What Level Of Skill Was Required To Fly A Plane Into The Pentagon ?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

He is misrepresenting facts and his big "point" about north of/south of actually means zilch.

What facts? He's interviewing witnesses and asking what did you see! He let's them speak and he does not interrupt till they finish.

It means lot actually because the plane has to hit southward to hit light poles and hit where the 9/11 and NIST claim it did. Northward trajectory it would miss the Pentagon or hit the Pentagon at a different angle.

Found an interesting article that describes in detail the process of identifying the remains found at the crash sites.

www.newsweek.com...

The terrorist DNA was compared against stuff left at their hotel rooms. But none of their families have come forward to offer any DNA.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

OR, they started moving before the INS was fully aligned.

Pilots for 911 Truth, was run off of ATS long ago because there are too many aviation professionals on here that called them on their BS....ESPECIALLY on their attempts to portray the FDR data the way they do.

Ill refer you to their article:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

According the article that would never happen because it was a requirement to align it prior to moving, and being in flight with it out of alignment was sufficient to declare an in flight emergency. Always possible the pilots just got sloppy.

There is also some discussion of the FDR mentioning a GPS system, which supposedly flight 77 would not have had. But a remote control plane would need GPS. It would be way too hard to guide it to its target without a GPS I think.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: GBP/JPY

The gear was not down. Why would you think it would make marks on the concrete?

You can't even see the backend of the plane when it hit the wall allegedly. When it hit the wall you should able to see a blur or outline of the plane.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

This is based on the pressure reader showing 29.92 inHg.

Are you aware that upon reaching 18,000 feet ALL aircraft altimeters are set to 29.92 ?
Only when descending below 18K are they reset to local conditions.

Do you think HH bothered to ask for current barometer settings on a VFR day???

Please look beyond conspiracy sites for data before shouting conspiracy.

a reply to: Jacobu12

When it hit the wall you should able to see a blur or outline of the plane.

Are you basing this belief on cartoons you have watched ?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

This is based on the pressure reader showing 29.92 inHg.

Are you aware that upon reaching 18,000 feet ALL aircraft altimeters are set to 29.92 ?
Only when descending below 18K are they reset to local conditions.

Do you think HH bothered to ask for current barometer settings on a VFR day???

Please look beyond conspiracy sites for data before shouting conspiracy.

To be honest, I don't know anything about how the FDR measures altitude. I was suggesting that might be why it reads 300 feet too high.

But there could be any number of reasons for it to read too high.

I'd better just quote the article to you directly.

This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment. For further details, please see our Technical Paper here and Press Release here outlining our findings.

Although what you are saying seems kind of irrelevant, considering the plane was flying much lower than 18,000 feet for quite a while before it hit the Pentagon.

So, according to you, it should have been showing a value that reflected local conditions and not 29.92 inHg.

Why do you think it did show that value, then?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jacobu12

When it hit the wall you should able to see a blur or outline of the plane.

Are you basing this belief on cartoons you have watched ?

It's a commercial airliner with a long wing span. The wing span it's not going to be pushed inwards on approach, the wing should be closer or visually easier to see and closein more to the camera. The video was tampered with.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

No, Flight 77's pilots reset the altimeter on their climb out from Dulles. Hani, didn't bother to reset it on his descent.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

No, Flight 77's pilots reset the altimeter on their climb out from Dulles. Hani, didn't bother to reset it on his descent.

Maybe thats why people say he was a poor pilot lol.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011

www.journalof911studies.com...

Position report errors
The data file shows that the course position error at take-off from Dulles is much greater than the error at the end of the final flight. The large error at the beginning may have resulted from drift of the inertial navigation system while the plane was on the ground. These errors are apparently largely corrected during flight, presumably by reference to Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) and VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range (VOR), which provide distance and direction from ground stations. Also available at the time was the Global Positioning System (GPS). Significant position errors were nevertheless noticed in the data from most of the normal landings described above, and corrections were made. It was noticed that the errors became larger while the plane was taxiing toward its parking spot, at which time it would presumably be too low to receive DME and VOR correcting signals. It may seem surprising that GPS was not correcting drift, but the NTSB has released a document which lists GPS as “not working or unconfirmed”.28
The errors in the data file position reports were corrected by creating a file consisting of every fifth position report and applying the positions to Google Earth maps. In the case of the 11 landings prior to flight 77, each plot was inspected to identify the position where the plane turned off the runway onto a taxiway. The differences in latitude and longitude between the plotted position where the plane turned and the junction with the taxiway were used to adjust the data file values. Only landings in which the turn off position could be clearly established were used in this work. The average latitude error was 329 feet and the maximum error was 1197 feet. The average longitude error was 663 feet, maximum error 1410 feet. It is clear from this study that the position reports produced by this aircraft were prone to error, producing recorded tracks which were parallel with, but offset from, their real tracks. It is therefore not surprising that this was also found to be the case with the final flight.

Summary and Conclusion
In response to FOIA requests the NTSB provided a CSV file and a coded FDR file. All contradictions between the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and these files appear to be traceable to missing data. In the case of the CSV file the data stopped about four seconds short of the impact. In the case of the FDR file the final frame was not initially decoded. Some researchers recognized that data was missing, while others claimed that the files proved the official account was false, as it appeared the flight terminated at a point too high to have created the observed damage trail on the ground.
Previous analyses were further confounded by uncertainty of the position of the last data point; failure to consider possible calibration errors in the pressure altimeter data, caused by high speed and low altitude; and false information in the NTSB flight animation.
The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jacobu12

When it hit the wall you should able to see a blur or outline of the plane.

Are you basing this belief on cartoons you have watched ?

It's a commercial airliner with a long wing span. The wing span it's not going to be pushed inwards on approach, the wing should be closer or visually easier to see and closein more to the camera. The video was tampered with.

Based on what, the lines and angles of the plane distorted by wide angled lenses. Or after the images are corrected for distortions by wide angle lenses.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
@Jacobu12..... Yes, and no landing gear marks on the concrete floor going in.....

Stuff like that, turbines ,too.......no marks.....men

You do understand that buildings usually don't have bare concrete floors. Somebody played this game in a another thread asking if there was damage to the concrete from posted pictures of the pentagon.

Again, the concrete would have been covered by some sort of flooring.

Who knows how many layers of flooring ended up covering the concrete over the years.

When you zoomed in on the pictures, you could see were the concrete had chunks missing.

Epic fail playing "but it's not in this picture I posted with no dates nor context". Another game conspiracists like to play.

a reply to: neutronflux

So you go from you cannot tell it's a jet to you can pick detailed wing positions from a blurred photo captured with a wide angle lens.

Zero credibility..... zero consistency....

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

No, Flight 77's pilots reset the altimeter on their climb out from Dulles. Hani, didn't bother to reset it on his descent.

Ok. So really what the pilots for truth guys are saying is that the FDR is giving the correct value: a low enough altitude to have been able to clip those light poles.

BUT, because it was still set to 29.92 instead of the correct value, it SHOULDN'T be showing such a low value. it SHOULD be showing a value about 300 feet higher.

It sounds like a rookie mistake was made. But.... not by hani.

Whoever falsified the data to make it match the radar and lamp posts made a rookie mistake, and accidentally gave us data that reflects a 300 foot altitude when he/she meant to give us a much lower altitude.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: neutronflux

So you go from you cannot tell it's a jet to you can pick detailed wing positions from a blurred photo captured with a wide angle lens.

Zero credibility..... zero consistency....

What's blurred about it? I can see the Pentagon, the walls, the grass no plane though.

Here is a still when plane just hit. image.prntscr.com...


Why is the backend not showing least a blur of it? Where is the wing? The cone obviously will hit first but you going to see something when it hits the wall.

So, I guess that video......I think faked......but it says no high order detenation......idk......to me that means a missile worth of fuel and kinetic damage from there

a reply to: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
@Jacobu12..... Yes, and no landing gear marks on the concrete floor going in.....

Stuff like that, turbines ,too.......no marks.....men

You do understand that buildings usually don't have bare concrete floors. Somebody played this game in a another thread asking if there was damage to the concrete from posted pictures of the pentagon.

Again, the concrete would have been covered by some sort of flooring.

Who knows how many layers of flooring ended up covering the concrete over the years.

When you zoomed in on the pictures, you could see were the concrete had chunks missing.

Epic fail playing "but it's not in this picture I posted with no dates nor context". Another game conspiracists like to play.

No, neutron baby......not a vinyl covered floor....

The footage and stills of the beam edge.....plain and friggin cleared off......not a scratch from the turbines

Editt to add......I'm a structures guy.....commercial even.......smooth grade beam there.......plain for all.....all would have to agree......and I could sell that beam....as new..........

a reply to: GBP/JPY

So what is your proof that it was only vinyl floors which are tough and covered the concrete.

And the pictures posted did show damage to the concrete.

Like to post the pictures that you are making you assessment from. What are you making your assessment from?

The missile theory has been debunked.

No interior of the pentagon exploded out into the pentagon lawn.

The damage at the pentagon was consistent with a large jet pushing through the pentagon. Not a spherical blast zone, nor a conical blast zone. In fact the holes at the pentagon got smaller. A missile blast would have gotten wider and more weak as it progressed.

A missile would have blasted a carter into the concrete floor. You are saying no concrete floor damage.

The entrance hole was created from the out side in to the pentagon with damage to a concrete lip before the pentagon.

The entrance hole was at least 70 wide, T shaped, and two stores tall. Not a 4 foot round hole. Not a whole made by a spherical or conical blast.

The windows at the pentagon, near by car windows, and other items that whould be affected by a detention blast shown no sign of a blast shock wave.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

In fact, do the secretary cameras rock from a blast, any high speed ejected material fly past the cameras at high speeds. Is there evidence of a blast pressure wave pushing down the grass, distorting the air, blasting material out the entrance hole?

a reply to: Jacobu12

You got caught contradicting yourself, you didn't post the image that shows the jet outside the pentagon before impact? Linked picture shows up larger then may screen space. and you cannot even comment if your assessment of the image of the jet that is blurred compensated for wide angle lens distortion.

So you do admit a large commercial jet impacted the pentagon. Once you correct for wide angle lens distortion, the image is consistent with a large commercial jet. Not a four foot diameter missile.