9/11: A Boeing 757 *DID NOT* Strike the Pentagon

How did they fly the plane so close to the ground?

An aircraft that is traveling at a high rate of speed near the ground becomes trapped in a condition we refer to as ground effect. This is a fancy term for the fact that the wing vertices don’t have enough space to get out from under the wing and actually provide additional lift. Pilots often call this floating, and it’s something you don’t want to happen when you’re trying to land on a runway. This is the reason that an aircraft will pull its nose up and decrease its engine power right before landing, called a flare. What the flare does is basically stall the lift form under the wing and allow the aircraft to drop the last few feet onto the runway. If they did not flare then the aircraft would continue to float until not enough runway was left for it so make a safe landing and stop. There are entire craft which exist solely to operate in ground effect. The Russian have some heavy lifting ground effect transports which they use to cross the black sea, as an example:
Pretty neat, eh?

Ground effect craft

[edit on 5/2/2007 by defcon5]

Neat D5! Ilike how you can answer a question in a way I can understand without following it with something silly and unfounded like other experts here often do.

Not the spot for you to do it, as ground effect is often taken as making it impossible for a 757 scale plane to have done that deed. But you seem unfazed? Is such an attack actually possible despite the squished vortices? I'm actually curious tho I may be alseep before you answer.

I am not sure I understand your question Caustic. However, I am going to have a guess at it, so if I misunderstood you let me know.

To my knowledge there is no set altitude that a 757 would float at, most ground effect craft seem to be only 5 or so feet off the ground, either way though there is another factor to take into consideration as well, and that is the “White Smoke”. White smoke is an indicator that there has been damage done to the engine and its now burning oil. He might have been stuck in ground effect when he hit the light poles, and crossed that field in front of the Pentagon losing altitude the whole way until hit the generator and totally lost it. At his rate of speed he would have crossed that distance in a very short amount of time. The engine damage, especially if he FOD’ed the engine (FOD’ed means he broke the blades with debris), would have acted in the same way that decreasing throttle would have and brought him closer to the ground. Also if he did in fact FOD the engine it would have caused his trim to shift so we would see the aircraft start to roll just before impact, which it did.


[edit on 5/2/2007 by defcon5]

But i do know enough about radar also to know that the pilot would have had to know how to avoid the primary and NORAD radars for several minutes.

I was hoping for some discussion on this but it got buried.



Basically - two sources proving a 440-foot flyover (which oddly discredits the PentaCon) by their discrepancy - the CSV data file and the animation - who really made them? Are they both accurate?

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic




The Flight Data Recorder tabular data. You can download it from the web. CG and CH are the channels to look at. They are titled Baro NO. 1 and Baro NO. 2. Each second of flight is divided into 8 parts so you can pretty well tell when the altimeter was reset: what time, what altitude and compared to about 100 other recorded parameters.



What would the pilots being lying about and which pilots? That seems llike a pretty strong accusation.

I didn't say they WERE lying, but something doesn't add up.

The flight path - north of the Citgo - this does not fit the physical evidence and leads us to overflight theories. This makes me doubt the animation more that question the official story but that's a personal take.

Altitude discrepancy: proved by the re-set from 29.92 to 30,23 or whatever exactly at FL180, in the CSV but not the animation. As you ask, what terrorist would do that? IF this is real, it's big deal. If not... well, that's a different but smaller big deal.

authenticity: I've not found No ind. mention from the NTSB of either the CSV file or any type of animations.
Paper trail on the animation as shown here:
z9.invisionfree.com...
The cover letter states “specifically, you requested NTSB report of the flight path study for [flights 11, 175, 77]. [...] The information requested is on three CD-ROMs.”
There is no mention of animation, video, bit rates, etc and the info for three flights on three CDRs, which seems a bit small for me for three full-length flight animations.

Most importantly, the title "flight paths study" seems to refer to the documents compiled by the NTSB for those three flights (as well as for 93, tho not included).
Flight 77 FPS available here:
www.ntsb.gov...

Now... is this the cover letter for the animation's release to "Snowygrouch?" Or for the release of the FPS documents? Why would the animations also be titled "Flight Path Studies?"

In short I'm not so sure the NTSB ever made or sent out this animation. Not to say it's faked, but at the very least its NTSB pedigree is not well documented. If you would like to look into that and help me clear it up then cool. Otherwise just ignore.

Guys something just dawned on me while I was sitting here thinking about the ground effect aspect of this, which relates to why he might have reset the altimeter, but I need John to answer something for me. I will try and find the answer myself as well, and am not sure if this is what was done or not. This is may not be a question that is easy to find the answer for either, so it may take some time to see if this is what was done, why the altimeter was reset, and why the altitude was off buy a few hundred feet.

John, according to what you’re saying he set the altimeter so the aircraft thought it was at a higher altitude then it was, correct?

What is the lowest setting you can set the autopilot altitude knob to?

Originally posted by defcon5



The correct phraseology of this question should read, " John, according to what your're saying the hijacker set the altimeter to field barometric but the person who read the flight data recorder (not he NTSB) didn't realize that the FDR records altitude at 29.92 (Standard) not field barometric. So when they faked in a final altitude of 180 feet on the FDR they didn't realize that the true altitude would be 320 higher because of the difference between field barometric and pressure altitude".

Yes, that is correct.

And for those who have forgotten or didn't read my previous comments the reason the FDR records at pressure altitude (29.92) is because it would be too complicated to record the altitude from the pilots altimeters as the pilot and copilot keep resetting their altimeters for local pressure. During an accident investigation the investigators know that they will have to make that correction but the """""" did not.



I have not flown the Boeing 757 or the operated that autopilot so I don't know.

Sorry Mr Lear to be too confrontational - sometimes I let the "fraud" "frustrate" me too much. (and yes, you're on my namebase list in case you didn't know, one of I think 108.

My valid point with pointing out the data questions is that if we're now looking at it as evidence, it's important to note that it's accuracy/pedigree is in some doubt, and along with it the relevnce of any discussion based on it. But if it's correct, then you have a good case here for NO HIJACKERS on board and an overflight, recorded right on the FDR which was then planted in the Pentagon (?) to fool us...

I've only seen the timelapse footage of the "explosion", where is the plane?
If anyone knows of any other footage can you link it me? does it exist?