Pilot who flew 2 planes used on 911 doesn't believe official Story

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Ganymede, Sep 18, 2007.

  1. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931

    And your proof for this flight profile? like video? You make all kinds of assertions about the flight track of flight 77 but you show no proof, and now you claim that the hijackers were trained pilots from the Saudi Air Force.

    I misread a mile marker, the numbers are 3.5 mile radius turn, which make the circumference of the turn 10.5 miles, for a final run in of 4 miles, and the acceleration started after the final turn in to target, a target that is 5 acres in size, My bad, eyes aren't what they used to be, but still not hard maneuvering even in a 757.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

    9.34 AM the aircraft was positioned about 3.5 miles WSW of the Pentagon, and started a 330 deg, right desending turn to the right, at the end of the turn the aircraft was at about 2000 ft, agl, and 4 miles southwest of the Pentagon. over the next 30 second the power was increased to near maximum, and the nose was pitched down in response to controal colum movements. The airplane accelerated to aproxametly 460 knts.( 530 miles per hour) at impact with the Pentagon. Time of impact was 9.37.45 AM

    hype, no overhead turn, they turned away from the Pentagon, and if you had looked at the maps you provided you could have clearly seen this, and from a site referenced by your map site you could have found the NTSB's findings of the flight path of Flight 77, which bears no resemblance to your supposed vision of were flight 77 went, and if you had looked at the maps you would have seen this to, so thanks for showing that you don't know from Jack.

    Hell you can't even read a map, the flight path of AA 77 never went over the Pentagon.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/ntsb.html#flight11
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,329
    Your numbers still don't add up, and I think I see why:
    That's a hell of a tight, hard turn. How much altitude did it lose, there ? (the common story says about 5000 feet, but that would be borderline acrobatic, and that's a big plane).

    btw: I have very little flying experience, but I do recall clearly having a hard time finding an entire airport from an altitude of a couple thousand feet and a distance of about six miles I think - it was a tiny thing. It was a lot bigger than five acres.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    I don't know if you ever practiced circling power-off approaches, iceaura but that's a somewhat similar experience that GA pilots can compare with what the Pentagon attack run was like. The judgement and orientation necessary in controlling a light airplane's rate of turn and descent, in order to line up for a successful low-speed emergency landing are somewhat similar, and an acquired skill- It takes lots of practice and the systematic elimination of common errors to gain any likelihood of doing it right. When I transition pilots into faster and more complex airplanes, maneuvers like this are consistently blown until they review the procedure in type. In a heavy jet and with low aerodynamic drag and restricted cockpit visibility, successfully making the high-speed descent and lineup of the Pentagon attack certainly required superb skill and jet experience.
     
  8. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Buffalo Roam: "hype, no overhead turn"

    It was an overhead turn at the IP, not the target.
     
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    I agree. And since they hit the ground first, much too far away to do the kind of damage that they'd hoped, they weren't too skillful, were they?

    Baron Max
     
  10. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    and maybe they were aiming for the whitehouse.
     
  11. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Baron Max: "And since they hit the ground first..."

    Not true. AA77 hit the Pentagon's outer wall first.
     
  12. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Nope, it hit the ground, then slid into the side of the Pentagon.

    Baron Max
     
  13. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    And maybe they were trying to hit the other World Trade Center building, and missed? ...LOL!

    Oh, wait, maybe they were trying to hit Los Angeles and got a bit disoriented? ...LOL!

    Baron Max
     
  14. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Your changing your profile, you stated that they did a overhead turn over the Pentagon.
     
  15. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    hey buddy, maybe they weren't aiming for the USA at all, but were on their way to China.
     
  16. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    A three and one half mile raidus turn at cruse? a hard manuver? a 10 mile 330 deg turn, is not a hard manuver, and do you know if they maitained cruse setting when they made the turn, is it possable that they reduced the power settings, from the transcripts it would apear so, as the transcrips shows that power setting were

    And what is the most natural thing in a turn with a aircraft? to loose altitude? especally on a 180 deg + turn. Why do you think you did so many practice turns, to learn to keep you nose up, and they wanted to loose altitude any way, now if they were as suggested at 500+ miles per-hour, which is not supported by any hard evedence that would be a tight turn, but they weren't at 500+ miles per hour when they made that turn as referenced by the transcripts from th NTSB, and they didn't push the throttles forward untill thay had completed the turn and were on their inbound run, as Referenced by the NTSB, the NTSB had the Black Boxes, they had the data fromthe Black Boxes, and the data released doesn't support the 500+ mph turn, or hard manuvering, now do you have some factual evedence such as the data from the Black Boxes, to support your conspiracy? Video that show the Aircraft doing these high speed turns?

    Now for as for spotting the Pentagon, I have flown into Washington many times, as a passenger, ( I had no problem locating the Pentagon out the passenger window and that is a very restricted view) once as a causality, and a couple of time as a pilot, and the one thing that I can say is that the Pentagon stands out Visually, it is a 5 acre blazing white, in the sun, monument to the Military, it is one of the things that make a good visual location marker, to reference your position in the WDC Now for as for spotting the Pentagon, I have flown into Washington many times, as a passenger, ( I had no problem locating the Pentagon out the passenger window and that is a restricted view) once as a causality, and a couple of time as a pilot, and the one thing that I can say is that the Pentagon stands out Visually, it is a 5 acre blazing white, in the sun, monument to the Military, it is one of the things that make a good visual location marker, to reference your position in the WDC area.
     
  17. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931

    That would have been a big mistake, the Russian would have shot them down off Sakhalin island in the Sea of Okhotsk, just like they did KAL-007.
     
  18. JEFFLARSON Registered Member

    Messages:
    16
    as far as the press gos its all lies to keep the sheep in line
    all offical reports from gov are censored and bullwashed
    by looking at the amature videos frame by frame of the second plane you can judge the actual speed by how far the plane moves from one frame to the next knowing the frame rate of video and lenth of the plane
    as for the rest of it there is no access to any of the evedence of the crash its locked away were no pleb like me or you will ever see

    oh and buffalo i cant reply to private msg yet not enough post yet
    the quick answer is park falls wisc
     
  19. JEFFLARSON Registered Member

    Messages:
    16
    barron has a point about the pent crash theay allmost missed by crashing in front of pent
     
  20. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    That may be, but their own citation (the conspiracy nuts here) and references don't back their interpretation of, and course of events. FFR
     
  21. JEFFLARSON Registered Member

    Messages:
    16
    buffalo ill bring my 3 cornerd cheese head hat and we will tip a few
     
  22. JEFFLARSON Registered Member

    Messages:
    16
    i seen the area in front of pent theay hit ground first
    it was a bad hit
    the spot to hit to do the most damage would be line up on one of the sides
    and dive into adjacent segmet as to fly through the center of that side of pent that theay line up on

    there are to many variables unknown maby some passengers tryed to regain
    controll of the plane and caused the near miss of the pent
     
  23. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Seems to be a very well handling airplane, from the description of this test flight.


    http://cf.alpa.org/internet/alp/2001/feb01p22.htm

    I would rate the brakes on this airplane as excellent. We taxied with a zero fuel weight of 235,400 pounds with 65,100 pounds of fuel, for a gross weight of 300,500 pounds. This is considerably less than the max gross takeoff weight of 450,000 pounds. At this comparatively light weight, you would expect the brakes to be a bit sensitive. Instead, they were smooth and symmetric. Precise steering and excellent brakes made taxiing in tight quarters an accurately controlled nonevent.

    We planned the takeoff for flaps 15, with V speeds of 129/136/146. After we initially set power for takeoff, autothrust brought the thrust up to 109.7 percent N1. Capt. Nelson briefed that the nose would feel light on takeoff, but I couldn’t keep my "Douglas hands" from making a segmented rotation.

    We stabilized in the climb at V2+15 and began cleanup at 1,000 feet AGL. Cleanup was straightforward, with no noticeable pitch changes with gear and flap retraction. After accelerating to 250 knots, our climb rate was 5,300 feet per minute at 99.1 percent N1 and 17,000 pounds per hour fuel flow. After passing 10,000 feet, we turned east and accelerated to 340 knots for the climb to FL290. From brake release, the climb had taken just 12 minutes. The noise attenuation work Boeing has done in the cockpit resulted in a quiet, comfortable environment.

    As we continued east toward a working area near Moses Lake, I performed some basic checks on handling qualities and found that the forces, displacements, and aircraft response were exceptionally well balanced in all axes. These excellent handling qualities have become a Boeing trademark. The B-767-400ER handles slightly better than the B-777.

    With the absence of the "soft protections" incorporated in the B-777, the B-767-400ER feels more "like an airplane." Sharp control inputs in the B-767-400ER do not produce as much aeroelastic response as in the B-777, particularly in the roll axis. As Capt. Kohler so clearly stated after the flight, "This is the first widebody aircraft I have flown that didn’t have that widebody feel." Translation: "This is the best handling widebody airplane in the Boeing product line." Capt. Rogers and I both agreed.

    As I mentioned earlier, our objective was to bring a line pilot’s perspective to the evaluation. So our first maneuver east of the mountains was a rapid descent, simulating loss of cabin pressure. To make this more interesting, and because it is standard procedure at some airlines, I flew the maneuver completely on the autopilot. I dialed the altitude from FL290 down to 11,000 feet, disconnected autothrust and brought the throttles to idle, dialed the speed up to 350 knots, and deployed the speedbrakes.

    On the initial pitchover, the rate of descent increased to 9,600 feet per minute at 7½ degrees nose down, then slowed to 5,300 feet per minute as the airspeed stabilized at 353 knots. The time from start of the descent to level-off at 11,000 feet was just 3 minutes. Very impressive, particularly since we flew the maneuver by interfacing with automation, rather than manually.

    We entered an arbitrary working area into the Honeywell Pegasus FMC and set up for some flight maneuvers northwest of Moses Lake. The first was a check of roll rate in bank-to-bank rolls from 30 degrees to 30 degrees at ½ wheel deflection. Flying the clean airplane at 350 knots, bank-to-bank took 4 seconds, for a roll rate of 15 degrees per second. Here is where a sharp control input initiated an aeroelastic response from the airframe. A later check of this same maneuver with flaps 30 at Vref=136 gave a bank-to-bank time of 6 seconds, or a roll rate of 10 degrees per second. This excellent response at slow speed in the landing configuration is another indication of the exceptional handling qualities of this airplane.

    I set up for some clean stalls at a
     

Share This Page