9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by PplVSNWO It wouldn't be a severe dive to drop 300' over a distance of 2000'+. A little trigonometry reveals a nose down pitch as shown in the final recording is all that would be required - about -6 degrees.

Originally posted by Pilgrum 4: 270 degree turn with no corrections? Here's that plot of control parameters during that turn of almost 360 degrees

There's a youtube video that has a recreation of the turn and fly in. Purdue? But I'll tell you one thing, if I was on that plane, I would have been ralfin' all over the floor....

reply to post by Pilgrum Pilgrum brings up trigonometry.....and he's right....but, if you actually have ever flown an airplane, you don't think in those terms, even though the physics are there. You feel it....just as you don't think of physics when you drive your car, you feel it. Let's put it this way. You are driving a car, and you wish to cause as much damage as possible. You accelerate and steer in order (since you're suicidal) to crash where you aim, as fast as you can go. Getting it yet????/

Originally posted by weedwhacker I have also explained it isn't difficult to turn an airplane. ..

But then why would experienced pilots say it would be hard for them let alone someone with just basic flight training? To make a turn is eay, but to do it without any corrections and end up right inline with the side of the Pentagon is difficult.

Originally posted by Pilgrum For the north/south path argument I marked up this aerial pic of the area which is oriented to true north. The FDR final bearing of 70 degrees is a magnetic bearing and magnetic north in DC is 11 degrees west of true north. The 70 degree magnetic recorded final bearing just happens to coincide with the poles that were knocked down.

But what about the police officers witnessing the plane on the other side of the gas station, where it would not have been on path to hit the poles?

reply to post by ULTIMA1 no, ULTIMA....sigh.....if you care to look at the DFDR data, you will see it was not a smooth turn. A PROFESSIONAL pilot would make a smooth turn, although if aiming at a target, I daresay there would be some corrections. here's a primer about becoming just a Private Pilot: One skill you must master, just to earn a Private Pilot Certificate, is how to make a "turn about a point" If you would bother to go out, and learn how to fly, then you would know this. ULTIMA, an airpane is very easy to turn. You bank, and physics do the rest. This nonsense about some 'perfect' 270 degree turn is just, well .....nonsense.....it is intended to distract non-pilots. When I taught people to fly, even before they soloed, they were taught the 360 degree steep turn. This is a maneuver that demonstrated the ability to maintain control and altitude and airspeed....in an attitude that was outside of their normal comfort zone. BUT.....it showed, to the student, the ability of the airplane, and re-inforced their confidence. I have taken airplanes through loops, rolls, you name the aerobatics. If you base your opinions solely on what you experience on jets, as a passenger, then you are sorely missing out on what airplanes can do, in flight!!!

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Again....ULTIMA....in the case of AAL77, it made a descending turn, lined up on a highway (Route 29) as guidance, then the pilot (hijacker) steered as needed, by sight.....he flew the damn airplane into the building because he was a damn terrorist!!!!!!!! What part of this don't you understand? Do you think the bombers in Iraq, who strap explosives on their chests, and ride a bike into a crowded market and blow themselves up are any different??????? Or, suicide bombers in Jerusalem? Or Beirut?? Or anywhere else???? Getting it yet???????

Originally posted by weedwhacker no, ULTIMA....sigh.....if you care to look at the DFDR data, you will see it was not a smooth turn. !

Well if you look at the animation that came form the DFDR you would see that there is almost no movement to the yoke while in the turn, no corrections. Are you saying pilots are lying or do not know what they are talking about when they state it would be difficult for an amatuer to make the turn and be lined up with the building? [edit on 23-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1 NO, ULTIMA.....I have seen the BS that purports to be the DFDR data....it has been massaged to fool people, and to further an agenda. I have seen the actual NTSB DFDR records....it was NOT a smooth turn, sorry to burst your bubble on this! It showed a hack pilot, just as I described. Even before you solo, you learn how to turn. It's the difference between being smooth, and keeping your passengers comfortable, and just aiming at a target, when you could care less about being smooth.....getting it yet???????

reply to post by weedwhacker Let me use an analogy......you are driving a car. You have guests in the car. When you steer, to you jerk the wheel? Do you stomp on the brakes, then stomp on the accelerator, then stomp on the brakes again????? Do you jerk around the steering wheel???? NOOOO!!!! Of course not. BUT.....if you wish to drive your car into an embankment, and kill yourself and everyone else in the car, do you care how smoothly you drive the car??? No.....you just aim and................

Originally posted by weedwhacker NO, ULTIMA.....I have seen the BS that purports to be the DFDR data....it has been massaged to fool people, and to further an agenda.

So you ignored the question about the pilots and the police witnesses.

Originally posted by weedwhacker BUT.....if you wish to drive your car into an embankment, and kill yourself and everyone else in the car, do you care how smoothly you drive the car??? No.....you just aim and................

But then what were the hijackers making so nice a turn? In fact why did they even bother to make the 270% turn at all when they were already on line with the Pentagon?

reply to post by ULTIMA1 no, I DID NOT IGNORE anything, but you are adept at accusing people of ignoring things.....funny, since you NEVER respond to direct questions. All you do is ask more questions.....you are a joke.

Originally posted by weedwhacker [no, I DID NOT IGNORE anything, but you are adept at accusing people of ignoring things.....funny, since you NEVER respond to direct questions. All you do is ask more questions.....you are a joke.

Yes you did, you did not respond the question about the police witsesses. Also i have answered all the things you have answered that are worth an adult answer.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Sigh.......AAL77 made a turn, lined up with a road here in the DC area called Columbia Pike. It was NOT a simple 270 degree turn, over the Pentagon, with simple aim.....they flew over, saw the target (Pentagon), flew past, turned, lined up and flew in for the 'kill'. How hard is this to understand????/

Originally posted by weedwhacker flew past, turned, lined up and flew in for the 'kill'. How hard is this to understand????/

How hard is it to understand that fact of flying past the Pentagon and having to make a turn to line up with it when they could have easily dived down into the buidling on the first pass since they were not worried about upsetting the passengers as you have stated.

reply to post by Pilgrum A little more trigonometry would tell you that at an angle of incidence of greater than 45deg to the normal of the building face, more than 1/2 the energy of the impact will be directed to the left parallel to the face of the building. This is excluding/ignoring the window surfaces. Since the front of the building had only a small hole where the alleged body of the plane went in, and the windows all around the hole remained mostly intact, a substantial portion of the 80-100 tons of debris divided by 2 should have been thrown to the left. This would have included the fireball of burning fuel (?), wings etc. In fact not only did this not happen, the tree and numerous cars remained substantially untouched (initially) despite 20-40 tons of debris flying at several hundreds of miles an hour in this direction. The shape of the fireball also is near spheroid verses an ellipsoid due to the remaining momentum in the fuel. This plus the lack of sufficient debris which remains without identification is substantial proof that the stories we have been told "officially" are BS. Once you depressurize the cabin and deform or damage the body cylinder, it quickly turns into a pile of weak Aluminum foil, no match for a reinforced building, let alone 5 concrete walls deep. Well placed explosives do a better job and are controllable in every conceivable way, a perfect show. Finally, a good look at a terrain map of the alleged flight path will tell you that flying down hill through a forest of light poles and signs at high speed without messing up the grass or effecting nearby objects with the jetwash is a near impossibility. As another mentioned, you would likely be better off to aim for the center and more than likely simply on the first pass. You would definitely not take a tour of DC first! Simply this begs for another investigation.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Surely you're not now professing to know what was going on in the brain of whoever was flying that plane. Possibly a horizontal high speed impact would do more widespread damage than a near vertical one which is just conjecture of course but it's the same technique as used twice before on that same day. On the topic of 'north side' witnesses, what about those who were near to the poles that were knocked down? Just out of interest - a question that a local to the DC area might know: What is the angle of the sun above the horizon in the south-eastern sky at 9:30AM on 9/11 in Washington?

reply to post by Pilgrum Thanks, Pilgrum, for that question about the Sun's angle, though not sure what your point would be...guessing any astronomy program could answer it for you. I was home on that day, but in my house...I remember it as a very clear, bright and comfortable day, hardly any wind. Since I have been reading all of these 9/11 threads that wish to purport some sort of cover-up I have grown weary.... So, I'm deciding to break it down into two scenarios, tell me if I missed anything: One: The attacks happened exactly as reported, the so-called "Official Story" Two: The attacks were faked by high-level members of the Bush Administration, and the "Official Story" is just cover. Now, consider this --- IF number Two is the reality, then why do we bother to argue the details?? EVERY son-of-a-B in the Bush 'administration' needs to be hauled into court and sent to prison, if found guilty. If, indeed, number Two scenario is the truth.

reply to post by weedwhacker I'm just being lazy - I could work out a reasonable figure myself but it's easier to ask . It's in relation to where the shadow of an airborne object would fall at that time of day and in that particular season and what would be perceived by someone standing under an awning of some sort. Makes me wonder how many 'north side' witnesses there'd be if that day was overcast. As to the official story (whatever that is) being 100% correct in every detail, the odds of that are phenomenally against because much of it is based on assumptions in lieu of facts. That leaves an infinite range of alternatives, some of which would necessitate legal proceedings against the perpetrators whoever they are. To me it looks like a bad case of under-estimating the enemy and how much damage they could do. But that's just me.