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.

 

The 757 Hitting the Pentagon

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
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.

One thing you have to realize about the FAA, and I can say this very confidently after working with them for 7 years, they are very cautious, and slow to take personal responsibility about things. The last time I heard about someone in the FAA doing something to risk their career in a major way was back in the 60s when an American DC-10 our of Chicago went down after an engine fell off on take off. The inspector made the call to ground the planes everywhere until more detailed inspections could be performed. If an inspector makes a major decision and is wrong, their career is over. Period. That has made the FAA an organization that waits as long as possible to do ANYTHING. After United 811, the flight where the door opened in flight, the NTSB figured out what caused the door to open, and the FAA gave the airlines the option to fix it as the planes came in for inspections, and FIVE YEARS to complete it.

"Why only a "short time"? Do you mean that in such a situation, NORAD would have planes up in a few minutes, but after a passenger plane has crashed into a building in New York, that the response to just 3 other missing/hijacked planes would take upwards of 45 minutes, and even then not make it in time and not even be able to find the planes? That seems a little far-fetched."

You're also looking at a military flight, which is tracked directly by NORAD, via position reports from the bomber. You're taking the FAA out of the process. If the bomber misses a report, then NORAD will attempt to contact them, and if they are missing for too long, they will scramble an AWACS to start a Search and Rescue mission to look for it. AWACS can track almost anything in the sky.

"So according to the 18,000 feet radar invisibility rule, that means Flight 77 would have been visible on radar for 10 minutes, plus the time taken to do that big loop in order to hit the pre-strengthened side of the Pentagon. That's about 12-14 minutes. So Flight 77 reappeared in the visible radar world at 9:24 at the latest, which is when the jets were scrambled. So the jets that were scrambled and up at 9:30, did they head straight for Flight 77? How far away were they from the Pentagon? Did they have enough time to reach it? Did the FAA/NORAD have any indication that Flight 77 was headed for Washington before this time? "

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.

"So what were the flying skills of this dude? I read somewhere he tried to rent a single-engine plane but was refused because he couldn't fly it. What were the flight specifics of the turn that he made over the Pentagon? Would they exceed the software limits of the autopilot, causing it to switch off and requiring this guy to perform the turn and descent himself? Or could the plane have been turned like that and flown inches off the ground into the Pentagon wall completely on autopilot?"

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 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.




posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
You seem very confident that the turn was a simple manuever and yet ...

John Lear, ret. airline captain 19,000 hours:
"In addition to that - hitting the Trade Center was a feat - but hitting the Pentagon was even more of a feat because when you are going that fast there is a tremendous amount of air creating this lift and as you head towards the ground, that air reacts against the wing and pushes you up, so whoever - whoever hit that - trained to hit the Pentagon at the 3rd story (was actually between the 1st & 2nd stories) was highly trained because when he came towards the ground - there was a tremendous amount of lift and you would have to trim forward and push with an incredible amount of strength to not be pushed up and over the Pentagon to hit the 3rd story."

Fighter pilot ace...

"The unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver." -Washington Post

"The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a down-ward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes." -CBS

"...all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane...You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe...This must be a fighter." -ABC

I'm just saying ...



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
It's called ground effect. I'm well aware of it, and it's not impossible to get through it. That is exactly the point we've been trying to make as to how he was able to fly so low without plowing into the ground.

Here's another analisys by a fighter pilot, with a nice little map he figured out. It even explains why they didn't simply dive into the building.





But being unfamiliar with flying large airplanes at high speeds, the pilot wouldn't have taken into account the large radius required to make the turn. This would explain the circuitous 270 degree turn that was made to the impact point.

When he rolled out, he'd simply point the nose of the airplane at the center courtyard of the Pentagon and dive toward his target. What he wouldn't know without experience is that when you dive, you accelerate the airplane and the lift increases. This causes the nose to rise, which would cause him to overshoot the target. 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.
www.thepowerhour.com...

Now does that look like a super tight fighter like turn?



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Considering the 7000 ft. drop in, what? 2 minutes? I would venture to say that it was a pretty tight spiral. But I more rely on what the ATC guys said at the time.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
no marks on the lawn. maybe he hit it gently.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Interesting how the pics on page 2 show marks on the line that just so happen to line up pretty nicely with the flight path, and impact site.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
isn't it even funnier that those marks were there before the missile hit(as you can see in the top of those two pictures)?



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
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.? It just doesn't add up for me on so many levels. I'm no engineer but didn't the vast majority of the 'fuel' go up in a ball of flame on impact? Where's the fuel for the sustained extreme heat over time required to melt everything? Or does the force of impact simply cause these hard objects to disappear into dust?

Where's the @#$%%$ wreckage? All I see is smoke and a few holes and some (not much) debris. Where are the many seats? Where are the engines? Where's the freaking passenger luggage? How come there aren't panties and bras lying around? Where's the freaking Samsonite? When I was a kid they tossed those cases out of airlplanes and they survived impact. But a terrorist's perfect shape paper passport was found at ground zero on top of the rubble in the streets by an intrepid federal agent. He probably got the medal of freedom.

I admit I would be less suspicious had the towers (and bldg. 10) not been OBVIOUSLY subject to demolition. Combine the lack of professional interest in what brought the buildings down (no investigation at all) with all the evidence (and lack thereof since they shipped all the steel over-seas immediately) it all points to govt. involvement. Never mind the fact that the very suspects acknowledged the need for a new Pearl Harbor event to take over the world, well, it doesn't prove what type of object impacted or didn't impact the Pentagon but it certainly clouds the veracity of the official version being shoved down our maws.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

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.?


I too find it interesting that they were allegedly able to make so many identifications, but aluminum melts at only 600 degrees Celsius or so.


Or does the force of impact simply cause these hard objects to disappear into dust?


The force of impact should have done something like that, yes.

Check out this link, showing what actually happens to planes impacting at such high speeds. Note that this is not a link to the original article, because the page has disappeared, but Google's cache of the page.

This is why the conspicuous and lone piece of aluminum on the front lawn doesn't sit right with me, and leads me to believe it was planted. Also note that the initial impact hole appears too short for the whole fuselage of the plane to go through, and yet the damage around the hole is minor if anything, and yet suffered an impact very similar to what the lower part of the plane allegedly did to the facade (knocked out a clean hole). There are more questions with the Pentagon than answers at this stage, I think.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I'm still sticking to my belief as to what in fact struck the Pentagon. I feel that it was something smaller and faster than the "757" the gubernment said that hit the building. Their just isn't anyway that something the size of a 757 could have a quick 270 degree turn without breaking apart.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   

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.

Again, this seems ridiculous, especially considering that a plane had already crashed into the WTC towers at 8:46, and the nation was declared "under attack" at 9:00 or so. Wasn't one of the messages received from one of the planes something like, "We have some planes. Don't do anything stupid.. .we are returning to the airport"? You say you worked at the FAA and that pussy-footing around with missing planes is standard practice because no one wants to lose their job. Do you have any documentation that proves this? Any records of precedent of previous "missing" planes that show the FAA always takes 50+ minutes to notify NORAD? Are there no FAA actions on record or i nthe media? Anyone...?


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.

I read somewhere that the scramble order was put thru at 9:24 and they were airborne at 9:30. So how far is Langley from the Pentagon? What's the top speed of an F-16?


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.

So wait, you say he had already turned around and was heading the completely wrong direction and they knew this, a plane had already crashed into WTC1, and so the FAA spent 50 minutes trying to figure out what was going on??

Unless someone can show that this sort of lax attitude and unhurried reaction to missing/hijacked planes is SOP, it seems pretty much as if something happened at the FAA level to prevent timely NORAD notification. Or, NORAD was notified in a timely fashion and record of that notification has been "disappeared".


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.

The 5 frames released by the government clearly shows the plane inches from the ground - at most a couple of feet. As for skipping off the lawn, there appears to be no evidence of this at all in the pictures of the Pentagon lawn taken after the impact. Does someone have a pic actually showing scrapes on the lawn?


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.


If the guy couldn't fly a single-engine plane, how did he manage to do this? Could I have pulled off those maneuvers? Is it really that easy to fly a 757 in a steep arc sweeping down from 7000ft? What about the pilots who have remarked that you would have to be a crack fighter pilot to pull off those maneuvers?


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.’


Hmmm...curiouser and curiouser...

[edit on 2005-10-8 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 05:22 AM
link   
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.

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.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   

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.

Okay, so remote control technology to fly planes does exist. I found a couple of webpages here investigating the remote control factor:


www.911-strike.com...
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.



www.911-strike.com...
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.

www.boeing.com...


Interesting...


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.


Well that's a little odd.
If he had a commercial rating, then why couldn't he even be certified to rent a Cessna just 3 weeks before 9-11?


www.whatreallyhappened.com...
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.


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?

Wow...



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
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. The small planes are made to teach pilots, so they can do manuvers the bigger planes can't do, so they were made less stable. One of the things they have you do to fly a Cessna is to learn to fly it with your thumb and forefinger only holding the control yoke, because if you hold the yoke with both hands, or even one hand until you're used to it, you can't keep the plane level and stable. The simple act of holding the yoke too tight can cause you to bounce up and down in flight. I used to have that problem when I was first learning.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 06:31 AM
link   

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...


That's very interesting, Zaph, but it doesn't explain how this guy got commercial rating and a supposed 600 hours of flight time and yet couldn't fly a Cessna, a plane which, as you say, he would have had to train on in order to get that same commercial rating. It doesn't explain how he performed maneuvers that experienced military pilots have said would require crack pilot skills, and then took the plane in inches off the lawn.

More questions than answers it seems...



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Because there is even a big difference between a twin engine and a single engine plane. Not to mention that it was two years between his commercial rating being revoked (because he didn't show up for a physical), and trying to fly a Cessna in 2001. If he hadn't flown in that time then it would show, and he'd have a hard time with the Cessna.

I've also seen other pilots say that he COULD do the manuvers he did without being a crack pilot.

I'd find you those quotes, but I'm taking a couple days away from here I think to decompress. Things haven't gotten any better since the other day when I lost it. In fact in some aspects they've gotten worse. So I'm gonna crawl into a hole and hide for awhile. I'll find you those quites in a few days. I'm too tired right now.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 06:43 AM
link   
No worries, mate. Take care of yourself.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Take care of yourself Zaphod!


Here are a few videos that show some of the capabilities of airliners:

www.alexisparkinn.com...

www.alexisparkinn.com...
(20mb this one but shows a 707 doing a barrel roll)

And here is why it is possible on the 911review.com page:


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

...
1.1.14.5 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
where
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.
911review.com...



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.
911review.com...


[edit on 8-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Thanls Smithy, but we weren't debating that it wasn't a 757. Cheers though.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   

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?


I think you forgot about the comment above, I was simply showing that it is possible for both the aircraft and the terrorist to have carried out the maneuver.


[edit on 8-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join