low flyby

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
By the way the video is edited, they edited it for their site.

Are you saying the information provided by pilotsfor911truth is invalid? They are posting false information? Guess I can post a link over there saying you feel their data is inaccurate....and have them reply themselves.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
Are you saying the information provided by pilotsfor911truth is invalid? They are posting false information?

Why must you lie and twist what i post? I posted the following statement.

"By the way the video is edited, they edited it for their site".

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I posted the following statement.

"By the way the video is edited, they edited it for their site".

So it's valid then. Why complain about it...if its still valid information? The information should be good then, and provide the information _del_ asked for.

Otherwise that would be like saying I'm not driving a Hummer because it came from a dealership and they installed options. It wasnt directly from the factory to my doorstep. It is still a Hummer.

Originally posted by Disclosed
Why complain about it...if its still valid information? .

Becasue you lied and stated i said it was invalid.

Why do you lie so much? Everyone knows you lie and misquote me.


[edit on 11-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Becasue you lied and stated i said it was invalid.

Please re-read my post. I ASKED you if it was invalid...and if you agreed, would let pilotsfor911truth know.

You do know the difference between asking a question and stating something?

Guess i'm curious why you are so angry. I would think someone looking for the truth would be glad to share their data with others.... like _del_ was asking for. But instead, you argue and tell people to get their own information. Looking for the truth, but not willing to share what you have found?



[edit on 11-4-2008 by Disclosed]

I like the vids ST SIR 86, defcon5, and _del_. Certainly shows heavy aircraft flown by professionals can indeed fly very close to the ground as I knew from the airshows I went to all through my youth.

That being said, the damage and wreckage at the Pentagon is still IMO lacking if you believe the official flight path. As reenforced as that side of the Pentagon was, and coming in at the angle the plane did, more plane and contents would be expected on the outside of the building.

The left wing should have sheered off and slapped against the wall, not fold up and enter the building behind the fuseloge(spelling?).

Originally posted by Disclosed
Guess i'm curious why you are so angry.

I am angry because you twist and misquote what i post. Why even ask about if the video from P49T was invalid when i never stated it was.

I ask people to do their own research that way thet cannot claim it was just my opinion , they can see for themselves.




[edit on 11-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Why even ask about if the video from P49T was invalid when i never stated it was.

Because if their video is valid...there would be no need for _del_ to go to the bother of submitting a FOIA request, then waiting a few days to get cd's. He could get the answer to his question today.

If the data is available online, it should be used.

Originally posted by Disclosed
Because if their video is valid...there would be no need for _del_ to go to the bother of submitting a FOIA request, then waiting a few days to get cd's. He could get the answer to his question today.

But its not the full data, not the best data. Which is what we should be striving for.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weemadmental
you are wrong in your assumptions, a kid could point an aircraft at a building as huge as the pentagon, beleive me it is not hard to hitsome thing 77' high and a 1000' long, thats a huge target to miss.

Do you know what a building woud look like at around 500 mph? It would be a small target coming at you very fast. No time for corrections or reactions, he had the be lined up perfectly with the 1 side when coming out of the 360 degree turn.

yeah i do know what a building would look like at 500 miles an hour, if your flying right at it, it gets bigger and bigger and bigger then you would plough into it, it isnt too difficult, also he doesnt have to line up on one side only, did he have to hit a specific brick in the wall or did he just have to ram the plane into the building which is huge in comparison to just one wall ??

Your an idiot and do not know what you are talking about, see if you can get some imagary from the web that shows buildings at this height and see if you can see them.

Also a pilot has to "hit" land on a runway, do you think this is difficult at the speeds that they fly at and whilst they are decending ??

Idiot

Wee Mad Mental

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The video that Disclosed posted is edited it does not start at takeoff, it starts already several minutes into the video.

If you go the NTSB site and file out the FOIA request it shoudl only take a few days to get the CDs from them.

Ok, I only needed a small portion. Actually, unless Disclosed changed the link in the mean time, the vid posted starts from the taxi way. The plane does not line up on the runway until roughly 1:50 into the video. He gets clearance at about 3:50 into the video. If any of the instrumented data differs (especially toward the end of the vid, I don't really expect you to watch the full hour and a half, although I did), please let me know where and what your NTSB data shows.

I didn't see anything difficult about making a turn into the Pentagon at 250-300 kts. You'll notice the pilot waits until he is completely lined up before advancing the throttles. It is a shame the animation does not show relative buildings in 3d scale, but it doesn't. I wish it would show you what a runway looks like on approach, as well, but that is available elsewhere as well.
I did not see anything that would make me question the official version of events; can you tell me what you find suspicious other than lining the aircraft up, Ult?

Originally posted by weemadmental
Also a pilot has to "hit" land on a runway, do you think this is difficult at the speeds that they fly at and whilst they are decending ??

Well pilots do not land at 500 mph. If you knew anything you would know that pilots land at under 200 mph. Sounds to me like you are the real idiot.

Please explain how a very inexperienced pilot is going to make a 360 degree turn (without any corrections) and be perfectly lined up with the 1 sied of the Pentagon, that would be hard to see becasue of terrain?

Originally posted by _Del_
I did not see anything that would make me question the official version of events; can you tell me what you find suspicious other than lining the aircraft up, Ult?

Several questions of the official story. The following is from a very experenced pilot.

(1) Now what kind of a hijacker would bother to reset his altimeter EXACTLY at FL180? What for? He's going to crash!

(2) Where did that hijacker get the field barometric pressure for Reagan International that he set on his altimeter? He didn't get it from ATC. And how did he get the CURRENT field barometric pressure (30.24) which would have been only several minutes old?

(3) Why did the hijacker reset the copilots altimeter within one second of setting his and WHY? And HOW? That’s a pretty long reach!

(4) How did the hijacker get so proficient in the use of the autopilot? From a book?

(5) And about that final line up with the Pentagon. After the 270 degree turn descending turn. Within 1 degree?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


the speed is irrelavant as he is hitting a target, hitting a runway requires skill but you can eaisly point an aircraft in the other direction using the aircraft controls AND THE FLIGHT COMPASS !!, or use the AUTOPILOT its not hard.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
I did not see anything that would make me question the official version of events; can you tell me what you find suspicious other than lining the aircraft up, Ult?

Several questions of the official story. The following is from a very experenced pilot.

(1) Now what kind of a hijacker would bother to reset his altimeter EXACTLY at FL180? What for? He's going to crash!

he need to know how high he is relavent to sea level and groud level, would make it easier to line the jet up and gauge his height, Learner pilots are taught that!

(2) Where did that hijacker get the field barometric pressure for Reagan International that he set on his altimeter? He didn't get it from ATC. And how did he get the CURRENT field barometric pressure (30.24) which would have been only several minutes old?

check the link for the frequancies www.radioreference.com...

From the automated system that is broadcast over the radio, all you have to do is tune into the airport freq, again a learner pilot is taught how to get this. Weather is reported on the Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS)



(3) Why did the hijacker reset the copilots altimeter within one second of setting his and WHY? And HOW? That’s a pretty long reach!

Not sure with the aircraft type, maybe a 757 pilot can explain but some aircraft let you set this for both pilot & copilot at same time

(4) How did the hijacker get so proficient in the use of the autopilot? From a book?

Books, sitting in a simulator, using microsoft flight sim with addon packs that mimic the real auto pilot exactly

(5) And about that final line up with the Pentagon. After the 270 degree turn descending turn. Within 1 degree?

why within one degree, he only had to aim at the building and hit it, he didnt have to hit a specific part of the building, only the building

if you browsed the internet you would find this information, its not hard

Also why dont you get your self a copy of Microsoft flight simulator, and follow the instructions in the trainee pilot section, you get video tutorials and every thing

you can also set the aircraft up using the information given by the NTSB video / animation you have and get to see what 2300 ft looks like and what you can see from the cockpit, i bet you can make out the pentagon fine

Wee Mad Mental

[edit on 12/4/2008 by weemadmental]

Originally posted by weemadmental
the speed is irrelavant as he is hitting a target,

If you knew anything about planes you would know speed is very relavant, specially at high speed and low ailitude when it comes to control of the plane.

Originally posted by weemadmental
why within one degree, he only had to aim at the building and hit it, he didnt have to hit a specific part of the building, only the building

Yes he did have to line up with 1 side of the building and had to worry about terrain.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes he did have to line up with 1 side of the building and had to worry about terrain.

He had to line up with the building.

unless you can explain how he could line up with more than one side of the building at the same time....

Originally posted by Disclosed
unless you can explain how he could line up with more than one side of the building at the same time....

I already stated several times that he could only line up with 1 side of the building.

I believe it was others that stated he could see all sides. Please read post before you post.



[edit on 12-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I already stated several times that he could only line up with 1 side of the building.

And everyone on here, even professional pilots on this very forum, have pointed out that a pilot could see more than just one side of the Pentagon if he was flying into it. he just points his plane at the building.

He aims at the building. He can see the roof, and more than one side...he just aims at the building.

Then again, these are professional pilots stating that. Are you a pilot, ULTIMA1? Have you piloted an airliner?

Please do more research before you post....

[edit on 13-4-2008 by Disclosed]