Questions about the 9/11 Pentagon attack

reply to post by winston_jones


"vintage"???

Oh, brother. The design has not appreciably changed, on an airliner transponder control panel, for decades. ONLY (recent, as in late 1990s) changes where the implementation of TCAS. AND, even then, there are various methosds to display TCAS...teh Wiki article I linked shows a configuration where it's contained within that instrument, the IVVI (Vertical Velocity Indicator).

On airplanes (the so-called "glass cockpit" set-up) with EFIS screens (electronic intruments, cathode-ray tubes, or now, LED panels) the TCAS trafic targets are superimposed on our Map display, on the EHSI. In fact, with the range knob for TCAS (out to a maximum of 40NM) we can see ALL airplanes squawking a transponder code, for several thousand feet above and below too. But, other than incorporating the TCAS features into the transponder panels (since, TCAS relies on transponders. They "talk" to each other, along with altitude and Vertical Velocity info. To predict and resolve potential traffic conflicts).

Another old joke....preventing collisions is called "Noise Abatement"......because, it's noisy when all that aluminum crashes into each other. (Didn't say it was a funny joke...just old...)

If you want, I can scour the net more, for a "vintage" to satisfy?

Or, you can perhaps.

www.airliners.net... might be a starting point, they have the dates of photos tagged in the info.

Originally posted by winston_jones

Originally posted by walman

If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11...

1.) What hit the Pentagon, where did it come from, and who sent it?

It would be very easy to fill in the critical gap. It is reported that a substantial piece of the engine was found. Many of its parts will be stamped with the tail number of the plane it belonged to. If this routine forensic investigation has been done the findings have not been made public.

You are slightly confused. Many parts of a Part 25 certified airplane are stamped with a number but it isn't the "tail number." It is usually a part number and/or a serial number. An engine has its own discrete serial number, as do all accessories such as generator/starter units, fuel pumps, air packs, etc. These serial numbers are included in the permanent aircraft maintenance records, required by Parts 43 and 121 (in the case of scheduled air carrier aircraft. The "tail number" or "N-number is assigned and painted on the aircraft after it is completed. For instance, the Pentagon airplane was assigned N644AA by the FAA but was Boeing Serial Number 24602.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Many parts of a Part 25 certified airplane are stamped with a number but it isn't the "tail number." It is usually a part number and/or a serial number.

Yes, I corrected/clarified this in a later post but thank you.

Originally posted by winston_jones

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Many parts of a Part 25 certified airplane are stamped with a number but it isn't the "tail number." It is usually a part number and/or a serial number.

Yes, I corrected/clarified this in a later post but thank you.

You do seem to have missed my post though, no rush but I would appreciate your opinion in reply.

Originally posted by jessejamesxx

That list actually makes a lot of sense. I saw a video about the flight path of 77. They interviewed a dozen people that saw it, and it contradicted the OS. Including cops etc. They also came to the conclusion that the plane pulled up at the last second and kept flying afterwards, and what hit the building was a missle of some sort (which explains the punch hole and lack of plane evidence.

Someone needs to post that video up. It was definitely worth the watch.

That's about as sensible as suggesting nothing hit the Pentagon. Why fly a plane right up to it, intentionally avoid it, then hit it with a cruise missile flying behind it? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by jessejamesxx

That list actually makes a lot of sense. I saw a video about the flight path of 77. They interviewed a dozen people that saw it, and it contradicted the OS. Including cops etc. They also came to the conclusion that the plane pulled up at the last second and kept flying afterwards, and what hit the building was a missle of some sort (which explains the punch hole and lack of plane evidence.

Someone needs to post that video up. It was definitely worth the watch.

...and from the angle that it approached, it would then fly over a busy highway, then a boat marina, then over Washington D.C. All without anyone on the planet seeing this retreating plane screaming a few hundred feet over their heads. Apparently in addition to developing super duper thermite that explodes AND melts steel, the conspirators have also discovered how to turn airplanes invisible.

...and they say the OS is too outlandish to accept. Of course.

Thanks for the good laugh, GoodOlDave.

So, keeping in mind other anti-plane theories, the conspirators purposely narrowly missed the Pentagon with a massive plane loaded with jet fuel and instead chose to hit it with a missile which did less damage than a plane, the latter portion of which happens to be part of the reasoning for why it could not have been a plane? Hmm.

To believe that one would either have to be schizophrenic or under the influence of '___'.

reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO


So check the wingspan of a 757 (which hit the Pentagon) and then check the wingspan of a 767 (which were used to hit both Towers) then get back to us.

Here's a rag for the egg.

To those who believe it was a cruise missile: Where was the cruise missile launched from?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO

 

So check the wingspan of a 757 (which hit the Pentagon) and then check the wingspan of a 767 (which were used to hit both Towers) then get back to us.

Here's a rag for the egg.

Wingspan for 757.... 124 ft

Width of Damage at Pentagon..... 65 ft

YOUR POINT??

www.youtube.com...

There are more posts on this thread from believers in the Official Fairytale than there are from those who question it......

The Pentagon posts always seem to attract the "believers".......


Wonder why?????

A sensitivity perhaps....????

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
Wingspan for 757.... 124 ft

Width of Damage at Pentagon..... 65 ft

YOUR POINT??

You've got to be joking, even if you accept without question the 65ft measurement, that is the width of the collapsed section. The ground floor damage extended to much further than that.

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
There were many reports & photographs of a 2nd plane in the area immediately after. Plus, everyone in the area, that was interviewed anyways (a dozen people), never actually saw the impact or the direct aftermath. They were all running for cover. 1 person ran outside directly after and saw 'another' plane 100 ft from the ground going in the same direction that the hypothetical 77 would've if it had pulled up.

Now I *know* you had to have gotten this from one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites. First, the "second plane" was a Minnesota Air National Guard C-130 in the area that ground controllers asked to follow and report on the hijacked passenger jet. This was already reported in the 9/11 commission report years ago.

Second, whoever told you that noone actually saw the aircraft strike the Pentagon is unrepentently lying through their teeth. There were HUNDREDS of eyewitnesses interviewed and many of them specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon:

Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack

Please bear in mind that I'm not here to humiliate you or to make you feel bad. My purpose here is to show you that these damned fool 9/11 conspiracy web sites are deliberately spreading lies and distortions to get people all paranoid over shadows so they can turn around and sell your their, "I'll tell you the REAL truth if you give me you rmoney" knicknacks. Their deliberately concealing the information in the 9/11 report from you and selectively choosing the handful of eyewitnesses that can be used to embellish their ridiculous flyover claims is a sterling case in point. Between, "no interceptors were scrambled", "all the bomb dogs were withdrawn", "no arab names were on the flight manifests" and now "noone saw the plane hit the Pentagon" I daresay that the entire conspiracy movement is based upon rubbish being passed around on the Internet as fact.

You yourself certainly aren't stupid, you're simply the victim in their confidence game.

Originally posted by benoni
There are more posts on this thread from believers in the Official Fairytale than there are from those who question it......

The Pentagon posts always seem to attract the "believers".......

Wonder why?????

A sensitivity perhaps....????

No, it's more the case you "no planes hit the Pentagon" people are a minority within a minority. Most of your fellow conspiracy theorists here (I.E. Bonez) think you're just repeating gov't disinformation released to discredit the conspiracy movement as a whole so they're not going to come to your rescue.

Thus, it isn't the case that the pool got larger. It's really the case that there are fewer swimmers in the pool now.

reply to post by walman


Again ....

Since when do cruise missiles come equipped with seats

Firefighters Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz "spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached."

Or is this a deluxe model.....

reply to post by winston_jones


You referred in an earlier post to AA 77's flight data recorder supposedly showing that the cockpit door was closed all the time. You might therefore be interested in this item by rschop on democratic underground who has obviously investigated the matter carefully and quotes sources :-

www.democraticunderground.com...

You will see that he concludes that the cockpit door parameter was never recorded on this aircraft. I understand the fdr includes records of 11 flights prior to the fatal one and it would obviously be absurd that the door was in fact never opened throughout any of those flights.

reply to post by Alfie1


Yes.

This red herring was resolved LAST YEAR!!! Yet, the "Pilotsfor9/11Truth" site still has that bogus "information" posted up on their pages. The deceit that spews from the keyboard of that "group" (let's be real...it is really ONE guy, who either has very little real understanding of aviation, or willfully LIES to keep his silly website getting attention)...from that "group" seems intentionally disingenuous, for this subject is NOT the only nugget of nonsense that they(he) spout(s).

The link to "democraticunderground", and the post therein, uses some acronyms that might confuse (there are always a ton of them, in aviation especially...you get used to it, after a while). "DFDAU" is Digital Flight Data Acquisition Unit.

Not sure if the person who posted in the link mentioned that, or if the NTSB FDR report he/she linked to did, so adding this tidbit for clarity.

Originally posted by thedman

Since when do cruise missiles come equipped with seats?

Most be a new model.......

Must be American Airlines trying to cut back on aircraft costs, cruise missiles are cheaper!

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by thedman

Since when do cruise missiles come equipped with seats?

Most be a new model.......

Must be American Airlines trying to cut back on aircraft costs, cruise missiles are cheaper!

Wait a minute- those firemen never actually said what *size* the seats were that they found, did they? Maybe they were actually all doll-sized seats that would fit in a cruise missile...?

reply to post by weedwhacker


you know you can just keep on believing what you believe that the os is the truth...but personally you can keep on debumking cause the truth is slowly going to come out...and the truth does not lay with the OS...but hey that is just my opinion.



but a few ill trained Cessna pilots did not fly those jets into their targats...and if they did...then why would you need any more than a few weeks training to become a pilot....how far fetched is that....but all i see is a few...and it is jaut a few of the same ole debunkers trying hard to get people to follow the Os...where i see more and more and more people realizing the Os was not telling the truth in....so so so many ways.



but hey this guysays he couldn't do it....but your the expert here Weed....so i guess your an absolute ace and would believe you could do anything.

reply to post by plube


That video (NOT about the Pentagon, BTW) is apparently "his nibs" himself, "captain" (cough, cough) Rob Balsamo narrating....I only had to get as far as the first few minutes, when he brings up AGAIN the falsehood about "Mach tuck" in regards to United flight 175.

No, Mach tuck IS a very real situation that can develop...BUT, only when the airplane is ACTUALLY APPROACHING, OR EXCEEDING its critical Mach number.

Unfortunately, Balsamo's nonsense rarely gets any counter, because HE holds the reins over at his club website. His prattling on in that video is just the same, repeated rhetoric that he brings here, whether via his "public" name, or while wearing one of his sock screennames.

Here, you can see for yourself with this online Mach calculator: www.hochwarth.com...

Insert altitude above MSL (I was generous, and put in 1,000 feet. Heck, let's give "him" more benefit of the doubt, and use 10,000 feet (Will "UP" the Mach# a bit).

So, here are the parameters:

1,000 feet, KCAS (we will use the highest estimated, per various sources. Balsamo repeats the mantra of "150 above Vmo" constantly, so that'd be 510 Knots). (Vmo)360 + 150 = 510. Click the "Compute Mach/TAS" button, and voila'! Mach 0.78 (Two significant digits are sufficient).

The Mmo (Mach Max Operating) for the Boeing 757/767 is M0.86

Now, altering to (the overly generous) 10,000 feet, our handy-dandy calculator gives us M.90

That IS above Mmo --- however, it's also within the certificated "Max Dive Mach" number of 0.91 for the 767. In any case, at 10,000 feet, it wasn't yet going at 510 KCAS (or KIAS, for that matter. To be fair, the Airspeed Indicator only registers up to a max of 450 knots. The estimated speed is based on radar records, and also others have timed it based on the videos of the last few seconds before impact).

From an outside source:

The FAA requires that a margin of no less than .05 mach exist between Mc and Md. Md for the 767 is 0.91 so 0.91-0.05 = Mmo 0.86

The UK CAA requires that the margin between Mc and Md be sufficient for an encounter with a head-on gust.

You can read the user's full post (form March, 2001 mind you!!) HERE to get fuller context. The UserName whose snippet I used posted there as "Expert".