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 911 OS. Operational Suitability

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Thanks for your reply. Have a nice day




posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 





American Airlines Flight 77 was the third flight hijacked as part of the September 11 attacks. It was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon. The flight from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport was hijacked by five Islamic extremists less than 35 minutes into the flight


en.wikipedia.org...




Timeline For American Airlines Flight 77


www.npr.org...

www.fbi.gov...

How many more sources shall I quote to show that you are wrong on that simple fact as well? It was AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Questions For NTSB/FBI Regarding Flight Data Recorder Information
1. The current FDR shows 480' MSL True Altitude, too high to hit the light poles. What are your findings of True Altitude at end of data recording 09:37:44. Why did you provide a Flight Data Recorder that shows the aircraft too high without a side letter of explanation? How did you come to your conclusion.
2. What is the vertical speed at end of data recording :44. How did you come to your conclusion.
3. What is the Absolute Altitude and end of data recording? How did you come to your conclusion.
4. Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set?(This is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it).
5. Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?
6. Do you have any video showing a clear impact and/or of the plane on its approach to impact?
7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?
8. Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44?
9. Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator?
10. How did you come to the conclusion of 09:37:45 as the official impact time?
11. What is the exact chain of custody of the FDR? What date/time was it found? Where exactly was it found? Please provide documentation and names.
12. Why does the hijack timeline show a 3 min interval for hijacking to take place? Why was Capt. Burlingame reported to have not followed protocol for the Common Strategy prior to 9/11?
_________________________________________________
07/20/06
Analysis of 9/11 Commission Report prior to release of Flight Data Recorder
First let me say i offer no theory or speculation. I definitely do NOT offer that is was a missle, global hawk or otherwise. All the following will be facts (according to reports) and questions.

So, i started with NTSB, since they are the "go-to" guys when you want a report.. right?

This is what i get...

Summary.
"The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. " Full report here. NTSB report.
All reports from the NTSB for all 4 planes on Sept 11 are identical.

Ok, sounds reasonable. So lets check with the FBI reports.
www.fbi.gov...
Thats all i can find from the FBI.

So, lets go to the 9/11 Commission report.
"At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon.59 ....

At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.60...

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed."

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. The footnote "59, 60, 61" refers to The Flight Path Study of American 77 provided by the NTSB, which no one can find. One person claims to have called the NTSB and the NTSB says they havent done any reports/analysis for any of the aircraft of Sept 11. NTSB phone in DC (202)-314-6000. I tried, but i hit brick walls. Update: 8/11/06 NTSB Flight Path Study released.

So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed.

So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...

Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.

So, who pulled off this stunt?

Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches.

Later, a week after Sept 11. Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, "although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon." What?? Bernard, who didnt even fly with Hani, doesnt know the maneuver involved, where the plane hit, the speeds, etc etc.. says he has no doubts that he could hit the pentagon? Sure, my grandma could hit the pentagon. How about looking into the maneuver before making that statement? He made that statement while the pentagon was still smoking for petes sake. A bit of monday morning quarterbacking if you ask me. A common theme among inexperienced pilots. This also can be verified via google searches.

So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.

My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C'mon...


For anyone wanting to do further research on the subject. Almost all the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have similar scenarios. Hell, they didnt even match up the parts found at each site to their airframes via maintainence logs. There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why... so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You dont give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with.


pilotsfor911truth.org...

For those OS believers, you may want to do some real reading and stop making excuses to why our government didn't do a false flag operation and murder 3000 innocent people and covered it up. Any fifth grader can read the available information concerning flight 77 and knows there is a cover-up.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Uh...Flight 77 was United Airlines which is what that reference was to regarding your post as well as your confused reply. And, the referenced NTSB..National Transportation Safety Board...you know the ones who looked into all of this (supposedly) and "read" the FDR data.

Again, thats UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 77. Got it???


Attention to detail usually bites the Truthers in the backside. It helps make their entire shtick what it is - hilarious to follow.

The Flight 77 that impacted the Pentagon was an American Airlines aircraft, unless you are talking about UA Flight 77, which is a Boeing 767-300 headed from San Fran (KSFO) to Honolulu (PHNL) today on a 5 hours 33 minute flight. Using Truther logic though, you might very *well* be talking about this flight. Makes about as much sense as the rest of your post.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Well while your smart a**ed tone is pretty normal concerning the defense of the OS, i do readily admit that I have lots of notes and made a mistake.

Of course your above that now aren't you?

[edit on 7-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   


Question: Has there ever been a case of an airliner hijacking with a passenger revolt?

Answer: No. As many people would be scared to death. Including the fact that the public is pre-conditioned to comply with terroists rather than resist or fight.

The very spot the airliner crashed is suspicious. Why? Again the plane's heading takes it directly into the DC area and anyone keeping up with the events that day could figure this out easily. To save what MANY thought was an attack on either the White House or the Capitol building those who were in power that day gave the order to shoot it down. Many have dis-info'd on the range of fighter jets, actually its the range of their missiles that count. A play on words in the OS? Perhaps. Considering the accuracy of a Tomahawk is described as "pin point" by the maker, Hughes Missle Systems in Arizona. Range? 690 miles at 550mph.


You asked the question - I will provide the answers...

Of course will find some reason to ignore.....



The Hijacker of Mauritanian passenger plane was overcome by passengers and arrested on the planes arrival at Las Palmas airport


en.wikipedia.org...



While explaining to Abderraman that the plane did not have enough fuel to reach France, the pilot, Ahmedou Mohamed Lemine, discovered Abderraman did not speak French. When the Morrocan government denied the plane's request to land and refuel at Djala in the Western Sahara, the pilot decided to continue on to Las Palmas as planned. Afterwards the pilot spoke to the passengers and crew in French, warning them that upon landing he was going to brake hard and then accelerate, to throw the hijacker off balance and give the passengers and crew a chance to overpower him. On landing, the pilot did so, and the hijacker fell to the floor, dropping one of his pistols. Flight attendants poured boiling water from the coffee machine on him and ten passengers and members of the crew beat him until they considered him sufficiently subdued.[3] About twenty passengers were slightly injured in the hard landing.[1]


Boiling water? Sounds lot like Flight 93



It was Sandy Bradshaw, his wife, the flight attendant.

"Have you heard what's going on? My flight has been hijacked. My flight has been hijacked by three guys with knives," she said.

Who was flying the plane? Phil asked his wife.

"I don't know who's flying the plane or where we are," she said.

Sandy Bradshaw, who was trained never to spill hot coffee on a paying customer, slipped into the airplane's galley and began filling pitchers with boiling water.


Could add the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid (American Flight 63)

en.wikipedia.org...



The 6 feet 4 inch (193 centimeters) tall Reid was eventually subdued by other passengers on the aircraft, using plastic handcuffs, seatbelt extensions, and headphone cords. A doctor administered Valium found in the flight kit of the aircraft.[1] Many of the passengers were aware of the situation when the pilot announced that the flight was to be diverted to Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts.


Or more recently Northwest 253


en.wikipedia.org...



Although no air marshals were on the flight, several passengers and crew noticed the attack. A passenger seated on the far side of the same row, Jasper Schuringa from the Netherlands, tackled and overpowered Abdulmutallab. Schuringa saw the suspect's trousers were open, and that he was holding a burning object between his legs. "I pulled the object from him and tried to extinguish the fire with my hands and threw it away," said Schuringa, who suffered burns to his hands. Meanwhile, flight attendants extinguished the fire with a fire extinguisher and blankets, and a passenger removed the partially melted, smoking syringe from Abdulmutallab's hand.


Since 9/11 anyone acting up on airline get a beatdown, handcuffed and trip
to jail



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 



Uh...Flight 77 was United Airlines...


mike, we've gone down this same road, before...

"77' was AMERICAN AIRLINES, not United.

"93" was United, NOT AMERICAN.

I believe you are getting very confused, and it is showing.

BTW, I made a comment (my first in this thread) to reference your mention of the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and never got a satisfactory response.


I was perhaps too vague, when I asked the first time, so I will be more specific and direct you to the source YOU cited, re: the Tomahawk Cruise Missile.

To wit: The Tomahawk is NOT an 'air-to-air' type interceptor offensive weapon. Did you see that, in its description??

It is designed to be fired FROM a land-based location, and is targeted TO a land-based (non-moving) target. NOT an airplane in flight.

It is perfectly simple, and reasonable, for someone not fully versed int he intricacies and differences to leap to that mistake, however it does NOT help your contentions and claims, when you get basic facts like that incorrect.

Since this thread has already gone also into this area, per a reply directed towards me, and regarding the Flight Deck Door parameter, withe its link to an NTSB report (a very long report, BTW)....wherein it was stated that I was "wrong"....please provide specific evidence to support the claim that I was wrong.

Before you do, though, tread carefully. For, it just so happens, I actually HAVE experience on the B-757, and I know that it is not always the case that the Flight Deck Door open/closed status will be recorded, or displayed, except as a default on the Door Switch, inside the pushbutton on the overhead panel.

It is NOT always a parameter for the FDR to record, nor is it ALWAYS an EICAS message either.

This is something that is an option, and is selected by the buyer (usually as a fleet-consistent thing, depending on the customer).

IN CASE that isn't clear, you should do yourself a favor and look into the Boeing designations, the ones you see AFTER the aircraft model number. Example, B-757-223, or B-757-224, etc.

That -223 and -224, those two examples designate the CUSTOMER PREFERENCE, in the way the airplanes are configured, in terms of optional equipment installed at the factory, or through vendors under the auspices o the manufacturer (Boeing).

This is NOT top secret extra super-dooper stuff, it is WELL known within the aerospace industry....

(BTW, the -223 and -224, etc, are usually SPECIFIC to certain airlines, especially those with a long history of buying from Boeing).

Take a look at fleet information, you will see the pattern....

-222 = United Airlines
-223 = American Airlines
-224 = Continental Airlines
-232 = Delta Airlines
-257 = USAir

etc, etc, etc........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit, don't just take my word for it: (Oh, and note, please, that in some cases versions belonging to certain operators may differ, BECAUSE they were acquired "used" or "secondhand", not directly from Boeing. Make sense?)

www.airfleets.net...









[edit on 7 January 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


esdad.....ummmm, you have a very logical and reasonable understanding of the events, mostly...but:


Now, as far as 93, it was shot down.


I invite you (and everyone) to understand, I hope, just WHY this is not a valid assumption.

This is on topic, as this thread is a sort of potpourri...

Many simply do not understand the way the FDR and CVR work, and that's OK...but, here's a point that is rarely brought up, and is important to understand:

BOTH of those recording devices require NORMAL aircraft's electrical power in order to operate. They do NOT have any sort of redundant power supply sources.

I could carry on at length about various systems and instruments onboard that DO have redundant power sources, but won't...because, it is a simple fact that, once again, the FDR and CVR only operate when there is "normal" power distribution operating. What does that mean? Well, to put it antoher way, it's the way they're wired.

Why is this important?

BECAUSE, IF United 93, for instance, had been shot down, then the FDR and CVR recordings would have STOPPED at some point as the debris was falling to earth. This is not the case, however --- BOTH recorders operated until impact, as the airplane was flown, intact, into the ground.

I don't have to bring sources, I hope, since you can look this up yourselves, but just off the top of my head, TWO cases come to mind: TWA 800, and Swiss Air 111. (Some think TWA 800 was brought down by missile, I stick with the established cause, an empty center fuel tank explosion, but nevertheless...)

In BOTH cases, TWA AND Swiss Air, power was interrupted BEFORE the final plunge, so some data is missing. This is not speculation, it is fact.

In the case of AA 77 and UA 93, we did not see this, at all.


Now, sdad, you mention

587 was bought down by Al Qeada.


I assume you mean American Airlines flight 587, November 2001???en.wikipedia.org...


Nonetheless, terrorism was officially ruled out as the cause by the National Transportation Safety Board, which instead attributed the disaster to the first officer's overuse of rudder controls.



I think the Wiki article should cover it, and I won't waste time with technical details but --- pilot error. NOT Al Qeada, sorry. MOST pilots can thoroughly understand the sequence of events, and as I said, the explanation is beyond what is relevant here....

I could offer more description and background privately, if you wish...



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Already admitted that it was a mistake in the post before yours...



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





please provide specific evidence to support the claim that I was wrong.


That would be the post in which I stated YOUR WRONG...Go read it again!



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##

Enhanced enforcement is underway.

All members are entitled to their own opinions on the topic and are welcome to express them.

Comments on anything else, especially personal commentary of any kind whatsoever directed toward other members, are subject to warnings or removal. Repeated behavior of this kind is subject to temporary post bans or permanent account bans.

Please stay focused on the topic, respect the rights of other members to express their own opinions, ALERT us to problems and do your best.


THIS IS A MODERATOR ADVISORY. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST. STAY ON TOPIC.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Ok Mikee

Why havent you respond to my post answering your claim that passengers never interferred with a hijacking?

Is that a mistake too.....?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Apparently so, hey I'm just a human. let me go and read it. I do apologize for that. BRB



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by odd1out

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by mikelee
 


Of all the problems with your thesis I think the last part is the most glaringly and obviously incorrect. The proposition that this whole subject is an issue.

It really is not. Outside of the internet and conspiracy websites and forums there is not division on what happened that day. The only divison that exists is the different approaches that should (or should not) be taken to address the issue of security and international terrorism.

This is one of the reasons the 9/11 Commision report is not chock full of references to serial numbers on planes etc. The commissions primary mission was not to determine if planes actually crashed in NY, PA and in DC but to determine how security was so seriously breached and what coud be done in the future to prevent it.


I find this VERY FUNNY HOOPER, because you, and a few others like you, seem to follow everyone around threads concerning 911 spouting the same bullsh*t, especially the OP of this thread. If there is NO ARGUMENT, or NO ISSUE, as you say, why do you feel you must keep defending the OS so adamantly? You are CONVINCED of the OS, yet you lurk around to reiterate the same garbage we can hear, and have heard for years from the flawed data, and pure fiction, of the 911 comission. Why get so defensive, on a site designed to be a forum for SKEPTICS, if you are so convinced?


I don't know what his motivation is, but I will say this. I was approached on an international board by a board member who never posted at all (no post totals) and was sent several PM's that resulted in this person checking me out to see if I was being paid to challenge the OS (which I wasn't), and more importantly, if I was "getting paid enough" by them, since I was being extremely effective with my research. This member actually offered me a good rate (per post) to attack the truthers and defend the OS. This member stated that he/she was a recruiter/handler for a national marketing firm that was involved in the debate, and worked with freelancers who they paid via PayPal to be 12-on-12-off forum board OS defenders. I never responded after that last PM, and left that board to come here.

Again, I don't know anyone else's motivations for what they do on these boards, but I do know that there are people being paid per post to defend the OS. It really creeped me out and made me glad that I use my AOL browser (it masks my computer's IP address on these forums) so that I can't be tracked back. This is a very ugly debate, and there's a hell of a lot of money at stake. Since then, I can't help reading these threads very differently.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by NorEaster]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Strange, I began to suspect that because of the same posters in every thread when they are posted, seem to be there all of a sudden. They never admit any wrong doing even when its proved. Plus you can tell because they seem to defend technical aspects questioned more so than surface conspiracy theories.

Strange indeed. Probably something to it too. Would not surpise me at all.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I dont doubt that sir

But the OS'ers here are normal guys I believe

The arguements they put forth are "ok" at best

They haven't changed anybody's mind.

Now we truther's are on a growing end of converts



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


It wasn't a claim just a question but I can see now where I should have clarified it in more detail for the context of my question asked.

"...Passenger revolt in where the plane crashed" would have been the appropiate question.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Guys, can I ask a question which some might be able to shed light on.

I understand the whole conspiracy theory, but there is like 10% of me that thinks it is just another form of terrorism. Here's why...

1) Could Al-Queda not have planted the bombs in the Twin Towers and got hold of Thermite?
2) If the USA actually did it, then why would they use Thermite, a patented chemical to the MoD? Surely, if they could co-ordinate everything to such fine detail, why would they leave these tell tail signs?
3) One thing that bothers me is the plane that crashed into the pentagon, but nobody found it. See, if the Americans did set all this up, why the Pentagon Hoax.

Terrorism is somethign that insights fear or uncertainty. It stops society functioning on a basic level, for we need to be able to trust eachother for business to work. Right, now say Conspiracy theories were another form of Terrorism, incited to make us disbelieve in our own Governments?

Watch'a think?

Cheers, Brad x



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


"passenger revolt in which an airliner being piloted by muslims bent on suicide crashed" would be a better choice of phrasing. Of course, going through history...that would be ONE time that the event had happened.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 





3) One thing that bothers me is the plane that crashed into the pentagon, but nobody found it. See, if the Americans did set all this up, why the Pentagon Hoax.


Which is a false statement. Plenty of pieces of that airplane were found.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join