It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by seattlelaw
Also, as has probably been said before in this thread, how do they recover dna to identify 90+ % of remains when the temperature was high enough to immolate the tons of aluminium, etc.?
Or does the force of impact simply cause these hard objects to disappear into dust?
Originally posted by Zaphod58
They stopped responding at 8:40am, figure AT LEAST 20-30 minutes of attempting to contact/find the airplane via other planes, centers. Another 10 minutes or so of trying to reach it through the airline datalink, then finally notifying the FAA Command Center. Taking the max time, you're at 9:20. That's actually fast for the FAA, and the only reason they went that fast was because of the other fligths that weren't responding.
The fighters were two F-16s out of Langley AFB Virginia. That was the nearest base with Alert fighters, ready to go. They were airborne six minutes after the scramble call, which again says much about the crews, as that is a pretty fast response time. IIRC they were airborne at 9:36am, and impact was at 9:47. But that's going from memory not looking at the timeline.
The F-16s were coming from Virginia, so they wouldn't have had time to get there before impact from the time Dulles picked it up. They knew that he was heading East, but they didn't know for sure he was heading to DC. He had either started his turn, or had turned around before the IFF went off the screen. There are maps of the flight path around on the net, and he had actually completed his turn back East when they lost contact with the IFF.
Fist, I'd just like to say can we stop with the "inches from the ground" please? The plane didn't fly inches from the ground. It was low enough to knock over light poles, and POSSIBLY skipped off the lawn into the building, but it was NOT flying inches from the ground until it impacted either the lawn or the building.
In a panic, he would push forward on the controls and overcompensate, which would account for eyewitness descriptions of the airplane striking the ground short of the Pentagon.
In 1996 Hani Hamjour failed in his attempt to get a pilots license, but in 1999 he went back and was able to sucessfully get his commercial rating. It was revoked six months later, after he failed to report for a required physical. He wouldn't have been rated for a 757 but he would have been able to complete the manuvers the plane did.
The turn that was made was a wide sweeping 270 degree turn. It could have been completed on autopilot, or manually, without being beyond the capabilities of the computer.
Randy Lavello on prisonplanet
Captain Kent Hill, retired from the Air Force, explained that the U.S. had flown unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, on preprogrammed flight paths from Edwards Air Force Base, California to Australia on several occasions. He believes the airliners used in the attacks had their on board computers knocked out and were subsequently choreographed by an Airborne Warning and Control System. Along side Captain Hill, an Air Force officer with more than 100 sorties in Vietnam stated, ‘Those birds either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control.’
Originally posted by Zaphod58
The unmanned airplanes the size of a 737 were GLOBAL HAWKS. If you look at the wingspan and some of the other dimensions, they're similar to some of the 737 models.
Let me quote from Vialls, who posted in October 2001:
In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.
From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run’s top secret computer codes would be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001.
A review of Boeing documentation shows that in fact, the 757/767 flight computer has nearly all of the required capabilities as standard equipment, including guidance, communications, GPS navigation, and traffic control functions.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
He COULD fly a single engine plane. If he couldn't do you think that he could have gotten his commercial rating? You have to be certified to fly a twin engine plane to even CONSIDER testing to get licensed.
However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
I've flown single engine Cessnas, and I've flown a four engine KC-135 and I can tell you the flight characteristics are HUGELY different. Bigger planes are made to be a lot more stable to fly than small single engine planes.
...they have you do to fly a Cessna is to learn to fly it with your thumb and forefinger only holding the control yoke...
However, the fact that the plane was being flown in a manner not typical for a jetliner does not mean it was not a jetliner. A 757 is capable of rather extreme maneuvers: It is capable of taking off on one engine, and can execute pitch accelerations of over 3.5 Gs (gravities) as demonstrated by the following incident report of an IcelandAir 757-200:
REPORT 7/2003 - Date: 22 January 2003
serious incident to icelandair BOEING 757-200 at oslo airport gardermoen norway 22 january 2002
184.108.40.206 At this time the First Officer called out PULL UP! - PULL UP!. The GPWS aural warnings of TERRAIN and then TOO LOW TERRAIN were activated. Both pilots were active at the control columns and a maximum up input was made. A split between left and right elevator was indicated at this time. It appears the split occurred due to both pilots being active at the controls. The pilots did not register the aural warnings. During the dive the airspeed increased to 251 kt and the lowest altitude in the recovery was 321 ft radio altitude with a peaked load factor of +3.59 gs.
How does this apply to the 2.5 minute 270-degree spiral turn? The G forces produced by such a turn can be calculated using the following formula.
RCF = 0.001118 * r * N^2
RCF = Relative Centrifugal Force (gravities)
r = rotation radius (meters)
N = rotation speed (revolutions per minute)
If the plane were traveling at 400 miles per hour it would travel 16.666 miles, or 26,821 meters, in 2.5 minutes. Assuming it was traveling in a circular arc, it would trace out 3/4ths of a circle with a 35,761-meter circumference, giving a rotation radius of 5,691 meters and rotation speed of 0.3 rotations per minute. Plugging those values into the above equation, we obtain a centrifugal force of 0.5726 Gs -- hardly a problem for a 757 whose rated G limits are over two.
Also cited as evidence against 757 involvement in the attack is the shallow descent angle of the aircraft as it made its final approach of the Pentagon. Photographs show no signs of gouging of the lawn by a 757's low-hanging engines, even though direct impact damage was limited to the first and second floors of the building. How could such a large aircraft be flown so close to the ground, and with such precision?
Two distinct questions are implicit in the previous one.
Were alleged hijackers capable of piloting the airliner through the maneuvers?
Could a 757-200 perform the maneuvers?
Hani Hanjour may not have been up to the task, but a 757's flight control computer seems sufficient. It's equipped with radar altimeters and accurate GPS monitors for precise altitude and position tracking. It can analyze and respond to conditions hundreds of times per second. Examples of the extreme capabilities of fly-by-wire systems are reverse swept-wing aircraft, which are inherently unstable and require rapid adjustment of the plane's control surfaces.
Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I've seen a direct interview with the guy who took him up (can't remember which documentary it was) and he said that there is no way he would let that guy fly a plane on his own. He said that he had trouble just keeping the thing in the air. So how did he get that commercial rating?? And if he couldn't fly a Cessna, how did he perform maneuvers that even an experienced commercial pilot supposedly couldn't make?