Animation Video for Pentagon Proof, best ever made - and why it's wrong.

reply to post by Ghostcat


I'm not sure and don't have expertise to know something like that. It looks like a typical single-event explosion to me and not what one would expect from a complex airplane crash funneling through a small hole in a wall and blowing up inside the Pentagon but I really can't say for sure - just my opinion.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
And,in view of the HUGE amount of evidence to contrary....(just the most damning to YOUR delusion is the FDR):

I don't believe AA 77 hit the Pentagon...

....is an opinion based on NOTHING. In fact, in order to hold such an ignorant stance, it requires the willful intent to IGNORE (hence, "ignorance") what is irrefutable evidence, in favor of a pre-set confirmation bias that stems from a completely nonsensical starting point.

This is also (for a person who claims to have once worked IN the airline industry) a rather sick display of callous disregard for the reality of the victims, and the lives impacted as a result of these attacks on 9/11.

Shame on you types of people, for this abhorrent behavior.

weedwhacker....

My very first post EVER on ATS concerning the events of 9/11 I made a personal statement about the tragedy, to the families and friends and citizens of our world. It was an empathic statement about the pain, the sadness, and the enormity of the tragedy, and also how I feel truth and justice are an important part of healing. As a Psychologist this is an aspect of 9/11 which I have dealt with often and know well.

That being said, your statement is highly inappropriate. This forum is about searching for the evidence and an exploration of the facts, if you choose to occassionaly mention the people involved or the sadness please feel free but it is not a necessity as it is not the purpose of the 9/11 forum.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

Acxtually, 911 files did give a link to a paper of his on page 5 and that shows his name.

This wasn't a paper, it was a gigantic website with dozens of authors and hundreds of sources...

You can't have found the right link.

This is a link to an interview with that wicked co-conspirator, Lt Col O'Brien, pilot of the C 130 who followed AA 77 in :-

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

Acxtually, 911 files did give a link to a paper of his on page 5 and that shows his name.

This wasn't a paper, it was a gigantic website with dozens of authors and hundreds of sources...

No mate, his paper was posted,
bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com...

Though I've never worked out how these papers claim position accuracies that NO radar seems capable of...

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
The decent is a huge deal.The reason they didn't show the decent is because they know Hani Hanjour could not have pulled off the maneuvers that professionals couldn't do on a simulator.That's 1

They call it 911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77 but then only show the plane from the light poles to the pentagon.It doesn't show how the plane got so low or the maneuvers that were used to get there.If you're going to do a video on the flight then you should add the whole flight and not just a couple of feet.That's 2

The plane also shrinks in the video when it shows the plane entering and zooms to the camera.That's 3

And there's missing frames!

That's 4

Hani Hanjour NEVER flew a 757 before 9/11!But on 9/11 he flew like a professional.That's 5

So many things!

Hanjour couldn't even fly a small Cessna! He didn't fly a 757 @ 9/11, it didn't happen

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

Acxtually, 911 files did give a link to a paper of his on page 5 and that shows his name.

This wasn't a paper, it was a gigantic website with dozens of authors and hundreds of sources...

You can't have found the right link.
This is a link to an interview with that wicked co-conspirator, Lt Col O'Brien, pilot of the C 130 who followed AA 77 in :-
www.youtube.com...

Interesting..
Lt Col O'Brien claims the 757 was in a 30 to 40 degree bank just prior to impact.....
What incredible piloting skills that hijacker had to level out and drop to ground level from there...
According to the video the plane would have been well under 6 miles away from the Pentagon by the time Lt Col O'Brien spotted it...

reply to post by Alfie1


Thank you Alfie1 - I appreciate you posting the video.

911files,

When I first saw your name on the Radar and NTSB Time Normalization for 9/11 Data Sources I thought you were THE John Farmer, of the 9/11 Commission and The Ground Truth book , but then I happened to catch the middle initial.

I'm not qualified to really say much on your paper because it's beyond my understanding concerning the aircraft data, plus there's no Introduction or Conclusion, so I'm a little lost. It appears to be a well researched paper however, so I can say I appreciate your time.

Would you consider writing a quick synopsis or your paper? I'd like to know what you came up with.

regards,

Thermo

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

Acxtually, 911 files did give a link to a paper of his on page 5 and that shows his name.

This wasn't a paper, it was a gigantic website with dozens of authors and hundreds of sources...

No mate, his paper was posted,
bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com...

Though I've never worked out how these papers claim position accuracies that NO radar seems capable of...

thanks, that was my mistake. Read over it quickly but it's really beyond my current knowledge base and I really don't feel like sitting down deciphering it at the moment. Maybe sometime, but since this thread is about something entirely different than aircraft position while flying I'll skip it for now

question for military guys - is it common for a Lt. Col. to be piloting a "standard patrol mission" on any given day?
What are typical ranks of pilots?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
question for military guys - is it common for a Lt. Col. to be piloting a "standard patrol mission" on any given day?
What are typical ranks of pilots?

And was it a standard mission as stated?
How often does this standard mission occur ?

Two perhaps legitimate questions have been asked without the typical "truther" innuendo, so since I am one of only two here than can give an accurate answer, I will.

This is a synopsis of Lt Col Steve O'Brien in Gopher 06. It took all of 30 seconds to find it....

en.wikipedia.org...

As noted O'Brien WAS NOT on a "patrol mission". He was returning from an airlift mission to the Caribbean because airlift was the mission of his unit. On 9/11 he was returning to his base of assignment in Minnesota after an overnight crew-rest stop at Andrews AFB in DC. There is absolutely nothing at all strange of anomalous about this C-130 or it's crew.

USAF Pilots are from all Officer ranks from Lt thru 4 Star General. The distribution of ranks depends on the type of aircraft and the type/mission of the unit. Those who fly regularly and routinely would be from Lt thru Col. Generals fly less often. In a C-130 Air National Guard Airlift Unit the rank structure would be somewhat higher than the same type of unit in the Regular USAF. In large Transport type Aircraft (Units) Lt's would not be Aircraft Commanders. They are mostly co-pilots. There are mandatory training requirements for all regular pilots below the rank of General for proficiency reasons.

In a fighter unit the rank distribution is lower with the bulk of the pilots being Lt and Captain. Less Majors and even less Lt Cols. Other pilots within the higher level staff of a Wing also fly with less regularity than the Lt's and Capts. These Staff pilots would be mostly Maj, Lt Col, and Col. All have training requirements to fulfill, but the number of hours they fly would be less than the lower ranks, but they still do fly regularly. With very rare exceptions Generals DO NOT fly alone. They fly with a highly qualified Instructor Pilot if a two seat version of the aircraft is available. Among figher/attack aircraft all have two seat versions except the A-10.

O'Brien spotted AA 77 just after it began the large descending turn. It was near the top of that turn that O'Brien spotted the aircraft. National TRACON asked him to identify the aircraft and then requested that he follow it to determine it's intent. The C-130H then followed the aircraft as speed differential would allow and reported it's crash to National Tracon. He then received permission to pass near the Pentagon to have a closer look and then proceeded on course to his destination in Minnesota. Enroute, he was again diverted by ATC to the crash site of UA 93 as was another aircraft in the vicinity and eventually landed in Ohio after the National Ground Stop was effected.

reply to post by ROBthaBANK


That was my point.

Professionals couldn't even do it on a simulator but according to the official story on Hani Hanour flew a 757 better than professionals could without ever having flown a 757 in his life...obviously impossible right?And he was known as a crappy pilot.Don't worry I'm on your side lol..peace.

reply to post by Reheat


Thanks reheat - lot of good info there.

I thought I recalled him saying in the video that it was a standard patrol mission.

reply to post by GodIsPissed


I agree - they seem to casually look over the fact the airplane was performing FAR over recommended top safety levels, and the guy happened to be in a 35 degree bank. But, I'm not a pilot... so I weigh other pilots responses, seems right now 500+ pilots say he wouldn't have been able to, but there are three pilots on ATS who all say it's normal. I'll argue that point somewhere else

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by GodIsPissed

 

I agree - they seem to casually look over the fact the airplane was performing FAR over recommended top safety levels, and the guy happened to be in a 35 degree bank. But, I'm not a pilot... so I weigh other pilots responses, seems right now 500+ pilots say he wouldn't have been able to, but there are three pilots on ATS who all say it's normal. I'll argue that point somewhere else

It's obvious that you don't understand the issues. NO ONE = ZERO who is a pilot has said anything of the sort regarding either "safety levels" or that what occurred with AA 77 was NORMAL. It was highly abnormal.

Whomever was flying AA 77 actually went to about 40 degrees of bank initially in the turn to lose altitude and align with the Pentagon, not 35 degrees. During the final run in the aircraft was WELL ABOVE the manufacturers recommended maximum operating speed.

The PFT group ( or their spokesman with unproven support by the general group) says it was IMPOSSIBLE. The pilots who have posted here at ATS merely believe that it was not only possible, but also, not that difficult. That DOES NOT in any way shape or form mean that it was normal, it wasn't.

Overall, an examination of the FDR data indicates that the aircraft was very poorly flown, certainly not by a qualified proficient pilot. In fact, on more than one occasion the data indicates the aircraft was on the verge of LOSS OF CONTROL.

I hope that clears up the confusion.....

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by GodIsPissed

 

I agree - they seem to casually look over the fact the airplane was performing FAR over recommended top safety levels, and the guy happened to be in a 35 degree bank. But, I'm not a pilot... so I weigh other pilots responses, seems right now 500+ pilots say he wouldn't have been able to, but there are three pilots on ATS who all say it's normal. I'll argue that point somewhere else

Name those 500 + pilots. Who are they?

reply to post by ROBthaBANK



Repeating the same "truther" lie??

Hanjour couldn't even fly a small Cessna! He didn't fly a 757 @ 9/11, it didn't happen

Getting ever more desperate. (to once again promote the lies and distortions from "P4T"...).

Hani Hanjour HAD A LICENSE!! If he did NOT have an Airman's Certificate in the first place, to show before he flew on the "check out" for the rental....then the flight that is being used to "show" he "couldn't fly" would NEVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE!!!

Do try to get the logic working, and figure this out, please. (A "shout-out" to the two of you who "starred" that post).

So, since Hanjour did have a valid Airman's Certificate, issued by the FAA....it means that he DID, at least once, demonstrate a basic ability.

Of course, to merely do what was seen....AS FLOWN...on 9/11??? Anyone could be taught how to do that, with only minimal training.......

reply to post by Thermo Klein

....but there are three pilots on ATS who all say it's normal.

A 35-degree angle of bank IS normal. You can gauge it for yourself. Get a protractor. Measure it.

Those of you who are Private Pilots (or even Student Pilots, working your way up) know that one of the maneuvers taught, and practiced as basic skills test and confidence building are "Steep Turns". In small airplanes, typically as much as 60 degrees. At 60 degrees of bank, it hones the skills in various ways...and builds the confidence I spoke of. I see in some curriculums of late, scaling back to 45-degree banks. Well....that might equate to what we do in the airline training environment, and may be the reason. I'm "old school" and think that a student needs to learn the full capabilities and limitations of the airplane he/she is flying.

( I STILL recommend at least some very basic aerobatics training, for all pilots....but, that hasn't yet happened ).


REASON for airline bank angle limitations stems from, primarily, passenger comfort. G-forces, and sensation...and just the "uncomfortableness" some people may feel at extreme attitudes. Other reasons have to do with the 1.3G stall buffet airspeed limits. That gets more complicated. It's just, for any airfoil configuration (combination of slats/flaps extension amounts) there are published "Min maneuvering" speeds, according to weight....those are predicated on the 1.3G buffet ("buffet" is the stall onset indication, in pilot speak) with an additional margin of safety factored in.

The "1.3G" is a reference to the fact that stall speeds of a particular wing/airfoil is related tot he G-loads it endures, at any given time. In a turn (level, unaccelerated) G loads increase....but it is an inverse-relationship curve. At wings level, 1G....at 60°, it is 2G. 30° (Half-way from level, to 60°) is NOT the median between 1 and 2 (1.5G). It is about 1.12 G. (There are online calculators to show the relationships). SO, the "1.3G buffet margin" is designed, per the published "Min Maneuvering" speeds, to allow a safe over-shoot to as much as 45 degrees, AT THOSE SPEEDS, for any given configuration...and not result in a stall condition.

(Sorry....warned you it was technical).

NOW, a video (again). Opens with a tear-down of that crap "Loose Change" nonsense....but, mid-way gets to the simulator.

NO, the Sim in this video demo is not a B-757....but, it is a close enough comparison. Also, as in most modern jets, it incorporates the audible and automated verbal warnings about bank angle....this is programmed to cue in at angles over 35 degrees of bank:

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by GodIsPissed

 

I agree - they seem to casually look over the fact the airplane was performing FAR over recommended top safety levels, and the guy happened to be in a 35 degree bank. But, I'm not a pilot... so I weigh other pilots responses, seems right now 500+ pilots say he wouldn't have been able to, but there are three pilots on ATS who all say it's normal. I'll argue that point somewhere else

Name those 500 + pilots. Who are they?

I think it is these guys he is talking about