pentagon pilot

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Prove it.

You made that up.

You mean you know exactly how many times he practiced this flight? I'd like to see your log of his simulator time.

YOU are the one claiming it was "100's" of times. Not I. Please support your claim with evidence.

As far as proof, my proof is the hole in the side of the Pentagon. You say it was impossible, yet it happened. Clearly my story is superior since it reflects facts in the real world instead of the science fiction stories that some here like to make up as if they were truth.

Perhaps you didn't understand the point but that's ok. It takes a while for some people.

I never denied that physical damage existed.

I have simply demonstrated how it's irreconcilable with the eyewitness accounts, security video AND the government provided FDR that depicts the aeronautically required descent angle due to the steep decline after the Navy Annex.

If you wish to deny this evidence you have to address it directly and provide a sufficient rebuttal or else you are simply sticking your head in the sand.

You claim there were bombs faking it. Where's your proof? You don't have it. It's just an idea in your head.

I'll admit that is a hypothesis. But it's based off all the evidence mentioned above. If you can not reconcile the evidence with the official story you are required to come up with a hypothesis based on said evidence.

Ignoring the evidence will not do.

this would have been impossible for a military drone to pull off let alone an inexperienced terrorist pilot.

And yet despite your doubt, it did happen. Reality doesn't require your belief in it's existance for it to be true.

What happened?

Certainly no 90 ton jet approached and hit the building with the required descent angle reported from the FDR.

The physical damage is irreconcilable with this.

It's ok if you don't accept the pre-planted explosives hypothesis.....but since we both agree that the damage really did exist; what is your hypothesis that is reconcilable with the evidence I just mentioned?

Originally posted by deltaboy

Reality: As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the #ty pilot he by all accounts was.

Thanks for the post deltaboy. Whoever wrote this clearly has no idea what he is talking about and clearly did not read the Flight Data Recorder tabular data. There were no loops of any kind and there was only one spiraling turn that was performed with the utmost precision for the 330 degrees of its profile. There wasn't one instance of control reversal to correct for undershooting or overshooting. The bank angle was consistant. Because of the speed in excess of Vmo the autopilot would not have been usable because of rate limitations and the FDR shows that it was clicked off at 7000 feet prior to the descent.

Not only was the turn superbly coordinated, the descent from 7000 feet was hand flown with great precision to arrive at the Pentagon just several feet above the ground.

I would respectfully and strongly suggest that anybody wishing to debate American Airlines Flight #77 download the tabular flight data here:

z9.invisionfree.com...

and learn how to read it. That way you have a knowledge base from which you can debate. While "loops and rolls and turns" sounds nice, it just didn't happen.

From Pilots For Truth:

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.

To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot.

I don't know who this guy is that you are quoting but he obviously never read the tabular data from the FDR.

I might also point out that descending through 18,000 feet whoever was flying set the co-pilots altimeter first to Reagan International barometric pressure. Then 30 seconds later set the pilots altimeter. 3 questions:

Where did the pilot get Reagan International current barometric pressure (he was not in radio contact with anybody)?

Why set the altimeters? He's going to crash!

And if Hani is alone, why set the other altimeter?

Thanks for the post deltaboy, it was greatly appreciated.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by dbates
No doubt the person flying the plane in to the Pentagon flew the same path several 100 times in a simulator.

But unfortunately for the official story this aeronautic requirement can not be reconciled with the physical damage or the security video which depicts the "object" perfectly level:

Craig--What is with the light change in the security video loop. Has that been discussed before? Seems like some sort of glare.

but thet strangest were the ligthpoles that were taken down by fligth77
how did the plane was capable of ripping the poles from the ground(the poles dont even show damage on the point of impact)
i think that probably the plane wings would rip apart by hitting the poles like this pole that was hit by a plane and damaged the wing of the same plane


and one thing about the pentagon security video is the flash, what could have cause that flash was a depleted uranium warhead , One noticeable aspect of a hit by a Depleted Uranium missile is a white flash , like the one at the pentagon , and the reason to that hole made by the "plane" to be so neat and small is cause a depleted uranium warhead goes through metal or concrete relatively easily because it actually burns its way through, rather than relying on having to force through using its momentum ,burns itself out in the process, leaving no visible remains, but a cloud of toxic dust i dont know if any of the firemen etc reported any healt complications after the pentagon attack , sorry if im getting Off-topic , but this is just something that came to my head now

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by dbates
No doubt the person flying the plane in to the Pentagon flew the same path several 100 times in a simulator.

But unfortunately for the official story this aeronautic requirement can not be reconciled with the physical damage or the security video which depicts the "object" perfectly level:

Craig--What is with the light change in the security video loop. Has that been discussed before? Seems like some sort of glare.

why is one frame of the video missing(the moment of the impact) , and why does it say 12 september on the date?

[edit on 29-10-2007 by dracodie]

reply to post by Leo Strauss


Could be the auto focus due to the quick light change from the fireball.

I have no doubt that this data has been manipulated although I have no reason to believe that the fireball isn't real.

From:

911woodybox.blogspot.com...

The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center.142 The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.

In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or were looking toward the west. Although the Command Center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an all points bulletin to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets. American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C.144

Flight 77 was not detected by any controller until it was picked up at 9:32 by Dulles TRACON controllers. (The only man who knew its position at 9:25 was Norman Mineta...)

The altimeters on American Airlines Flight #77 were reset like this:

z9.invisionfree.com...

30.23 in.hg. at 09:24:16 on the co-pilots side.

30 seconds later:

30.24 in.hg. at 09.24.54 on the pilots side.

As Hani was not talking to any Air Traffic Control center I propose that it was Norman Mineta who gave Hani Hanjour the altimeter setting as he is the only man who knew where American Airlines Flight #77 was at that exact time: 09:25.

I respectfully request that you forgive me for this sarcastic post. I doubt if Mineta knows what a barometric pressure setting is.

Thanks.

Hi everyone. This is my first post on this website. I'm excited to be here.

I'm not sure this applies to any of the other flights, but I think that Flight 11 did have a highly skilled pilot on board as a passenger. I hesitate to mention his name out of respect to his family, but most of his career was in the military. I'm not saying he flew Flight 11 into the tower, but he certainly had the necessary skill to put that plane anywhere the laws of physics would allow.

What's sort of interesting about him is that he came from the same small town in which lived a person by the same name as the creative partner of passenger David Angell, creator of Cheers and Fraiser. Anyone remember the apartment door number and the phone call about AA Flight 11 on Fraiser?

What's funny to, is that Rumsfeld's office is at the side of the Pentagon were the plane was originally coming from. Yet the pilot supposedly flew around the Pentagon with an impossible manouvre and crashed into a vacant part of the Pentagon. It just doesn't add up.

Don't forget about the nearly impossible 5G turn that preceded the expert low level approach. I keep hearing in my head: "shock and awe" "shock and awe" I am really starting to think we the people were the real targets of that "shock and awe" campaign Time to stop reeling and find firm footing. Something smells rotten in Denmark.

I have read many posts about Hani's extensive time in a simulator. My question is, does anyone have any documentation proving he rented simulator time?

People say that the pilots spent many hours practicing in simulators but have no concrete evidence supporting this claim. Am I missing something?

reply to post by JohnChurchin


Here's the link to the Zacharias Moussaoui trial exhibit. it shows Hani's logbook and jet tech receipts.

reply to post by Boone 870


Thank You Boone. Maybe it's just me but I don't really consider 21 hours in a simulator, a lot. Then again, I am not a pilot. Perhaps the pilots on the board can let us know if 21 hours would be sufficient to be able to conduct the manuvers credited to Mr. Hanjour.

reply to post by JohnChurchin




Notice in his logbook that he only has 255 hours at the time it was photocopied. That leaves another 350 hours, approximately, before he killed himself.

reply to post by Boone 870


Yeah, I noticed that. So I guess the EVIDENCE submitted by the Government shows 255 hours of flight time. Thanks for the information.

Originally posted by CyberTruth

Don't forget about the nearly impossible 5G turn that preceded the expert low level approach.

“G’s” are measured by the FDR and presented in the data readout in columns A (vertical) B (longitudinal) and C (lateral), and are sampled 8 times a second.

Beginning at the descent from 7000 I find no vertical “G” force higher than 1.723. Here are the 3 highest “g” excursions:

Line Time “G” Altitude

36623 9:35:16 1.723 5460
36945 9:35:56 1.723 4800
37794 9:37:42 1.716 270 (590 agl) 4 seconds before alleged crash.

“G’s” in a steady turn holding altitude are figured by 1 over the cosine of the angle of bank. If you were banked at 60 degrees, the cosine of 60 is .5 so you take 1 over .5 and the “G's” to maintain altitude in a 60 degrees bank are 2.

The bank angle for American Flight 77 during the 330 degree turn and descent from 7000 feet varied from zero to 41.8 degrees with an average of around 25 degrees of bank. The 41.8 degrees of bank occurred at line 36616 09:35:15 with a ‘G” force of 1.49

Pulling 2 “G” takes quite an effort. Transport category airliners certificated under FAR Part 25 are designed to a maximum of 2.0 G’s (flaps up) and that figure is rarely seen and then only in turbulence.

I see no evidence that whoever was flying this airplane pulled anymore than 1.723 “G’s” or banked steeper than 41.8 degrees. In other words it was professionally flown and very well coordinated turning descent.

Thanks for the post, your input is appreciated. :

Hi johnlear I have a few questions I'd like to ask you if I may.

In one of your posts you assert that there was no crash, do you honestly believe this in spite of the video clearly showing a crash, and the plane wreckage that is consistent with a Boeing 757? (there are 3 links there in case you miss them: 1. 2. 3.)

And why is it that you only seem to cite evidence from other conspiracy sites, rather than the official sources of the reports them selves? It would be much easier for people to scrutinise the information available if they were linked to the official sources rather than conspiracy sites that are notorious for misrepresenting information.

I've always wondered what explanation conspiracy theorists would give to the disappearance of those on board Flight 77 if it was not Flight 77 that crashed into the pentagon? and whether they'd have the audacity to call the families of those on board Flight 77 liars to their faces? Knowing full well that they could be wrong.

Originally posted by monoclear

Hi johnlear I have a few questions I'd like to ask you if I may.

In one of your posts you assert that there was no crash, do you honestly believe this in spite of the video clearly showing a crash, and the connsistent with a Boeing 757 (there are 3 links there in case you miss them:

Thanks for the post monoclear. In my humble, but professional opinion no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon. Not on 911. Not ever.

The people that think a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon are misinformed by mass media obfuscation, planted evidence, false and misleading videos (primarily the Purdue University, and the Pentagon securirty camera one) and lack of understanding of how big and complex a Boeing 757 really is. From what I have been able to figure out, people think a Boeing 757 could just burn up in a burning building fueled by nothing other than the fuel onboard and the desks, carpets and computers in the Pentagon.

If I could just take some of these people, by the hand, down the assembly line of a Boeing 757 and show them how that piece of machinery is put together I am sure that they would quit thinking that an Boeing 757 burned up in the Pentagon.

And why is it that you only seem to cite evidence from other conspiracy sites, rather than the official sources of the reports them selves?

Other than using a few pictures that are available all over the internet, I use the Flight 77 data readout from Pilots 4 Truth only because its handy.

It would be much easier for people to scrutinise the information available if they were linked to the official sources rather than conspiracy sites that are notorious for misrepresenting information.

I have seen a definite trend of valuable information disappearing over the years since 911. I know that many sites have been accused of notorious misrepresentation, but I am not sure if that 'notorious misrepresentation' might be better phrased: "differing opinions."

I've always wondered what explanation conspiracy theorists would give to the disappearance of those on board Flight 77 if it was not Flight 77 that crashed into the pentagon? and whether they'd have the audacity to call the families of those on board Flight 77 liars to their faces? Knowing full well that they could be wrong.

This statement falls under the heading of "shooting the messenger". I didn't cause those people to disappear. They may be dead and they may not be dead. I have never seen any insurance claims/suits covering any passenger loss on any airplane involved in 911. Why? Somebody is getting paid off to keep quiet. Any suit involving 911 passenger loss would lead to disaster for the government because it would lead right back to them.

Now I would like to specifically address you statement whether or not "conspiracy theorists...would have the audacity to call the families of those on board Flight 77 liars to their faces."

I am a conspiracy theorist but I am answering only for myself. why would I call the families of those on boards liars? Their loved ones are definitely missing. Do you think that conspiracy theorists think the families of the missing loved ones are faking the disappearance? I would respectfullly request that you clarify this point. As a conspiracy theorist I am saying there was no crash at the Pentagon of a Boeing 757 but I don't know where the passengers or the plane are.

The passengers may be dead but there is no proof of that. Certainly government DNA tests are no proof since they themselves are behind 911. Or were used as patsies in a false flag operation. But if that were true they certainly haven't owned up to the possibility. But in any case there is no evidence that anybody died in an airplane crash in the Pentagon. It didn't happen. But the passengers and crew are missing and haven't been seen since the time of the alleged crash. So they may be alive. They may be dead. But I definitely wouldn't call the family members of those missing liars and I can't understand why you would propose this?

Perhaps you could enlighten me? Thanks.

And thanks for your post it is greatly appreciated.

The problem John is that you like many others only ask enough questions so as to keep a perpetual conspiracy going. Once you try to put all the conspiracy claims together, they become a great big tangled conflict that debunks itself. That's why people stick to the motto of "just asking questions". Because i one tried to create a complete picture with any of these conspiracy beliefs they would be forced to prove themselves wrong. Case in point, the missing passengers. You don't want to call the families liars because that would make one look bad. yet many of the claims made lead no other conclusion BUT that family members are lying. If one were to actually try to research what happened to passengers they claim weren't at the Pentagon, then it leads to even greater conflicts.

It can be pretty safe to say they boarded the planes. They were seen off, there were witnesses. Some made phone calls from the plane. So somehow we are expected to believe that they were switched out in flight with another plane without anyone seeing, and then something else crashed at teh scene, yet the parts for the actual plane were placed at the scene the very second of the impact, and the bodies places there as well as their belongings. Or of course everyone involved was simply lying. but then you get into the paradox of where the CT side claims only a few people were involved, and then for this claim, it required 1000s.

So as you can see, the reason for trying to play messenger is to avoid having to confront the may paradoxes that would result in explaining ones self or doing more than asking only questions that lead to a pre-determined answer. And then when asked questions that point to some of these paradoxes, jumping to another line of questioning and pretending they are unrelated.

It's a clever game to maintain an infinite conspiracy. I am willing to bet that there isn't a single thing that ever happens that you do not think is a conspiracy. Or perhaps you could list some of the major events that have happened such as terrorist attacks, etc that were not some kind of inside job.

The truth is that this is simply a type o defense mechanism. Many of us cannot confront the fact that life is full of chaos, and therefore must create some all powerful, all knowing being that controls everything so as explain everything bad that happens. because without this defense mechanism, one is forced to confront complete uncertainty and the possibility that death could easily be around any corner and with no purpose at all. having to deal with the possibility of dying with no purpose is much like facing death itself. Much easier to pretend there is some kind of reasoning behind it.

PS - I mean that with the utmost respect.

[edit on 30-10-2007 by snoopy]

reply to post by johnlear


I don't think I could put it much better than snoopy did, I certainly couldn't put it as politely, and after reading some of your postings around this forum (such as ones regarding holograms) I think it would be a waste of time to even bother trying.

The fact that people respect you as some sort of seasoned expert astounds and baffles me, although the fact that ATS chooses to endorse a person such as yourself is very telling of this site's motives.

Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence and conjecture as proof that your opinion is correct? No? Didn't think so. Intelligent people rely on logic and reality to judge what they see, not hearsay and delusion. You can parade your self around as a 'professional' flashing your badge of honour like a member of some exclusive club all you like, the only people you're fooling are the gullible and misguided. Now tell me, what makes you a better conspiracy to be duped by than the government?

I'm sure certain staff or moderators will happily ban this account as soon as they realise who I am, but that just shows exactly what this site is, a business that makes money from exploiting people's fear and fixation with cloaks and daggers, and of course paranoid delusionals are far better for such a business than rational thinkers.

There are a few moderators who are quite intelligent and seem genuinely interested in striving for truth, but they seem to have little influence on this site's policy of supporting sensationalist delusion and misinformation campaigns.