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.
In addition, the Fire Department surely doesn't have the credentials or the amount of knowledge to understand structural engineering as compared to many architectural engineers
originally posted by: GBP/JPY
But neutronflux, your posts are tinny......like meaning came from a can.
Automated computer posting on ats my friends.......we humans spot that stuff right away.
Logic flow is easy....we start with the least tampered evidence, like what most posters put forth. Helps to be a trained observer and a pilot.....but mainly just good common sense. Hey, in the old days common sense abounded, what does that say we dealing with these days.....decorum prevents me from listing the cuss words here.
Off world invasion like......or many post these days that tells of just got off the friggin banana boat.....see what I mean.....I could expound....
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.
edit on 24-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording
originally posted by: waypastvne
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Salander
THIS....answers my OP question.
As one who has been instructing in airplanes for more than 30 years,...
The maneuver required to make the official story right is impossible...
But I have also been training people how to fly for over 30 years. The last thing I teach students is spin training how to put a plane into a spin and get it back out again without over speeding the airplane. I normally start teaching landings in the 3rd hour of training.
I'm also an aerobatic pilot and have flown in airshows around the world. There is nothing in the flight path of AA77 that impresses me at all. Maybe someone would like to point out the impossible part of the flight to me because I don't see it.
On the other hand what UA93 did was impressive.
"The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon."
At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!
It's obvious that there's discrepancies between the two stories; between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information...
The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77...you know, I'd ride my bike to the Pentagon. So, you know I'm a little bit familiar with that area. But, you know, that kind of descent rate it would have been impossible essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording. Like I say, that's an area that I think deserves explanation. ...
The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...
When a commercial airplane gets that high, it gets very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.
"I know from my experience that it would have been highly improbable that even a seasoned American test pilot, a military test pilot, could have flown a T-category, aircraft like the 757, into the first floor of the Pentagon because of a thing called Ground Effect."
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: GBP/JPY
But neutronflux, your posts are tinny......like meaning came from a can.
Automated computer posting on ats my friends.......we humans spot that stuff right away.
Logic flow is easy....we start with the least tampered evidence, like what most posters put forth. Helps to be a trained observer and a pilot.....but mainly just good common sense. Hey, in the old days common sense abounded, what does that say we dealing with these days.....decorum prevents me from listing the cuss words here.
Off world invasion like......or many post these days that tells of just got off the friggin banana boat.....see what I mean.....I could expound....
Rants and innuendo with no ability to address the real issues.
You are another example why most rational people have no time for conspiracists.
Please refer to the actual dimensions of the entrance hole made at the pentagon. Like to post or link to a picture of what you think is the entrance hole at the pentagon.
Can you discredit the 100 plus individuals that give an account of a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon.
Conspiracists ignore the fact one of the terrorists that took over flight 77 had a FAA commercial flight certificate. So, I guess the premise of the thread is already debunked by its title vs facts.
That the terrorists were dedicated and trained for their single purpose of crashing an in air jet into a target about the size of 26 football fields. The court yard at the pentagon is around the size of 4 football fields alone.
Can you cite a theory for what happen at the pentagon which resulted in virtually no interior of the pentagon ending up outside and on the pentagon's front lawn? A missile with no warhead, four foot in diameter, that some how made a hole in the shape of an upside down tee, about 90 feet wide, and two stories at the tallest point? A missile with a warhead? A pentagon bomb?
There is no consensus among pilots and aerospace engineers the maneuvers where Impossible.
"The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon."
At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!
It's obvious that there's discrepancies between the two stories; between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information...
The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77...you know, I'd ride my bike to the Pentagon. So, you know I'm a little bit familiar with that area. But, you know, that kind of descent rate it would have been impossible essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording. Like I say, that's an area that I think deserves explanation. ...
The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...
When a commercial airplane gets that high, it gets very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.
"I know from my experience that it would have been highly improbable that even a seasoned American test pilot, a military test pilot, could have flown a T-category, aircraft like the 757, into the first floor of the Pentagon because of a thing called Ground Effect."
What does the government have to hide to launch an independent investigation to squelch the so-called 9/11 conspiracy theories?
There's a reason why government officials called for the quick removal of the debris.
FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan: "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower.
"For me to make the decision to take our firefighters out of the building with civilians still in it, that was very tough for me, but I did that because I did not think the building was safe any longer, and that was just prior to 9:30.
I would find it relatively easy... I can't speak for them apart to say one of them obviously achieved it.
Any other alternative is too far fetched.
It wasn't a spiral descent BTW. It was a descending turn achieved by avoiding hitting the ground as one descends and rolling out facing the Pentagon.
Those who say it was impossible for these guys generally have bias towards some kind of far fetched conspiracy, such as the few actual airline pilots on P4T.
They aren't mainstream opinions for pilots. Most of us accept it was done by pilots with enough training to do it and who weren't constrained by the normal things that occupy us during a flight such as safety considerations, passenger comfort, ATC procedures and correct operating procedures.
These were guys who simply knew enough to visually navigate and point an airliner at a large target.
The hijacker on AA77 screwed up his descent, probably by not seeing the Pentagon till too late. The hijackers on both AA11 and UA175 misjudged their final run in and were manoeuvring to try to correct their aim points when they hit.
The WTC hijackers didn't do it perfectly and if they missed the first time, the USAF was still so much into its Cold War intercept instincts that they would had plenty of time to swing around and try again like the AA77 hijacker. Probably severally attempts if needed.
The 767 is easy to fly at high speed/low level due to aerodynamic damping and the flight control system. It runs on rails. I have no reason to suspect the 757 is any different.
I have taken off from Sydney airport, opened the taps on a 767 Level D sim, skimmed down the beaches at 50 feet and flown at high speed under the center of the Sydney Harbour Bridge with 10 metres clearance from the water and the bridge, followed by a climbing aileron roll. I wasn't trained for that either but I did it with little trouble.
Response to Rob Balsamo
As the paper on the data file from the Flight Data Recorder by Warren Stutt and myself has been attacked we have prepared a rebuttal to the issues raised in these attacks.
Frank Legge and Warren Stutt
January 2011.
Complaints (in bold italics) and our responses
1. There is no proof the FDR file is genuine. This is an amusing claim as it is the very file which PFT said proved the official account false. If it is not genuine, how can it prove the official account false? In fact no proof has been found that the file is false.
7. The NTSB data in fact does not support an impact. There is no logic whatsoever in the claim the data does not support an impact. The pressure altimeter is proven untrustworthy in that particular aircraft and radio height leads inevitably to impact at the level observed, close to the ground. Note, we only say that a divergence is found between radio height and altimeter in the particular aircraft which produced the file. It is indisputable that there is a divergence and Pilots for 9/11 Truth agrees. Their problem is that they put more trust in the altimeter than the radio height system but this cannot be justified.
8. Exceeding the performance limitations and capabilities of a standard 757. This is the “shifting the goal posts” argument. Worried that people might be waking up to the fact that the PFT calculation of g-force is grossly wrong, they search for another means to discredit those who say the plane hit the Pentagon. That is a lot of people they set out to discredit. The first falsity in their argument is the assertion that there is no safety margin in the published maximum safe speed data. This is absurd. Can you imagine the scandal that would arise if a pilot inadvertently strayed one or two knots above the stipulated maximum speed and the plane was destroyed! The second falsity is the assumption that the destruction of the plane would be virtually instantaneous. Excessive speed will produce fluttering. Fluttering will cause excessive loads to be imposed in a pulsating manner. This will cause fatigue. Fatigue can cause failure, but it takes time. This is of course why this type of failure is called fatigue failure! Here is a quote indicating how the Vg diagram is to be interpreted: “Any maneuver, gust, or gust plus maneuver outside the structural envelope can cause structural damage and effectively shorten the service life of the airplane.” Clearly this statement implies that there is a safety margin. An article quoting Boeing states: “Exceeding Vmo/Mmo can pose a threat to design structural integrity and design stability & control criteria of the airplane.” This does not sound like instant disaster. From the time the plane reached its maximum operating speed until impact was 14 or 15 seconds. Is there any proof that the observed gradual increase in speed would shorten the remaining life of the plane below 15 seconds? The FDR file gives a hint that fluttering occurred but it did not commence until about 4 seconds from impact. Is there any proof that the plane could not withstand fluttering for 4 seconds? Clearly this is a claim without evidence to support it.