000' long, thats a huge target to miss.

Do you know what a building woud look like at around 500 mph? It would be a small target coming at you very fast. No time for corrections or reactions, he had the be lined up perfectly with the 1 side when coming out of the 360 degree turn.

As I've very reasonably tried to show, that just isn't the case. The Pentagon isn't just an office building. It's as wide as the Empire State building is tall -- actually more so. Further, it has already been mentioned that pilots line up on runways much, much smaller quite frequently. I appreciate your zeal, but you're building on an assumption which isn't true.

Originally posted by _Del_
As I've very reasonably tried to show, that just isn't the case.

Not according to all the facts and evidence i have.

Even the animation from the NTSB shows mainly 1 side and how small it looked and how fast the plane got there.

And as stated with very little time for any corrections and reactions.

i47.photobucket.com...

[edit on 11-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

First, I'd like to ask:
"Do you know what a building woud [sic] look like at around 500 mph?"

Do you have any cockpit time?


Second, I'll play along and ask: If your premise is correct, why should we believe the FDR information from the NTSB? Does the data end at the Pentagon? If so we know it can't be from flight 77 because it didn't crash there someone else did (although where flight 77 got off to we don't know. To say nothing of the crew/passengers. And what plane did crash, we have similarly no idea). How does the data match flight 77's known path in some areas but not others (because we know 77 didn't end at the Pentagon)? Is it safe then to assume anything based on these tapes if we know them to be a forgery?

Originally posted by _Del_
Second, I'll play along and ask: If your premise is correct, why should we believe the FDR information from the NTSB? Does the data end at the Pentagon? If so we know it can't be from flight 77 because it didn't crash there someone else did (although where flight 77 got off to we don't know.

Well all you have to do is get the CDs from the NTSB. Go to there website and file a FOIA request for the FDR data like i did.

If you look at the photo i posted it is the final point fo the NTSB animation when the plane was supposed to have struck the Pentagon.

Look at the altimeter. The altimeters were reset.

I just saw you updated your post with the pic -- is that from the recreation? Very cool.
The building looks pretty big, however (compare the trucks on Washington Blvd and the smaller buildings in front of the Pentagon proper). Perhaps you could show us one from farther away that would better demonstrate your point. Although scale would be hard to judge at that distance.

Originally posted by _Del_
I just saw you updated your post with the pic -- is that from the recreation? Very cool.

Well all you have to do is get the CDs from the NTSB. Go to there website and file a FOIA request for the FDR data like i did.

If you look at the photo i posted it is the final point fo the NTSB animation when the plane was supposed to have struck the Pentagon.

Look at the altimeter. The altimeters were reset.

reply to post by _Del_



Del,

not sure why ULTIMA1 is afraid to post the information you asked for. I would think he would want to share the "truth".

Here ya go!

This link shows the NTSB AA77 Animation...obtained via FOIA:
www.vtap.com...

Originally posted by Disclosed not sure why ULTIMA1 is afraid to post the information you asked for. I would think he would want to share the "truth".

There are several places that have a video, but i was talking the actual animation and data from the NTSB. Besides that video is edited it is not that same os the actual NTSB video.

Please do not try to misquote and twist what i post, it only makes you look bad as people have stated to me.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1



How odd...looks like the exact same video you took a screenshot from. Exact. Shall I post a screenshot from that at 13:37:44 and yours?

unless you can show me a difference from the video I posted (at 13:37:44) and your screenshot, I would say you are 100% bull#ting.

The video I linked answered the posters question.

I was just answering the question he asked, rather than send him on a wild goose chase waiting for FOIA requests, etc.

Gotta love the Internet!


[edit on 11-4-2008 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
How odd...looks like the exact same video you took a screenshot from. Exact.

Why would you give him an edited version on the video instead of the actual video ?

Why would getting the actual video and data from the NTSB be a wild goose chase?

[edit on 11-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]