It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

page: 50
65
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop


So let's consider a few things about several of the post you added.

Was there poor radar coverage in areas in the US including the northeast.. yes. We know that but what I posted earlier was this was not a factor to three of these flights. Aside from AAL77, the other targets were tracked in primary only.

We know this by testimony of the controllers as well as audio tapes of the three other aircraft.

That leaves AAL77, unable to be tracked during much of the course reversal to go eastbound. At some point during the real time flight, the target came back in radar, we just don't know exactly where. We do know that south of IAD a controller observed it.

We also know the radar data did store this because they could reenact the flight and at some point it came back enough for the system to pick up the primary target. But just because the radar was archiving the data, it doesn't mean anyone saw it at this time. You have an opinion and I do too, they may be different but I haven't seen that empirical evidence yet.

Let's talk about the radar coverage in the Indy Center airspace. I can't recall seeing how extensive it was or still is. However, poor radar cover, although not ideal, it's not a show stopper. Aircraft had secondary radar, otherwise known as transponders. If an aircraft had a transponder stop sending the signal, the controllers would start attempts to get the pilot to either switch to a standby transponder or even "recycle" the failed transponder, basically shutting it down and restarting it.

The majority of the time, this worked. If it didn't work, they ask the pilot for reports. Example; Instead of observing the transponder readout of altitude, when you gave a new altitude, you asked the pilot to report level at that altitude, "positive control". This is one of the primary reasons controllers use flight progress strips, hand written information instead of the transponder produced databock on the radar.

Worse case scenario (conditions in 9/11) no radar, no transponder information, no response from the pilot on the radio. The first assumption and the correct assumption up until that day was to consider this a system failure to the aircraft and possibly a catastrophic event, a crash.

The events of 911 added another scenario that wasn't considered because it didn't occur prior to that.

The last thing before I head home from the gym.

If there are pilots that can add to this please do.
The discussion of why the flight had to travel that distance before the hijackers started.

We used to take "fam trips" as controllers we sat in the cockpit with the pilots on the flight. As I recall not only do passengers have to be seated and buckled in, the cockpit had to be sterile. That meant no talking, no unusual activity, the pilots needed to maintaining a high level of attention to this phase of flight.

As I recall, the cockpit door had to be shut which I think also automatically locked. This has to be verified by pilots, so chime in.

I am not sure how far along they were before these stricter conditions were relaxed, people could move about and at sometime, the pilots got up and unlocked the door.

Was this the time in which the hijackers were able to start the takeover.

These are thoughts to consider why things possibly unfolded with this flight.




posted on May, 5 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Spotty coverage has been known for years. The FAA ATC system, at the time was 20+ years old, and known for having issues, including problems with radar sites. Even non-pilots heard about some of the problems, but if you followed the NOTAMs you'd see announcements about radar problems at various sites periodically.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

Well, after reading that post by MrBig2430 in page 43, its him as the only one, that tried at least to use some contra-argument. Without, as usual, adding some drawing or such, of his own.

But I told you already, that the plane's right wing tip, just cut through pole 1.
And I asked Zaphod for an estimation of the wing tips flex-up at 825 KMH and he guessed about 3 meter, which I used in first instance.
In fact, we don't even need that much flexing by far, I will show you that, later on.

And its right wing tip that cut through pole 1 at a cut-height of 20 to 23 ft / 6.1 m to 7.0 m (as guessed by Adam Larson) is where I based my calculations on.
The calculations and measurements I used are still right and don't need any alterations :


MrBig2430 : Ok. So you're basing everything on the wing tips flexing up 3 meters. Correct?
Let's assume that's correct.
Now present evidence that wing tips ONLY were what hit the light poles in the so called "OS". I don't believe that's the case though.
I believe that the "OS" says that the wings hit farther onboard, where wing flex is MUCH less.
This makes your claims and all the measurements you've done inaccurate.
Start over buddy.


So, when do you start offering your claims and measurements, proving mine wrong.?


So some random dude on Ats says 3 meters at 800 kph but doesn't mention at what g load? Don't you think that's kinda important?

I've seen you post quite a few times that a plane going that fast "through the heavy dense air" will result in a massive wing flex.

That's wrong, and demonstrates just how poor your research skills are.

Heavy dense air results in increased drag, and that would attempt to pull the wings straight back, not push them up.

Don't you understand the difference? Lift results in wings being bent upwards for they provide the lift. It doesn't matter if it's doing 800 kph at 100' or 30,000' if it's in level flight in both instances the wings will be bent the same.

It's funny to watch you dance around the weakness of your argument, while still remaining confident that you're correct. I've seen you do this several times, only to disappear for a while to admit you're wrong on a detail, but your conclusions never change.

Quite amusing, actually.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430

Actually, I did mention G load, several times thanks.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

This post raised some questions as to where the wings would be.

I know little on this particular subject but am curious.



How can the wings be bending up with 3.75G if the fuselage is holding them down with 1G? Where is the extra 2.75G if the plane is not strapped to the test jig?



www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

That was one of the points I raised. The harder Hanjour pulled out of the dive, the more the wings were going to flex. There's some flex from level flight, and how much depends on the wing construction.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Anomalies of the air defense on 9/11, by Paul Schreyer ;
journalof911studies.com...


1. Absence of command authority --snip--
Simultaneous anomalies can be „coincidences“, but as they increase in number they may force a scientist to put his or her theory in question. Regarding air defense on 9/11 we can identify at least six major simultaneous anomalies.
--snip--
So the top people responsible would be:
# the FAA's Hijack Coordinator
# the DDO in the NMCC
# the Secretary of Defense
On 9/11 all three were absent from their command posts in the crucial hours between 8:14 a.m. (first hijacking) and 10:03 (last crash).

>>> Michael Canavan, the Hijack Coordinator of the FAA (and former Special Forces General) was not in the office but had flown to Puerto Rico; Lynne Osmus, his Deputy, arrived in the office only after all the planes had crashed

>>> General Montague Winfield, the NMCC DDO (who in 2012 became Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense), was not at his post between 8:30 and 10:00 a.m.; Captain Charles Joseph Leidig, his Deputy, had just qualified for being DDO one month before; General Winfield had asked him the afternoon before if he would sit in as DDO from 8:30 on; Winfield returned to his post only after all planes had crashed

>>> Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stayed away from the NMCC, too, and arrived there no sooner than 10:30 a.m., after all planes had crashed

This seemingly well-timed absence of key people is still unexplained. It obstructed the air defense effectively.


Now an excerpt about :


2. Communication breakdown --snip--
In other words, president Bush was largely out of the loop for about two hours due to an unexplained temporary communication breakdown.

The same problem was seen in the Pentagon's NMCC, where the before mentioned ( LT : DDO stand-in) Captain Leidig was „having a difficult time“ contacting the FAA's Operations Center. Once the line was established it was „repeatedly lost because of technical problems“, according to an internal document by the 9/11 Commission. (10)
Because of this unexplained failure the basic communication between civilian air
traffic control and the Pentagon was effectively obstructed
during the attacks.

Furthermore the pilots of the F-16s finally taking off from Langley at 9:30 could not be reached by their NORAD supervisors for unknown reasons until after the Pentagon was hit at 9:37. Only at 9:38, a few seconds after the Pentagon crash, could a connection be established to the fighter pilots, who were only then redirected to Washington. (11)


For MUCH more on the fighters subject, see his point : 5. Absence of Andrews fighters, and 6. Delay and detour of Otis and Langley fighters.

Let's read now about that hugely interesting subject of, and look at the picture of that same radar gap over W.Virginia and Ohio, for another flight that morning, as registered by RADES :


3. Radar loss
Flight 77 was hijacked exactly in a small area of poor radar coverage, a so-called „radar gap“, as the Washington Post reported in November 2001. (12) Because of this the airliner disappeared from the eyes of air traffic controllers, right when it turned. This was essential for the terrorists' success in reaching the Pentagon. But how could the alleged hijackers have known, that this gap existed, where it was located, and when they would have arrived there? No logical explanation is given for this. --snip--


He also addresses point 4. Simultaneous wargames, 5. Absence of Andrews fighters, 6. Delay and detour of Otis and Langley fighters.

I agree wholeheartedly with his :

Summary
September 11, 2001, was a quite remarkable day for the air defense system of the United States.

>>> The key people responsible for managing a hijacking were absent from their command posts right in the crucial hours.

>>> Important telephone and radio connections didn't work until after the attacks were over.

>>> A hijacked plane disappeared in a radar gap, and nobody is willing to explain.

>>> A wargame projecting a hijacking was taking place simultaneously.

>>> The airbase that should have protected the capital was not able to send fighter jets within an hour of time.

>>> Interceptors from alert bases were scrambled with unexplained delays and then diverted several times.

In short, a whole set of highly improbable events occurred simultaneously on that morning. From a scientific point of view these anomalies need further investigation. It is not credible that Bin Laden was responsible for these anomalies, nor that they were sheer coincidences.


I and several others found important 9/11 anomalies, that have never been countered and make the OS a fairytale. I already posted them a few posts ago.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Andrews didn't have Alert fighters for years before 9/11. They were one of many bases that were stood down in the 90s. We went from dozens of Alert fighters, to 7 bases for the entire CONUS.

The hijackers knew about the FAA radar gaps through several ways. Every time the radars in those areas had problems the FAA put out a NOTAM. Those can be looked up online,even back then.

The diversion of the alert fighters was due to a screw up by controllers. They were supposed to hand off over Baltimore, but the hand off didn't happen when it was supposed to, which resulted in the Otis fighters going off the coast before turning to New York.

This was the first real test of the system that we had in place. Simulations get you to a point, but until it's tested for real, you don't know how things will go. Our system had inherent flaws in it. As complex as 9/11 was, they were going to come out, and did.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MrBig2430

Actually, I did mention G load, several times thanks.


Ah. Excellent. He never mentions that.

So do you agree with

1- his assessment that g load was right for 3 meter flex

2- that " heavy dense air" will automatically result in " massive" wing flex, rather than drag



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430

And conspiracists wonder why the average person doesn't trust conspiracy theories. Could it be conspiracy theories are based on biased research, the willingness to hide key facts, and smug attitudes based on a fabricated reality?

I think the willingness to hide key facts, only using ATS for research, and ignoring any evidence / accounts contradictory to a conspiracist's fabricated reality is a glaring example of the depts of their irrationality.

I think about 60 percent of the population that is rational wonders if conspiracy theories could be reasonable. They do about five minutes of research. Then the rational persons discovers how many facts conspiracists are willing to hide, the theories are like a house of cards in one wrong fact brings the conspiracy theory crashing down, and the smugness of conspiracists based on pseudoscience and pseudo-intellectual academics. Then the rational person knows there is very little truth in the truth movement. That many people pushing conspiracy theories are not to be trusted.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430

The wing flex would purely reflect the mass of the plane if it's flying in a straight line IE the weight the wings are supporting regardless of the air density so the force on the wings is basically f=m.a where a is 9.82 (gravity). If the plane is pulling out of a dive then additional force is present due to v^2/r, increasing the 'a' figure and therefore the wing flex. The plane was flying as 'clean' as possible to achieve max velocity so the drag would be minimised compared having the landing gear or flaps deployed for example.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430

As I said then, 3 meters was about the max you would see, but it would depend entirely on how the aircraft leveled out from their descent. There is always some flex to the wing, even when flying level, but the 757 wing is fairly stiff, so it doesn't flex as much.

You'll see slightly more wing flex at the speed that they were flying, at that altitude, simply because of the fuselage moving up and down more than in the thinner air.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
For any pilots here, I wonder how many have ever flown their jet at Vmo +90? I've been Vmo +10 at the most, and the airplane does not like it, even at altitude.

How is a person supposed to believe that a pilot such as Hanjour could fly at that speed, in ground effect, first time in a Boeing?

Given the highly irregular FDR situation, the entire story is impossible to believe.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MrBig2430

As I said then, 3 meters was about the max you would see, but it would depend entirely on how the aircraft leveled out from their descent.


Well that's exactly what I was asking.

Have you looked at the fdr study, decided that it is accurate, and then made a guesstimate on how much wing flex there woulda been, and then made a judgment about the 3 meter claim?

Cuz from memory, the fdr doesn't show much "leveling off". Which would then render Laptops' 3 meter claim as pretty much debunked.


You'll see slightly more wing flex at the speed that they were flying, at that altitude, simply because of the fuselage moving up and down more than in the thinner air.
.

So then bouncing will result in both more AND less flex. Correct?



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
For any pilots here, I wonder how many have ever flown their jet at Vmo +90? I've been Vmo +10 at the most, and the airplane does not like it, even at altitude.


Why would Hanjour care if the plane didn't like it? He was gonna crash the plane irregardless.


How is a person supposed to believe that a pilot such as Hanjour could fly at that speed, in ground effect, first time in a Boeing?[/]

Lol @ ground effect.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: LaBTop


The hijackers knew about the FAA radar gaps through several ways. Every time the radars in those areas had problems the FAA put out a NOTAM. Those can be looked up online,even back then.


Even if they knew, I can't see how this even was an element of their plan.

1) they didn't use this tactic on the other flights, if they tried, it didn't work for those planes to go invisible.

2) the flight started the deviation from course before turning off transponder. It started a turn to the south off the filed airway.

3) how would they know they were in that area, distance from a fix? Time clocked from departure point?

I have a hard time buying this gap in radar as part of the plan. I could be wrong about this but I don't see this as a calculated effort by the hijackers, too many variables to rely on this.

I think it was just a beneficial coincidence. Other than the flight turning back through this area, is there any other indications that it wasn't a coincidence?

I'm not sure if I missed something?



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander




How is a person supposed to believe that a pilot such as Hanjour could fly at that speed, in ground effect, first time in a Boeing?

People with zero experience have landed planes.
So someone with an FAA multi engine pilots license should have no problem crashing into a building.

After 16 years it's the same preconceived ideas going around.
It happened as the OS states. Get over it.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430

No one has estimated the G forces involved at the bottom of their dive that I've seen, which is why I gave a guesstimate of the maximum flex that would be seen.

Correct.
edit on 5/6/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

I doubt it was a deliberately planned portion, as in finding the exact spot where the gap was, but being in the general area may have been, in an attempt to cause more confusion.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander


How is a person supposed to believe that a pilot such as Hanjour could fly at that speed, in ground effect, first time in a Boeing?


A very good question.


However, the only answer to that questions will be "excuses" to why the unbelieveable was achieved. Excuses, assumptions, are now scientific facts, facts for the unthinking readers.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join