12/17/10 Jesse Ventrura Pentagon Episode

reply to post by DIDtm

What would happen if a 757 was going 150 knots over the maximum operating limit?

Thought this is specific to American 77, and the Pentagon?

Last recorded airspeed on AAL 77, from the DFDR was about 460-465 knots, at impact....but, of course, only reached that speed a split second before hitting. Was constant acceleration, as dive began.

Boeing 757 Vmo (Velocity Max Operating) is published at 340K). That's ~120-125K over....exceeded 340K at about time reference 09:37:22 and data (first pass at data) stopped at 09:37:45.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, have been looking for example of an "overspeed" for long time, finally found a video, thought to share here. (So you can know the sound).
It's a B-767 (almost exactly same as B-757, of course...Vmo is 350K). Here, some sort of test flight....not sure who. When it starts, he's got power up to (looks like) cruise settings...they don't want to damage anything. He's descending, rate is pegged at instrument limit (6,000 fpm down). Can't quite read the altimeter..poor resolution in video. At Vmo, normal aural nad visual warnings...(called "Master Warning"). Red light there, in grouping of other warning/annunciation lights. Message on the EICAS screen in red, center top left. Aural "Master Warning" (same for a few other items...not many. A/P disconnect, if not cancelled, and cabin altitude warning (above 10,000 feet, if not cancelled, and on the ground, Takeoff Configuration).

He closes the throttles after exceeding Vmo, to stop accelerating...and pulls full speed brakes too, as he levels off...further decelerating by stopping the descent:



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Would it be stable to enough to steer properly to hit a destination?

Can say "yes" because we know it happened.

Would it be stable enough to fly just a few feet above the ground for a hundred yards, without ever touching the ground before hitting the destination?

This really is not relevant, since it likely did not travel for 100 yards (300 feet) in level (not descending) flight until impact. Normal rate of descent in the turn around...line-up at about time reference (from DFDR) of 09:37; heading there about 060 degrees magnetic. Altitude about 2,400 feet, airspeed about 300K. Thrust levers pushed full forward (@ about 09:37:15), speed increasing....gradual slowing of descent rate as ground approaches.... more gradual descent, all the way in from there, as minor adjustments to keep aim at the lowest part of the building's wall...impact (DFDR info ends at about 09:37:45....from the graph, in link below. Reading from the charted data, is not exactly accurate, though. AND, some final few seconds of data was missing, later recovered by a researcher in Australia. Mr. Warren Stutt).

NTSB link to AAL 77 and UAL 93 Autopilot, Navigation Equipment, and Fuel Consumption Activity

There is a video re-creation, also from NTSB....however, unfortunately, just about every version I find suffers from degradation from too many copies, apparently...AND most versions suffer as well from the CRAP text comments inserted by one of the "PilotsFor9/11Truth" clowns....they have seriously poisoned the well, on many parts of 9/11....AND their junk infests the Web, in Google searches. Here is the cleanest NTSB version I have found. Except for the stupid Wagner soundtrack... (The time is mislabeled as "EDT"...should have read "UTC")



As I noted, that was put out rather early by NTSB, and could be considered a bit "rough"...that is normal in such preliminary versions of Flight Recorder data, especially if "rushed" out. What is most pertinent is the instrument readings, specifically. Note the "exact" position laterally over the ground is subject to some error, because of inherent margins within the onboard navigation system tolerances. I'll try to find Warren Stutt's enhancements.

And also taking into the consideration of the length of a 757. Is it logical to assume that if the plane was in fact only a few feet above the ground for even a 100 yards, when the plane struck the structure the tail end wouldnt have shifted down to then touch the ground.

NO, none of that. At that airspeed, there just could not be a tailstrike, not when in a descent...or even if level. The geometry isn't right...raise the nose (to lower the tail) and you WILL CLIMB!!

You may be picturing the airplane when you see it during a normal landing approach pitch attitude (nose high), at normal landing speeds. Most people will not see a high-speed low-flying airplane....unless in the military, or at an airshow. SO, for comparison, here is a New Zealand Air Force version of the Boeing 757, at an Air Show!!

Hard to judge speed, but it's likely somewhere around 300 knots...and the altitude above the ground? Somewhere around 100 feet...this judging from the wingspan, which is 124 feet 10 inches, and visually comparing:



(As you watch it go by, barely a hundred feet above the ground...consider how "easy" it would be to just push forward on the control column, if you were "tempted" to end it all in a spectacular crash.....)!

AS TO the speed, there....I can assure you it was very high, both from the sound, from experience AND from the performance afterwards...the "show off" climb. That is achieved due to the "excess" energy, of all that speed....it converts to incredible climb performance, as seen...FOR A WHILE. Speed is "traded" for altitude, in that sort of situation. Speed drops rapidly, in the climb, even WITH climb thrust. THAT pitch attitude, at the end? It's incredible...nearly 90 degrees nose up (hard to tell, from our angle on the ground)...but, it CANNOT be sustained for very long!!! Speed falls off, airplane WILL STALL! Only thing to do (after the video ends, unfortunately, we don't see it) is to LOWER the nose ... and, in that situation, if I were flying, best way to finish that is to roll into a fairly steep bank, and lower the nose that way....prevents any negative G forces.
(Very undesirable, in that type of airplane....can lead to oil "floating" in the sumps, and uncovering from the lines that feed to the oil pumps....very hard on the engines, when oil flow is interrupted!!!).

NOW, one more before I go....another NTSB video example (since some people seem to have certain heartburn regarding the ones provided for AAL 77 and UAL 93, because of the so-called "conspiracies"). This is also American, it's the crash in Little Rock, AR, some time ago...:



Would be nice to see a "finished" version finally....(AAL 77)....instead of that same older one.

reply to post by roboe

For starters, the $2.3 trillion weren't missing. Hell the majority of it had been recovered a few months after 9/11, despite the attack on the Pentagon. I wonder, did Jesse bother to mention that the $2.3 trillion figure wasn't even new, and that it had been known since the late 90's that the Pentagon accounting systems were a mess? Here's just exactly what Rumsfeld said (which is what started the whole $2.3 trillion debacle):

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

I went and looked at the video as well as the transcript of the Donald Rumsfeld speech, and you make an excellent point roboe. In my opinion 9/11 was a perfect opportunity for the Government to simply make budget/accountability problem simply go away by destroying it. Also, if you read in that transcript of his speech you will find the following which I thought (in hindsight) was just what was done.

Let's make no mistake: The modernization of the Department of Defense is a matter of some urgency. In fact, it could be said that it's a matter of life and death, ultimately, every American's.

In fact, for many Americans the very next day it was life and death. What better way to speed up the modernization of the DoD, and wipe away any evidence of the previous problems?

Respectfully,
FallofTheRepublic

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by ATH911
You know, it is quite amazing a 757 could hit the Pentagon and not one surveillance camera, or any other video camera, showed an identifiable 757 striking it, or even in the area!

Why is that incredible?

You're right hooper, surveillance cameras didn't exist in 2001.

reply to post by DIDtm


No, the funny part is how many people think that the Pentagon was some sort of heavily reinforced, heavily armed, highly surveilled building. I would be surprised if half of those cameras were in operable condition on 9/11.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by DIDtm

 

No, the funny part is how many people think that the Pentagon was some sort of heavily reinforced, heavily armed, highly surveilled building.

Um...

Even though the Pentagon is massive—larger than three Empire State Buildings, the face on each of the five sides slightly longer than three football fields— the wedge construction allowed engineers to remake the building one, easy-to-close-off section at a time. Contractors could simply move workers, seal off a wedge, and install new features like reinforced steel columns and two-inch-thick blast-resistant windows.
msnbc.msn.com...
archived: whatreallyhappened.com...

I would be surprised if half of those cameras were in operable condition on 9/11.

You think the Pentagon is a 7-Eleven.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by DIDtm

 

No, the funny part is how many people think that the Pentagon was some sort of heavily reinforced, heavily armed, highly surveilled building. I would be surprised if half of those cameras were in operable condition on 9/11.

Do you even realize the what foolishness you post?

But it also lent itself particularly well to renovation. Even though the Pentagon is massive—larger than three Empire State Buildings, the face on each of the five sides slightly longer than three football fields— the wedge construction allowed engineers to remake the building one, easy-to-close-off section at a time. Contractors could simply move workers, seal off a wedge, and install new features like reinforced steel columns and two-inch-thick blast-resistant windows.

American Airlines Flight 77 struck the portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes--enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety.

The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows--2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each--that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out.

And were talking about a GOVERNMENT building.
Half the cameras weren't in operable condition?

Yes, one section had been renovated. And the rebuild of that area, post-9/11 found a rather serious flaw in the original construction that had made the building even LESS solid. When the building was originally built in the haste of World War II, the masons would frequently stack two or even three bricks before a layer of mortar was applied, a significant decrease in the strength of the exterior wall. This allowed the speed of construction to fly right along, and let left a flaw that was undiscovered for almost 60 years.

Now here is the part where I could point out what you gents seemed to have missed, strengthened columns, blast windows, Kevlar blankets to help cut down on shrapnel in the event of an explosion.....but little in the way of fortifying the exterior wall against a penetrating object. Bomb blast yes.....airliner at high speed, no.

So this is the video from the drive through gate, where the explosion happened in the background.



Stop the video at the 1:27 mark and you will see whatever it is coming into frame on the right. It does not look to be more than 6 meters off the ground, and if you look at 1:27 you can see what appears to be a smoke/vapor trail about the same height along the path. With the limited amount of video that is out there showing the Pentagon when it was hit, I just cannot see it being a plane. There are just too many things that point to it not being a plane. You look at the still shot of whatever it is coming in to the frame.....it does not have the size or shape of an airliner. It does however resemble a missile more closely than anything else. What do you think? I know this has been scrutinized over for years, but I would like to see what you guys think about the stills in the video at the time indicated. Also, why would Jesse not use this video footage during his show? It is much better than what he showed during his show!

FallofTheRepublic

reply to post by ATH911

You think the Pentagon is a 7-Eleven.

No. But then I know it wasnt a fortified bunker either.

reply to post by xweaponx


Only problem i have is the government has easier ways to make money untraceable. They have been funding black projects off the books for decades. Do you really think the government pays 500.00 for a hammer? 100.00 for a ream of paper? Billions vanish every year and trust me its easier then crashing a plane to cover it up.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Yes, one section had been renovated. And the rebuild of that area, post-9/11 found a rather serious flaw in the original construction that had made the building even LESS solid. When the building was originally built in the haste of World War II, the masons would frequently stack two or even three bricks before a layer of mortar was applied, a significant decrease in the strength of the exterior wall. This allowed the speed of construction to fly right along, and let left a flaw that was undiscovered for almost 60 years.

Now here is the part where I could point out what you gents seemed to have missed, strengthened columns, blast windows, Kevlar blankets to help cut down on shrapnel in the event of an explosion.....but little in the way of fortifying the exterior wall against a penetrating object. Bomb blast yes.....airliner at high speed, no.

edit on 18-12-2010 by vipertech0596 because: added

edit on 18-12-2010 by vipertech0596 because: ee

Or missile?

reply to post by vipertech0596


Although you are correct about one of the Chief Architects being a Mason (George Edwin Bergstrom), I don't believe they laid it with mortar and brick....possibly part of the foundation, but the Pentagon was made with reinforced concrete in lieu of formed steel as you indicated due to WWII. The outer walls were made of Limestone due to Roosevelt putting a restriction on the use of marble at the time.

reply to post by xweaponx


Definitely worth watching, the whole series is. Even if there may be errors, these ideas may stretch some minds beyond the Mainstream Media propaganda or outright SILENCE.

SeaWind

reply to post by FallofTheRepublic


You might want to go and read the book "The Pentagon" then.....or maybe take a peek at some of the photos of the aftermath where you can see the brick walls.

reply to post by weedwhacker


On the vertical climb video, that plane was still really high.....much higher than what hit the Pentagon. It looks like a good example of low high speed flight, but what I saw in the security camera footage (I posted it below) looks like it is barely 6 meters off the ground, and does not even come close to the size or shape of an airliner that huge. It also looks as if it had a vapor/smoke trail in the video I posted. You have probably already seen it, but I would like to hear your take on it. Thanks.

FallofTheRepublic

reply to post by vipertech0596


Thanks Viper, I will have to check that out. Everything I have read says that it was built as a reinforced concrete structure, with minimal steel, and limestone was used for the facade. Although I have also read that the construction often moved ahead of the actual design and different materials were used other than what was specified in the plans.

FallofTheRepublic

I recorded this episode and the 9/11 episode with my DVR and watched them this morning with my grandmother. She believed the official story up until today. The show provides great exposure to those who otherwise would not get it and I hope she isn't the only one it has raised questions for.

reply to post by SheSellsSeaShells


So you have absolutely no problem showing lies to your grandmother? Nice.

reply to post by vipertech0596


She's a big girl and can form her own opinions. I was just presenting new information to her. She had no idea about the trillions that were unaccounted for or the building 7 collapse. Call it want you want my friend but knowledge is power.

reply to post by xweaponx


See!

They thought of "EVERYTHING"

No understatement! And it was all there in plain sight - but patriotism blinded us "all" enough to let it all happen!

Why do so many families of those killed on 9/11 - including firefighters support a new investigation but are completely ignored!?

They said "We will never forget" - but as soon as someone came around asking questions - they did!