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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
In order to make Home Run truly effective, it had to be completely integrated
with all onboard systems, and this could only be accomplished with a new
aircraft design, several of which were on the drawing boards at that time.
Under cover of extreme secrecy, the multinationals and DARPA went ahead
on this basis and built “back doors” into the new computer designs. There were
two very obvious hard requirements at this stage, the first a primary control
channel for use in taking over the flight control system and flying the
aircraft back to an airfield of choice, and secondly a covert audio channel
for monitoring flight deck conversations. Once the primary channel was
activated, all aircraft functions came under direct ground control,
permanently removing the hijackers and pilots from the control loop.

taken from www.apfn.org...

This is why Lufthansa had Boeing, maybe even McDonnell-Douglas take the Flight Control Systems out of the Lufthansa aircraft fleet. They did not want the U.S. to interfere in a hijack situation that involved any Lufthansa aircraft in or close to American airspace. Lufthansa had the Flight Control Systems taken out of their planes in the 1990s, years before the events of 9-11 were to occur. Could there have been a sort of "Home Run"




posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
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.


Forget? No, not at all. You showed that it's possible for the aircraft to do some wacky maneuvers, but not that it was possible for the terrorist pilot to perform them. An F-18 might be able to do a loop-the-loop and land on a cow's back, but that doesn't mean that I could make it do that.

The article you quoted is addressing whether or not a 757 is capable of that, not the pilot. It goes on to state:


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.


They're talking about the capability of digital fly-by-wire systems. So the next question is did this guy who couldn't fly a Cessna know how to operate it to make it do that turn and fly inches off the ground into the Pentagon wall? Can the software even be programmed to do such a radical maneuver? Is it a matter of simply typing in "Land on the Pentagon, please", hit enter, and voila it makes that turn and skims over the lawn? Supposedly even Hani's English was pretty poor.

This article describes the software limits on the fly-by-wire system:


seattlepi.nwsource.com...
...computers prevent the pilot from putting the plane into a climb of more than 30 degrees where it might lose lift and stall. The maximum bank or roll allowed is 67 degrees. The plane's nose-down pitch is limited to 15 degrees. There are protections against overspeed. And the computer won't allow the plane to make any extreme maneuvers that would exceed 2.5 times the force of gravity.


Now Airbus planes apparently don't allow the pilot to exceed these limits, but Boeing planes do.


The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits.


So assuming that Hani "I can't fly a Cessna" Hanjour knew how to use all this wonderful technology and make it do that spiral, did the plane then exceed the software limits in the turn and descent? If so, that means that he was in control of the plane and not the fly-by-wire software. Also one would assume that the pilots who made the "crack pilot" comments would be well aware of the fly-by-wire capabilities on the planes.

I've never really investigated this aspect of the events. Zaph and Smithy, thanks for your patience.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
The 757 doesn't have a fly by wire system. Boeing didn't use fly by wire until the 777.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
So that means Hani had to do those maneuvers himself?

I assume the 757 has autopilot navigation systems though, such that even being the incompetent he was, he could at least tell the original pilot to set it to fly to the Pentagon to get him in the general area.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
As long as you have a general heading for where you want to go, which you can get off the GPS you can dial it into the autopilot and it'll take you there.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
In fact some of the modern flight simulators like Microsoft Flight Simulator and Fly! are apparantly so accurate that if you can operate them - you allegedly could pilot/operate the real aircraft in theory.

You also have to bear in mind that all these aircraft are very different, the same way a race driver, truck driver, car driver, etc couldn't all drive each other's vehicle to the same standard - the same goes for aircraft.
As Zaphod pointed out, if he had not flown the Cessna for some time and had been flying larger aircraft, he may very well have been clumsy in it. The same way a truck driver may be very good at driving his big truck and had to learn in a car initially, but if he doesn't drive one for a while he may very well be all over the place.

I have only flown a Cessna and Piper PA28, so I can't comment from first hand experience on the difference between light aircraft and larger ones, but they can be pretty tricky to fly - even my instructor who normally flew cargo planes nearly stoved it into the ground once.

[edit on 8-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Yeah, the truck-car analogy is imaginative, but not very convincing. The argument that this guy with an alleged "600 hours flight time" couldn't fly a Cessna for peanuts, even after 3 attempts at "getting the feel back", and yet he could fly the 757 like a crack fighter pilot, the difference being simply because he was "out of practice with the Cessna", just seems silly IMHO.

Danielle O'Brien was the aircraft traffic controller who tracked Flight 77:

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien.
(source)



USAF officer says either crack fighter pilot or remote control:

A Portuguese newspaper reports on an independent inquiry into 9/11 by a group of military and civilian US pilots that challenges the official version of events. The group's press statement says, “The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the [US], requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications, and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their preselected targets.” A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam War, says: “Those birds (airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control.” [Portugal News, 8/3/02; Portugal News, 8/8/02]
(source)



Plane spirals down 7000 feet in 2.5 minutes and makes perfect skim across Pentagon lawn at 460mph:

cbsnews.com
Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.

The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Maybe the FBI got it wrong and another terrorist was flying the plane, someone with real piloting skills. Considering that many of the alleged hijackers have been found to be alive and well, it may well be that they got the wrong dude. There's certainly enough anomalies for further investigation to be warranted. I think I even read somewhere that Hani wasn't even listed as having a ticket. Can anyone confirm this?

[edit on 2005-10-8 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
that's right. no ticket. he just walked on, i don't know why anyone actually PAYS for tickets anymore, when you can just walk on. he waited a bit, then got his mighty boxcutter out and sent the pilot to the back of the bus. then he decided to fly around for fifty minutes.
then he just had to press the magical giant red button that's on the dashboard of all planes, labelled, 'find the pentagon, do a spectacular diving turn into it, and hit it a ground level'.

i don't know how or why anyone would want to ignore the mountain of anomolies of the pentagon crash.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
he waited a bit, then got his mighty boxcutter out and sent the pilot to the back of the bus. then he decided to fly around for fifty minutes.
...
then he just had to press the magical giant red button that's on the dashboard of all planes, labelled, 'find the pentagon, do a spectacular diving turn into it, and hit it a ground level'.


LMFAO!! Dude, thanks for the laff!


I wonder if it was a magical Boxcutter+5 of Hijacking...



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
You obviously havn't ever been seriously threatened with a Stanley knife, I suggest you try it some time. Having a laugh with your mates after a couple of drinks doesn't count by the way.
Then after you've pee'd yourself like most people would you might have a different viewpoint of the whole thing. Of course I guess you'd be a hero like all pilots that have been hijacked over the years.. emm? Don't remember them doing much about it then either, do you?
Don't forget they didn't know it was a suicide mission until the plane hit.

Oh and it is actually relatively easy to program GPS equipment, and as I said, modern flight simulators are so accurate you can see the actual layout of the controls in specific commercial aircraft and operate them - so you can get plenty of practice at home.

And I wouldn't trust everything an ATC says either, how often do they see airliners performing such maneuvers? How often do they see fighters really pushing the envelope? They may have seen the occasional mild exercise which would have seemed exciting to the normal mundane flying they get to see, but what is their reference for their statements exactly?
Just because he's an ATC doesn't mean his God, I know a military ATC guy and he isn't perfect.

Don't forget these people are 'official', if the same names were printed saying something that seemed to contradict what you want to believe, you'd quickly dismiss it as 'propoganda and lies' - so why the sudden certainty?

[edit on 8-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You obviously havn't ever been seriously threatened with a Stanley knife, I suggest you try it some time. Having a laugh with your mates after a couple of drinks doesn't count by the way. Then after you've pee'd yourself like most people would you might have a different viewpoint of the whole thing.


You know nothing about me or what I have and haven't experienced. Let's try to keep the discussion from getting personal, thx.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You obviously havn't ever been seriously threatened with a Stanley knife, I suggest you try it some time. Having a laugh with your mates after a couple of drinks doesn't count by the way. Then after you've pee'd yourself like most people would you might have a different viewpoint of the whole thing.


You know nothing about me or what I have and haven't experienced. Let's try to keep the discussion from getting personal, thx.


Sorry that was at Billybob not you, but your right I shouldn't make it so personal. His comment just seemed to demonstrate a lack of knowledge and experience on the subject.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
agent smith happens to know everything about MY experience and history, not to mention the ratio of his knowledge to mine(very high ratio!), so it's 'okay' for him to get personal with me.

that plane was LOADED with ex military and the like. none of these soldiers knew what to do in a confrontation? not the decorated pilot(drop and roll to throw hijackers about like hay in a tornado)? none of the passengers from the military had the cohones or skills to defend america?

sorry, smithy, old bean, but although you are obviously a vast warehouse of irrefutable knowledge and wisdom, you can't know ANYTHING about what happened unless you were there. we are looking at shadows in a rear view mirror, and any 'truth' will be approximate at best.

please do drop the personal attacks on me, smithy, old bean. disagree, that's all well and good, but making all the final decisions about who's on or off base must be left to the thousands of referees out there in cyberspace. your emotional attachment to being right is making your veins pop out a little. have a cup of tea. throw a log on the fire. relax.



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Your right I shouldn't have got like that, I apologise. I get a little over excited sometimes.

But going back to the topic:

Regardless of who was on the plane, if they are holding someone up at the front with a knife to their throat, there is little anyone can do regardless of training, especially as they were unarmed, without civilians dying.

And I thought they killed the pilots straight away? I may be wrong but I'm sure I read that somewhere at the time. Even if they didn't - one has to ask themselves if it would have been that easy to deal with the hijackers - then why have there been so many 'successful' hijackings up until now?

You have to remember no-one on the plane knew what was going to happen until it was too late so everyone would have reacted like it was a 'normal' hijacking, besides if the hijackers locked themselves in the cockpit there is little anyone could do anyway.

[edit on 9-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Regardless of who was on the plane, if they are holding someone up at the front with a knife to their throat, there is little anyone can do regardless of training, especially as they were unarmed, without civilians dying.


Your source was probably just making assumptions.

According to the alleged passenger calls, at least one pilot was made to sit in the back of the plane, still alive and apparently unharmed.


In one of two calls Ted Olsen said he received from his wife, Barbara, she asked "What should I tell the pilot?," referring to Chic Burlingame, the captain, who was then supposedly seated in the rear with Barbara. Chic was a graduate of Naval Academy and flew F-4s in Vietnam. It seems highly doubtful that he could have been persuaded to hand over the stick without a fight, and agree to sit in the back of the plane, especially when controllers had been broadcasting to pilots that Flight 11 had been hijacked.


Source.

Other than that, I don't think there's any data at all.

Zaphod has posted that pilots, up until 9/11 at least, were trained to simply hand over control of a plane without incidence in the case of hijackings. If this is true, then there's one possible explanation of why the earlier pilots didn't retaliate, but if the pilots knew what the hijackers were trying to do, then I think the pilots would realize that the whole reasoning of handing over control and hoping for peaceful negotiations would be compromised. It's hard to say what happened on board the planes.

[edit on 9-10-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
that plane was LOADED with ex military and the like. none of these soldiers knew what to do in a confrontation? not the decorated pilot(drop and roll to throw hijackers about like hay in a tornado)? none of the passengers from the military had the cohones or skills to defend america?


Usually, only special forces are trained to retake hijacked planes. Also, perhaps they all might be aware of the consequences of explosive decompresion if they were to attempt something.

Another thing, the pilots would not in much of a postion being strapped in their seats. Even if they weren't strapped in, wouldn't they have the controls as potential obstacles to dropping and rolling.

Another thing to bear in mind is the fact that most hostage situations involved the plane landing somewhere to refuel where demands etc etc would take place. They might have been biding their time.

Perhaps we'll never know.



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
You are more than likely right there Mr Bray regarding the pilots being alive, but that is not my key arguement anyway.

I think the crucial thing, as I said, is that if any of these arguments on retaking the plane were valid, then why the hell havn't we seen them in action throughout the history of hijackings?
And the ex-military would still not be able to do anything before any hostages had their throats cut open.

People say that in jobs experience is more important than theory, I think this is another example. Our history of hijackings in the past and the events that have occured carry far more weight in argument than the ideas that something could have or would have been done something in that, seemingly at the time, indifferent situation.
This isn't the movie 'Air Force One' and someone doesn't take back the plane single handedly. There is confusion here between real life and the likes of 'The A-Team', 'Die Hard' and such like.



[edit on 9-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
What it all boils down to is whether or not the government shot down the plane and staged this coverup.

I see evidence bolstering both sides which makes this a very intriguing conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GTWill
There is too much evidence that points to a missile hitting the Pentagon.

1. How does an inexperienced pilot fly a plane inches from the ground without crashing?

Answer: The plane didn't touch the ground in front of the building it hit at a higher angle?

2. Why does the one surveilance video show no plane? I have seen people try to draw a plane in the pixels...the building is clear...why not a plane?


Answer: frames per second too slow to capture exact moment?

3. The turbulance from a 757 flying a few feet over the freeway during rush hour would have caused vehicles to flip over. There were no stories of even a deafening sonic boom.

The plane was flying fast enough to produce a sonic boom.


4. No wreckage

There was wreckage.


5. Hole too small


Really? Why?


6. The rest of 9/11 stinks worse than my rear end.



I doubt it.


So where are all the dead people from when the plane hit the building? Are they in on it too?

C'mon people, you believe we shot our own "super important" building??? WHY?

Get real.



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Same reason the Nazis hit Germany's own Parliament building, the Reichstag? It scares people and causes panic. And of course no one would remember something like the Reichstag and ever expect our gov to hit one of their own buildings.

They only hit the side that was under construction, anyway. There was hardly anyone in it and nothing important was disrupted or destroyed. If terrorists actually wanted to mess up the Pentagon, they'd hit any one of the other sides instead. The Pentagon attack would've been an utter failure on the part of al Qaeda to inflict any real damage, because it didn't, but yet it served to really advance what groups like PNAC have been calling for from within our own government.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join