Newly released, never-before aired, Pentagon post-impact video shows NO plane

a reply to: BobAthome

Well he just felt so compelled to get out there and help

I don't recall any reason the US started a war that has turned out to be true
so no
no benefit of the doubt
if they had proof they would have showed it
but no...
so, even the chimps that hack the voting machines wouldn't even believe the OS

Wasn't the "engine" found in the wreckage remarkably similar to that of Global Hawk, or UAV aka Drone?

a reply to: 1Providence1

Nope. The engines found were consistent with those found on board a 757.

This witness was told how to report what she saw?

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: 1Providence1

Nope. The engines found were consistent with those found on board a 757.

What was found was consistent with many things... not just 757's

originally posted by: Mamatus
reply to post by FirePiston

 

Physically impossible? Are you freaking kidding me?

Being a commercial pilot I can safely tell you that a plane can break the sound barrier when flying low. a passenger Jet that can fly at altitude at 400mph+ @ 40,000ft. can easily fly in the thicker air down lower.

Look up density altitude and do the calcs yourself. In all honesty that statement was the least defensible of all the "proof" I have seen re: 911. On that note I am done with you and wont bother to respond again. I have a rule, never argue with the unarmed.

Wow, way to hit and run there... That's a very cheap debating tactic, you know. It certainly doesn't help your credibility any.

So, Mr. Airline Pilot, for someone who claims they fly commercial planes, you do not appear to have much of an understanding of the basic principles of aeronautics. That's quite shocking really, if true. So, no offence, but I'm going to take your claim about being a pilot with a pinch of the old proverbial salt.

So... A passenger jet that can fly 400MPH+ at cruise altitude can do the same at near sea level?! Are you actually stating that poppycock with conviction and in seriousness?! The thickness of the air at low altitudes ABSOLUTELY affects and restricts the speed of a fixed wing aircraft. No Boeing Airliner is going to reach anywhere NEAR the kinds of speeds that have been claimed were achieved on 9/11 at those kinds of heights. According to the official story, those planes were doing over 550MPH at altitudes of 700ft and below. Now, those speeds are quite regular at 30'000ft+, but at 700ft and lower, keep dreaming.

The simple reason for this is that the air is so thick at lower altitudes, the engines on commercial airliners simply would not be able to cope with the highly increased airflow coupled with the density. They simply are not designed for this, plain and simple. A turbofan jet engine on a commercial plane is not going to be able to achieve or maintain those kinds of speeds because the mass airflow intake would not be sufficient enough, not by a bloody longshot. The plane would more than likely end up decelerating if you tried to stress it in this way, as the engines begin to struggle to suck the air in efficiently. It certainly would not be able to maintain thrust, and achieve cruising speeds: they are not fighter jets, they aren't built to perform these kinds of speeds or manoeuvres. All four of the 'supposed' aircraft speeds claimed by the official story are utterly ludicrous.

I have been studying aircraft accidents for decades and one thing you learn is to ditch the rule book, and the record book when dealing with accidents. The second and final decent of Egypt Air broke all the record books and stunned everyone with the speeds the craft obtained before it started to break up. The deliberate ploy of opposite ailerons and elevator positions used by the relief first officer, not only doomed the airplane but it caused it to accelerate to never before understood full throttle speeds. The airplane didn't invert and spin like most direct impact crashes and this led to unthoughtful decent speeds.

All Boeing and Airbus manufactured planes no longer allow one person to hold these settings and crash the airplane deliberately.

The saying 'an aircraft can't do that' is thrown out the window by anyone who studies these accidents.

That is why any argument about what a plane could and could not do on 9/11 is ignored.

a reply to: spooky24

The saying 'an aircraft can't do that' is thrown out the window by anyone who studies these accidents.

I would call BS on that..
pilotsfor911truth.org...
www.debunkingskeptics.com...
www.patriotsquestion911.com...

Maybe pilots just don't know the specs well enough, but they seem to think what happened that day was quite a feat.

Oh and those are called links spooky, you could have used one in your above post to reference the plane you are talking about that broke the records, unless this is from your super secret archive

I went ahead did a quick search to see if I could figure out what plane your were talking about, 990, it seems.
Which is far from a open and shut case....
How did the pilots climb out of that 16K foot drop... Didn't it just come out with flight 370 that if a pilot did that it would damn near kill every one?

Or was some one else controlling that plane.... ?

originally posted by: spooky24
I have been studying aircraft accidents for decades and one thing you learn is to ditch the rule book, and the record book when dealing with accidents. The second and final decent of Egypt Air broke all the record books and stunned everyone with the speeds the craft obtained before it started to break up. The deliberate ploy of opposite ailerons and elevator positions used by the relief first officer, not only doomed the airplane but it caused it to accelerate to never before understood full throttle speeds. The airplane didn't invert and spin like most direct impact crashes and this led to unthoughtful decent speeds.

All Boeing and Airbus manufactured planes no longer allow one person to hold these settings and crash the airplane deliberately.

The saying 'an aircraft can't do that' is thrown out the window by anyone who studies these accidents.

That is why any argument about what a plane could and could not do on 9/11 is ignored.

I disagree. EgyptAir Flight 990 is certainly not the record-breaker you claim it be. Indeed, the descent was fast, but exactly what happened and the exact speeds reached whilst the aircraft was still intact are widely debated. It has been claimed by some for instance that the aircraft reached a speed that would otherwise equate to being in free fall. This would actually strongly tend to indicate that the plane had disintegrated and was actually in pieces during the descent.

Personally, I don't concur with the free fall thesis; if you actually do the math properly, the speed of descent was actually averaging at about 240MPH, which is definitely aeronautically possible. A very steep, very fast dive, but well within the realms of physics and the science of flight. On 9/11, we are talking about planes achieving well over double that speed at very low altitude, and also not whilst in an uncontrollable dive. There is very little comparison to be made here. And as correctly stated by Sremmos80, the exact specifics of what happened with this flight is definitely not an open and shut affair. In a way, a lot like 9/11 in that regard.

And as a closing point, you talk as if there are no scientific laws impacting on these incidents. Stuff and nonsense. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, 'the saying "an aircraft can't do that" is thrown out of the window'... What do you even mean? That layman and scientists alike should start believing that unscientific things can happen to commercial planes? Where exactly are you coming from with this? I suppose if air crash investigators started thinking like that though, they'd be able to finish work and go home a hell of a lot earlier.

a reply to: gardener


Can you imagine being at work and the boss tells you that "we're going under, major accountancy errors have occurred. Only a miracle will save the company......." And then....

If this is "supposedly" a plane that did hit the pilots must be damn good as to hit the building and the ground at the exact same time. Think about it. They didn't undershoot and hit the ground first and then the pentagon. Not did they overshoot and take out more of the roof carrying debris over the building and into the centre of the building. Nope. These pilot schooled "terrorists" flew stealthily at high speeds going unnoticed and absolutely incinerated on DIRECT impact with the pentagon. Ignorance is bliss. Open up your minds, what is more plausible?

I disagree. EgyptAir Flight 990 is certainly not the record-breaker you claim it be. Indeed, the descent was fast, but exactly what happened and the exact speeds reached whilst the aircraft was still intact are widely debated.

Yes, it is widely debated. People here think all you need to do is search google for the Holy Grail about anything that happens in the world-including airplane accidents. Just does not work that way. In the case of EgyptAir the Egyptian government vehemently disagreed with the conclusion of suicide by the relief first Officer. There own investigation claimed the ailerons and elevator positions were due to faulty maintenance. Their report insist the decent plunge after the recovery to 16,000 speeds reached and exceeded mach 86 and faster due to the poor maintenance preformed on the hydraulics that control the ailerons and elevator movements. The opposite settings caused the unheard of decent speeds.

The conclusion of the NTSB report points out the Egyptian government's findings however the report doesn't disagree with them-just points them out.

The problem is the idea that momentum alone could account for 990's more than a mile and a half in gained altitude. This is utterly ludicrous to anyone who understands the laws of physics, much less anyone who has flown or seen a commercial jetliner like the 767 ... In fact, the radar data was so at odds with common sense that it's accuracy was initially disputed by various aviation experts.

The Egyptian government is correct-in the NTSB explanation the RFO shutdown the engines right after the autopilot was disengaged. If that is true then how did the airplane pull out of the dive and regain altitude. The weightlessness condition in the cockpit prevented movement by either the pilot or the RFO due to the g force from the first dive.

There is no answer for this and it's doubtful there ever will be-science can't explain it.

By the way the Egyptian Air Ministry complete report, with scientific data supporting their conclusion, is not on the internet-you have to buy it.

If you have studied the Medical Examiners report based on the autopsy results of the coroner in the case of TWA Flight 800 you would understand why there is no impossible in terms of aircraft accidents. It will haunt me for the rest of my life.

a reply to: Mamatus

All aircraft have an onboard, very well protected power supply called an APU (auxiliary power unit)
see: www.bing.com... a93040b2fce49b

nothing of an APU was apparent in the debris... even though the APU was encased and protected by the fuselage & mainframe... so, I question if a commercial passenger jet was involved at the Pentagon

The 3 F16s from Langley were supposed to be chasing 93 Far to the North East of DC as 77 approached the Pentagon from the South West,but 93 had been 41 minutes delayed departing & had not been hijacked yet when the diversion was needed.This forced the conspirators to come up with a different excuse to divert Langley's F16s North East: Phantom 11. However,NORAD had not yet figured out how to cover for 93 and made the mistake of making numerous & repeated statements about having scrambled Langley because of 93 (2nd public hearing 5/23/03) though 93 had not even been hijacked Yet! NORAD officials repeated the original plan even though things hadn't gone according to plan,an inadvertent confession:911 was an inside job.

You know, So many theories abound about whether there was a plane or not, or what happened to the plane when it hit the building, where did the debris go, how did the plane disapear into the building. Etc.Etc..

I was thinking, alot of this could be cleared up pretty quickly with a test?

Boeing does all kinds of tests on there planes, smashing them into things etc.. For safety etc..

I wonder if they ever, or anyone has thought to smash a plane into a steel building like the WTC?

If anything it should be done to test buildings and planes incase these things happen again in the future.

If we were able to see that and know what would happen it would clear the air on a lot of these theories methinks!

originally posted by: JohnKeel66
You know, So many theories abound about whether there was a plane or not, or what happened to the plane when it hit the building, where did the debris go, how did the plane disapear into the building. Etc.Etc..

I was thinking, alot of this could be cleared up pretty quickly with a test?

Boeing does all kinds of tests on there planes, smashing them into things etc.. For safety etc..

I wonder if they ever, or anyone has thought to smash a plane into a steel building like the WTC?

If anything it should be done to test buildings and planes incase these things happen again in the future.

If we were able to see that and know what would happen it would clear the air on a lot of these theories methinks!

Mythbusters...

originally posted by: spooky24

Yes, it is widely debated. People here think all you need to do is search google for the Holy Grail about anything that happens in the world-including airplane accidents. Just does not work that way. In the case of EgyptAir the Egyptian government vehemently disagreed with the conclusion of suicide by the relief first Officer. There own investigation claimed the ailerons and elevator positions were due to faulty maintenance. Their report insist the decent plunge after the recovery to 16,000 speeds reached and exceeded mach 86 and faster due to the poor maintenance preformed on the hydraulics that control the ailerons and elevator movements. The opposite settings caused the unheard of decent speeds.

The conclusion of the NTSB report points out the Egyptian government's findings however the report doesn't disagree with them-just points them out.

The problem is the idea that momentum alone could account for 990's more than a mile and a half in gained altitude. This is utterly ludicrous to anyone who understands the laws of physics, much less anyone who has flown or seen a commercial jetliner like the 767 ... In fact, the radar data was so at odds with common sense that it's accuracy was initially disputed by various aviation experts.

The Egyptian government is correct-in the NTSB explanation the RFO shutdown the engines right after the autopilot was disengaged. If that is true then how did the airplane pull out of the dive and regain altitude. The weightlessness condition in the cockpit prevented movement by either the pilot or the RFO due to the g force from the first dive.

There is no answer for this and it's doubtful there ever will be-science can't explain it.

By the way the Egyptian Air Ministry complete report, with scientific data supporting their conclusion, is not on the internet-you have to buy it.

If you have studied the Medical Examiners report based on the autopsy results of the coroner in the case of TWA Flight 800 you would understand why there is no impossible in terms of aircraft accidents. It will haunt me for the rest of my life.

Yet, this is still just an opinion based on an emotional reaction to highly disputed data. I have to again disagree with the idea that "science cannot explain it". It's completely fine for you to make this highly generalised, and dare it say, rather illogical assertion, but that doesn't mean there is actually any weight or substance behind it. After all, I very much doubt that "science can't explain this" is the opinion of many actual air crash investigators, scientists and physicists who have looked into this case.

The theory that the aircraft pulled out of the dive is widely debated. To be honest, it's been a while since I looked into EgyptAir Flight 990, but as memory serves, most investigators feel that the data graphs that suggest this aren't an accurate representation of the event. And as we have some conflicting graphs (particularly some that have been disputed in many different circles), it is difficult to paint a full picture of what happened.

As for the descent speed; as I stated, there is enough data available to do some realistic calculations for the speed of the aircraft; and doing the maths indicates a speed that continually averaged at 240MPH, give or take. And again, if we are comparing this incident to 9/11, that speed is nothing at all on the speeds officially reported on for the four hijacked flights. Aeronautically speaking, at the least, the descent speed of Flight 990 is within the realms of the possible. The 9/11 flights speeds are definitely not within the realms of the possible.

In one way, I could agree with your statement that "there is no impossible in terms of aircraft accidents". And that is, when TPTB want to create a bogus story to try to convince people that the impossible is possible. Only in that sense would that be true.

originally posted by: JohnKeel66
You know, So many theories abound about whether there was a plane or not, or what happened to the plane when it hit the building, where did the debris go, how did the plane disapear into the building. Etc.Etc..

I was thinking, alot of this could be cleared up pretty quickly with a test?

Boeing does all kinds of tests on there planes, smashing them into things etc.. For safety etc..

I wonder if they ever, or anyone has thought to smash a plane into a steel building like the WTC?

If anything it should be done to test buildings and planes incase these things happen again in the future.

If we were able to see that and know what would happen it would clear the air on a lot of these theories methinks!

I sort of agree with what you are saying in theory, but the thing is, we already know what happens (or what, according to the accepted laws of Physics, should happen) when a small, hollow, fairly lightweight object impacts at speed with something massive, solid and dense. The larger, and stronger of the two objects is always going to fair better in a collision. Hell, you've probably seen car crash videos. So, what do we observe when a car impacts with a wall or a barrier at high speed? Instant deceleration of the crashing object; crushing, bending and distortion of the crashing object; pieces of the crashing object snapping, shearing or breaking off upon impact; to name but a few obvious examples.

Remember, we should always be witnessing an observance of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion when it comes to one object colliding with another. In layman's terms, this means that whichever object is moving has no bearing on the outcome. In other words, a large steel and concrete building travelling at nearly 600MPH collides with a stationary plane. What is going to be the outcome? I don't know about anyone else, but my money is on the building. That plane is going to be minced! That plane is NOT going to cut a hole through the building, like a hot knife through butter! It doesn't matter what way you slice it (pun intended)! I mean, we're dealing with a hollow aluminium tube here (with the exception of the engines, obviously). Hell, the nose of a commercial airliner is just a lightweight carbon composite! That's not piercing a massive steel box column! It's not going to be piercing ANYTHING! That nose is going to crumple. It's going to be flattened.

Yes, I agree you do need to study the NSTB report and the Egypt Air Minister's report. Not read them but study them.

The primary radar data indicated that the airplane climbed for about 40 seconds after the FDR stopped recording before it rapidly descended again and impacted the ocean. Therefore, the relief first officer and captain had about 83 and 69 seconds, respectively, from the time the airplane began its initial nose-down pitch until it began its second (final) descent,

The airplane recovered it's dive which exceeded mach 86 to a level of 23,000msl from the 13,000msl it was diving through.

recognizes that the simulations could not duplicate the near 0 G loads recorded by the FDR during the accident sequence and that these levels prohibited both crew members from revaluing and reducing the elevators position.

Explain away. You should not criticize the evaluation of others without the studying facts. The Egypt Air Ministry totally rejects this conclusion which leads to my conclusion that the NTSB went into the investigation with a predetermined conclusion. They did not simulate other sequences without the viewpoint that the RFO plunged the airplane deliberately into the ocean-at the same time leaving open the question about recovering from 0g dive due to excessive mach speeds and pull the airplane up almost 10,000 feet. Science couldn't explain it so they dropped it. Happens all the time in aircraft accidents. The medical examiners report based on the conclusion of the Coroner in the case of TWA flight 800 is also unexplained-and understandable no one wants to talk about it because it's simply so horrific.

Again, you study enough airplane accidents you will find many cases that science can't explain.