Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by dereks

There are, simply, too may factors involved to convince THIS airline pilot (among thousands of others...and not the handfull of idiots who lend themselves to the "Pilots For 911 TRruth" cabal...) that, not only is the FDR data from , in this case American Airlinas 77 (rest their souls ) completely accurate, but also the only other recoverable FDR, which was frnm United Airlines 93.

I have reviewed the datat fromj BOTH of those FDRs, and with my experience in the types of airplanes involved, NOTHING looks wrong to me.

I have thousands of hours in the equipment types, the B-757 and the B-767, and I am type rated on both, along with the B- 737 and the DC-9/MD-80.

So...what? What good is your opinion "as a pilot" when it is in doubt that you are actually even a pilot? This is a big problem with many of your posts. They rely on your "professional" opinion which is doubtful at best. You should try sticking to facts as too many people on ATS lie about who they are already.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
That is why they reinforced that particular section of the Pentagon

Obviously you are not aware they are reinforcing the whole building....

A 757 would have done far more damage

Another truther lie, as a 757 did hit the Pentagon why would a 757 do more damage? Truthers make very little sense!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by downisreallyup

 

NONSENSE!!!!

Please look at the damage photos!!!!

OR, just keep parroting the "truthers" lies...whatever yoy choose flown in the same way, differnent facade of the Pentagon???

Damage to building structrre likely the same, assuming same angle of impact..

"truthers" rising to make up liie???? 'priceless.........




[edit on 9 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

First of all, could you please type so I can understand your attempted English? Second of all, I am simply an American who wants to know the truth, as compared to you, who is obviously very comfortable believing lies. I'm not sure which of my comments you are responding to, but I can tell you that I have not said anything that is not 100% scientifically correct. A faster flying projectile will inflict MORE damage to the thing it hits, and because it has such high momentum, the thing it strikes will break apart more readily, thereby causing less damage to the projectile. Sorry, but things don't disintegrate when they hit something, unless that something is completely unbreakable, and even then, there would be a massive amount of wreckage.

That is the problem with ALL of you OS folks... you don't know how to talk about science. I have brought up the speed at which the building fell NUMEROUS times, and I have yet to see ONE OS-believer address the issue. You are all great at saying things like "RIDICULOUS" or "NONSENSE" but guess what... that is not an argument! That is just a sure sign that you have nothing of substance to say.

Originally posted by prof-rabbit

Originally posted by Lillydale

One's theory does not discount my answer, sorry. It does not work that way. Can you prove they had a remote controlled plane ready and capable of that task?

Well, yes, the Global Hawk, Eurohawk and others are remote controlled aircraft.
Many different types of UAV can be seen here.

en.wikipedia.org...

I am aware that there are remote controlled planes, despite whatever weedwacker says. The problem is that Dereks believes that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Unless he can prove that plane was remotely controlled and did crash into the building, my premise is still valid. Why not fly a plane? Because someone would have had to fly it. I was just offering a guess and it holds up against derek's argument and that is all I was attempting to do. If Dereks wants to admit that the plane could have been flown remotely into the building, I will take that as well. Either way he gets a little closer to the truth!

[edit on 2/9/10 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by downisreallyup
A faster flying projectile will inflict MORE damage to the thing it hits, and because it has such high momentum, the thing it strikes will break apart more readily, thereby causing less damage to the projectile.

That is not science, it is typical truther lies, not based in any fact!

but things don't disintegrate when they hit something,

only in your fantasy world, but in reality they certainly do if moving fast enough

and even then, there would be a massive amount of wreckage

just like the 757 that hit the Pentagon!

you don't know how to talk about science

Wrong again, it is the "truthers" that have no understanding of science or physics

I have brought up the speed at which the building fell NUMEROUS times,

and every time you have been shown to be wrong

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by dereks

 

except one of the conspiracy theories is the planes were remote controlled....

AND, that"theory" breaks down in the cold, hard reality of ...well, REALITY!!!


Let me provide a run-down......

Nothing looks wrong to you? If you were really an airline pilot I'm sure you would say that it is WRONG to think that a mediocre private pilot could dive a 757 in a tight circular path, down to the ground within inches of the surface, without touching the surface, at full throttle, with all the effects of "ground effect." I'm sure you would find some kind of problem with that scenario.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by prof-rabbit

 

No, simple excuse, CM was fired to protect the Pentagon from aircraft "X".

Give these people enough intelligence to create plan "B"

I ask again, why wasn't plan "A" to hit it with a 757? Then they wouldn't need a plan "B" of this kind.

Or don't they have enough intelligence to figure that out?

[edit on 8/2/2010 by rnaa]

And again I will point out that you cannot fly a 757 at that speed a few feet from the ground.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by prof-rabbit
No, simple excuse, CM was fired to protect the Pentagon from aircraft "X".
Give these people enough intelligence to create plan "B"

So...you are claiming a cruise missile was launched as a defense against an aircraft coming in aiming at the Pentagon?

Is that what you are saying?

Not in the slightest, the question was raised, "what happens if plan "A" fails, I simply point out that there would be backup plans and excuses.

reply to post by downisreallyup

Sorry, but things don't disintegrate when they hit something, unless that something is completely unbreakable, and even then, there would be a massive amount of wreckage.

Izzatso? Bad physics. Bad life experience. Ever see the results of a car crash?

How about a bullet hitting water? Please see Annotated Mythbusters Episode #34



=============================================
reply to post by prof-rabbit


FMJ's break up quicker when they hit something solid. See Mythbusters reference above.



=============================================
reply to post by downisreallyup

Nothing looks wrong to you? If you were really an airline pilot I'm sure you would say that it is WRONG to think that a mediocre private pilot could dive a 757 in a tight circular path, down to the ground within inches of the surface, without touching the surface, at full throttle, with all the effects of "ground effect." I'm sure you would find some kind of problem with that scenario.

The ground effect 'problem' is nothing of the sort. Please review this article at AerospaceWeb.org for the technical description of ground effect. The upshot is:

The amount of influence that trailing vortices have on the aerodynamic behavior of a wing depends on a number of factors. One of these is the distance of the wing from the ground. When operating very close to the ground, the vortices can become partially blocked and prevented from fully forming. This disruption of the trailing vortices reduces the magnitude of the downwash they create. A reduction in downwash results in higher lift and lower induced drag for a given angle of attack. As a result, ground effect increases the aerodynamic efficiency of a wing.

A second factor that influences the impact of trailing vortices on an aircraft is the speed at which it travels. A common misconception about ground effect is that a "bubble" or "cushion" of air forms between the aircraft and ground that somehow prevents the aircraft from landing or even forces the plane upward away from the ground. Furthermore, many believe that the strength of this cushion grows the faster an aircraft flies when near the ground. Both of these beliefs are wrong.

First of all, there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground. The true cause of ground effect is the influence of the ground on the wing's angle of attack as described above. Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack. Second, we have seen that this effect actually decreases with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies.

...

This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

[edit on 9/2/2010 by rnaa]

Originally posted by dereks
Another truther lie, as a 757 did hit the Pentagon why would a 757 do more damage? Truthers make very little sense!

Given all the photos available please show two holes made by the engines in the facade.

reply to post by prof-rabbit

Given all the photos available please show two holes made by the engines in the facade.

What makes you think there should be holes in the facade specifically identifiable to the engines?

The engines are lots of little pieces with very little mass. Why would you expect them to go through the facade instead of shattering? Which by the way is what the photographic record shows.

Originally posted by rnaa

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

[edit on 9/2/2010 by rnaa]

Extraordinarily convenient.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by prof-rabbit

 

Given all the photos available please show two holes made by the engines in the facade.

What makes you think there should be holes in the facade specifically identifiable to the engines?

The engines are lots of little pieces with very little mass. Why would you expect them to go through the facade instead of shattering? Which by the way is what the photographic record shows.

We have just been through all of this, the engines weigh 5 tons each, the central mass is high strength steel and other exotic metals, these are spinning at 10,000 rpm.

Thank you to the OP for presenting another opportunity to review and discuss the 9/11 Pentagon event.

Frankly I’m still unsure, but I’d rather be unsure about such an important matter than blindly go along with whatever “official” line is thrown at me. I guess in that respect most of us here feel the same, whatever the subject may be.

I have to say, though, that I find it easier to believe that Flight AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon that day, than to accept the assertions that it did.

Some of the things that bother me include:

The alleged hijacker pilot: Hani Hanjour is said to have been a very poor pilot. There are numerous references to this on the web, including the fact that he was refused the rental of a single-engined Cessna 172 aircraft not long before 9/11. During a test flight he had difficulties flying it and especially with controlling it during landing.

So, if he couldn’t bring a Cessna in on the straight and level (so to speak), how could he have accomplished a very smooth, tight turn in a B 757 while descending at 2500 fpm and then virtually leveled out and brought it in to crash into a building with such accuracy that he didn’t even scrape the plane on the lawn on the inrun? I find the discrepancy between his known abilities and AA77’s alleged “final approach” utterly extraordinary.

Also, as Hani Hanjour had zero experience of actually flying a B 757, he should have considered the possibility that he might get things wrong and just plough the plane into the ground before hitting the building. If he wanted to make absolutely certain that he hit the building, surely it would’ve been easier to get the aircraft positioned at some altitude and then put it into a dive? Yes, I know that he could still have missed, but from above, the Pentagon presents a much bigger target than that one wall, and even if he went way over the aircraft’s VNE he’d still hit the building provided his trajectory was right to start with.

Additionally, by putting the plane into the building through its roof, he could guarantee that virtually all of the fuel would explode outwards within its solid, containing walls. It would make firefighting a lot tougher as well if there was no external wall hole to spray flame retardants through.

So, that bothers me.

The other “possible” pilot: besides the known AA pilot, co-pilot and alleged hikacker pilot, there was at least one other person on that aircraft who was rated to fly large passenger jets, namely Rear Admiral Wilson “Bud” Flagg, USNR (ret.), who after active-duty service in the US Navy, joined the Naval Reserve 1967 and American Airlines in the same year. He retired from American Airlines in 1998 as a Captain. I am not saying that RADM Flagg flew that plane into the Pentagon on that day, but on the other hand I feel it’s important to mention that such a skilled ex-military and ex-AA pilot of many year’s experience was on the passenger list.

For a more detailed write-up of RADM Wilson Flagg, please visit his page on Pentagon Memorial.net.

Rear Admiral Flagg was not the only passenger on AA 77 who had military pilot experience, but he was the most senior and also had a direct and long-term link with American Airlines. If nothing else it’s a heck of a coincidence, isn't it?

The fuel tanks: according to Boeing.com, the B 757-200 series of aircraft have three main fuel storages, one in each wing and one in the plane’s belly, basically between them. This PDF document from the Boeing website shows their locations and capacities. For those with slow dialups, the center fuel tank holds 6,990 US gallons (26,119 litres), while the left and right main fuel tanks hold 2,170 US gallons (8,214 litres) each. So, assuming full tanks at takeoff (and apparently the plane was fuelled up), more than 4,000 gallons was held within its wings. That's a lot of fuel.

This being the fact, I find it hard to correlate the only known (and really crappy) “closeup” video view of the fireball with what I’d personally expect to happen when those wings impacted the building. Shouldn’t there have been a much wider spread of flammable material? I am not an expert on these matters but all the same it’s one of the things that I wonder about. If any of you are experts on fluid dynamics or at least the actions of fluids under high-impact conditions, maybe you can tell us more.

The damage to the environs: we have hopefully all seen the reports of damage to light poles and also some vehicles that were on AA77’s alleged approach path to the Pentagon. However, does this rather limited amount of damage actually prove that it was a B 757 that flew into the building? It implies something did, but whether it was an aircraft of that type I think may be harder to show. It’s even difficult to prove that this limited amount of damage was caused by an aircraft at all. It could have been made to appear so, but it’s hardly proof. So, I’m open on that one.

The victims’ remains: this is a touchy subject, because at least officially the passengers and crew of AA77 died that day when their plane hit the building. So what I say next is with the greatest respect.

There has been a lot of discussion along the lines that the plane was “vaporized” but human remains of these people were not. Or, at least, there were sufficient remains for DNA analysis.

Now, while DNA analysis is reasonable I’ll take things a stage further. During the struggle to convince the Army to give AA77’s pilot, Capt. Charles F. Burlingame III (USNR [ret.]), a separate burial plot at Arlington National Cemetery even though he died at under the Veterans’ qualifying age of 60 years:

Senator John W. Warner (Va.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, helped spearhead the campaign on Burlingame's behalf, saying he was driven in part by evidence that the pilot died fighting the hijackers, not in the crash.
"I felt very strongly that this was a meritorious case," he said yesterday. "The final cog in the wheel was the examination of his remains, which indicated Captain Burlingame was in a struggle and died before the crash, doing his best to save lives on the aircraft and on the ground."

(Italics mine. Refer to Captain Burlingame’s memorial page on the Arlington Cemetery website and scroll down about half-way.)

You don’t determine if someone was killed in a struggle prior to a very violent and fiery impact by examining their DNA. You need remains and they need to be in good enough condition to show very definitive signs that a pathologist can identify.

Think about this: a passenger plane carrying more than 10,000 gallons of jet fuel slams nose-first into the wall of a very solid, reinforced concrete structure at hundreds of miles an hour, instantly erupts into a huge fireball that “vaporizes” most of the plane (including all of its wings and apparently most of its two engines), yet the AA pilot’s remains are in such condition that not only do they show signs of a “struggle” but they also show that he died as a result of this struggle before this impact and conflagration. With the deepest respect to Capt Burlingame and his family, I am very sorry but I find this almost beyond any reasonable belief -- even though it is the official version.

But don’t get me wrong: I am very willing to believe that Capt. Burlingame fought back. (More on that later.) But could this be evidenced after the ensuing high-speed crash and the fire that followed?

The hijacking itself: we have been told that a small group of four hijackers, armed only with boxcutters, were able to take control of flight AA77, force all the passengers and crew to the rear of the plane and keep them there while the fifth hijacker, their own “pilot” took control of the aircraft.

Capt Burlingame was an ex “Top Gun” fighter pilot and you do not get to that sort of level of excellence without a lot of cojones, intelligence, and the ability to think on your feet. Further -- as I said -- he was not the only ex-military person on board that flight. Besides Rear Admiral Flagg, there were also Capt John David Yamnicky Sr. USN (ret) and Lt Cdr Charles Albert Droz II USN (ret).

Are we expected to believe that these undoubtedly tough, brave and smart ex-military men were not able to organize a counter attack to take out or at least disable these four hijackers who were armed only with box cutters? Especially considering that they knew they were in very serious trouble and the only way to save the plane and its passengers was to do something? They weren’t the only ones on the plane who were capable of doing anything but I mentioned these four as they were likely the key people.

But apparently, they couldn’t stop these hijackers. It's hard to reconcile this with what I know of the toughness and resourcefulness of military and ex-military people (some of my own family members included).

And this, for me, is the most troubling aspect of all, and the one thing above all else that makes me doubt that that a B 757 designated flight AA77 ever hit that building. Or, if it did, then at least the majority of the people who were supposed to be on it were not really there at all.

Mike

reply to post by prof-rabbit

AND these 5 ton objects were not just a-hanging on the wings for decoration.
They were push/pulling the plane!!!These would logically be the least likely things to stop,reverse momentum and be pulled sideways and into the 16 foot hole.Effectively one mass each,not a bunch of bolts in a can,these would not only have marked the walls and seriously damaged the masonry MUCH more than the fragile nose cone,they would have both remained in an identifiable form,not changed into one smaller bit,as in the photo shown countless times.


[edit on 9-2-2010 by trueforger]

Originally posted by prof-rabbit
We have just been through all of this, the engines weigh 5 tons each, the central mass is high strength steel and other exotic metals, these are spinning at 10,000 rpm.

and look at what happens to them when they ingest a bird....

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by prof-rabbit
We have just been through all of this, the engines weigh 5 tons each, the central mass is high strength steel and other exotic metals, these are spinning at 10,000 rpm.

and look at what happens to them when they ingest a bird....

This happens.

noolmusic.com...

But that is irrelevant, if the aircraft can punch a hole then 5 tons of engine will do the same, 35 feet apart.

It would seem there are people who will invent anything to prop up the government line, what I do not understand is how people can suspend simple logic, a 5 ton engine will make a hole just like the plane, a little smaller perhaps but a hole nevertheless, there should be two engine holes but there is not.

The tail of the plane should have sheared off but did not, even if we somehow accept it slithered into the building the window above the hole was intact. www.apfn.net...

This is where the outer left wing would have hit the building, notice there is not only little damage but there are no scorch marks from the explosion and fire, the burnt out car has yet to be removed.
www.apfn.net...

And here is a hi resolution shot taken later after the wall collapse.
www.defense.gov...

Notice there is no place visible on the lawn where the plane has impacted.

So please tell me why you would believe the official story?


[edit on 9/2/2010 by prof-rabbit]

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Thermo,

You are absolutely correct. The whole damn thing stinks of a CIA zionist military industrial prison drug running complex coup.

Fifty years from now people will wonder how Americans could have been so stupid to buy such a Fairy Tale.

There is no dispute the alleged hijackers were a CIA asset/patsy.

It is time for the Patriots to rise up and throw the CIA to the winds along with stringing up all the oligarchs and zionist administrators in banking, media, and law.

Give me back my freedom and liberties!

You can shove the full body scanners up the butt of Chertoff. No more money for Israel. No more 1000 American military bases around the world. Bring the boys home, reinstate The Constitution and hang the traitors.

[

Currently, EUROCAE specifies that a recorder must be able to withstand an acceleration of 3400 g (33 km/s²) for 6.5 milliseconds. This is roughly equivalent to an impact velocity of 270 knots and a deceleration or crushing distance of 450 cm.

OK it will withstand an impact velocity of 270 knots on the soft dirt, but perhaps not an impact at 500 kph into a reinforced concrete barrier. This crash apparently exceeds the parameters which the box was designed to withstand. They are pretty tough little boxes though.

deformation and crush resistance design parameters don't depend on what you hit except to the extent that what you hit can extend the "crush distance. If you are travelling at 500 km/hr and the DFDR stops in 450 cm, it doesn't matter whether reinforced concrete or silly putty stopped it. Trouble is, the DFDR in the 757 is in the tail, at a station aft of datum which is >5000 cm from the point of first contact. That gives a crush time of 12 times as long, greatly reducing the g load from deceleration.
And instead of responding seperatly to the fellow who probably thought he was being sarcastic by proposing that bodies "bounce", I'll just say, "They do." In fact, in the course of my career investigating aircraft accidents, first as a safety officer in the Air Force, and then in cases referred to the FAA from the NTSB, we have seen bodies and parts in trees after having bounced from the ground. In fact, skydivers use the term bounce to describe a fatality where no canopy is deployed. Bodies bounce but 2 dimensional sheets of aluminium don't. Try this experiment. Drop an aluminium pie pan and watch it hit and stay there. Now drop a pop can. It will bounce. Now, as for the ripped sheet metal on the ground, if there were gouge marks in the lawn, which from the photos there don't appear to be, I'd say it was ripped off. In the absence of gouges, I would first posit an explosion from HE, as opposed to Jet A, which doesn't explode - it burns. That could be confirmed by swabbing the debris and running any trace through a high performance liquid chromatography test or a GC/MS. I've never seen any reference to such forensic testing being done.

Originally posted by turbofan
You know what is TOTAL crap and I have not seen anyone bring up yet,
nor explain?

Look at photo #1, on page #1 of this thread:

WHY is the concentration of the fireball dead center where the fuselage
would impact the wall...instead of across the wing span?

Correct me if I'm wrong...but if that was a BOEING 757 that hit the wall,
the concentration of fire would be anywhere but the middle of the window.

Last time I checked, the fuel is stored in the wings, NOT THE FREAKIN'
FUSELAGE!



[edit on 8-2-2010 by turbofan]

Lst time you checked, huh??
Look at www.boeing.com... Yeah, more than 26,000l right dead center.