|
Retro Fit
|
 |
« Reply #120 on: April 21, 2008, 02:49:40 PM » |
|
A fact frequently cited as evidence that the aircraft that attacked the Pentagon on 9/11/01 was not Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is that the aircraft tracked by air traffic controllers made a spectacular spiral dive, losing 7000 feet and turning 270 degrees in about 2.5 minutes -- a maneuver alleged to be impossible for a 757. A September 12, 2001 CBS News report described the maneuver:
Radar shows that Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.
Air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien told ABC News that the maneuver was not one expected of a jetliner:
The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. 1
However, the fact that the plane was being flown in a manner not typical for a jetliner does not mean it was not a jetliner. A 757 is capable of rather extreme maneuvers: It is capable of taking off on one engine, and can execute pitch accelerations of over 3.5 Gs (gravities) as demonstrated by the following incident report of an IcelandAir 757-200:
REPORT 7/2003 - Date: 22 January 2003
serious incident to icelandair BOEING 757-200 at oslo airport gardermoen norway 22 january 2002
...
1.1.14.5 At this time the First Officer called out PULL UP! - PULL UP!. The GPWS aural warnings of TERRAIN and then TOO LOW TERRAIN were activated. Both pilots were active at the control columns and a maximum up input was made. A split between left and right elevator was indicated at this time. It appears the split occurred due to both pilots being active at the controls. The pilots did not register the aural warnings. During the dive the airspeed increased to 251 kt and the lowest altitude in the recovery was 321 ft radio altitude with a peaked load factor of +3.59 gs. 2
How does this apply to the 2.5 minute 270-degree spiral turn? The G forces produced by such a turn can be calculated using the following formula.
RCF = 0.001118 * r * N^2
where
RCF = Relative Centrifugal Force (gravities)
r = rotation radius (meters)
N = rotation speed (revolutions per minute)
If the plane were traveling at 400 miles per hour it would travel 16.666 miles, or 26,821 meters, in 2.5 minutes. Assuming it was traveling in a circular arc, it would trace out 3/4ths of a circle with a 35,761-meter circumference, giving a rotation radius of 5,691 meters and rotation speed of 0.3 rotations per minute. Plugging those values into the above equation, we obtain a centrifugal force of 0.5726 Gs -- hardly a problem for a 757 whose rated G limits are over two.
Also cited as evidence against 757 involvement in the attack is the shallow descent angle of the aircraft as it made its final approach of the Pentagon. Photographs show no signs of gouging of the lawn by a 757's low-hanging engines, even though direct impact damage was limited to the first and second floors of the building. How could such a large aircraft be flown so close to the ground, and with such precision?
Two distinct questions are implicit in the previous one.
* Were alleged hijackers capable of piloting the airliner through the maneuvers?
* Could a 757-200 perform the maneuvers?
Hani Hanjour may not have been up to the task, but a 757's flight control computer seems sufficient. It's equipped with radar altimeters and accurate GPS monitors for precise altitude and position tracking. It can analyze and respond to conditions hundreds of times per second. Examples of the extreme capabilities of fly-by-wire systems are reverse swept-wing aircraft, which are inherently unstable and require rapid adjustment of the plane's control surfaces. After further scrutiny of the latest evidence I will say that the absence of abundant public evidence of the remains of Flight 77 is suspicious, but it is not evidence the jetliner did not crash there.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 21, 2008, 04:33:09 PM by Retro Fit »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reaganite
|
|
« Reply #121 on: April 21, 2008, 03:31:24 PM » |
|
A fact frequently cited as evidence that the aircraft that attacked the Pentagon on 9/11/01 was not Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is that the aircraft tracked by air traffic controllers made a spectacular spiral dive, losing 7000 feet and turning 270 degrees in about 2.5 minutes -- a maneuver alleged to be impossible for a 757. A September 12, 2001 CBS News report described the maneuver:
Radar shows that Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.
Air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien told ABC News that the maneuver was not one expected of a jetliner:
The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. 1
However, the fact that the plane was being flown in a manner not typical for a jetliner does not mean it was not a jetliner. A 757 is capable of rather extreme maneuvers: It is capable of taking off on one engine, and can execute pitch accelerations of over 3.5 Gs (gravities) as demonstrated by the following incident report of an IcelandAir 757-200:
REPORT 7/2003 - Date: 22 January 2003
serious incident to icelandair BOEING 757-200 at oslo airport gardermoen norway 22 january 2002
...
1.1.14.5 At this time the First Officer called out PULL UP! - PULL UP!. The GPWS aural warnings of TERRAIN and then TOO LOW TERRAIN were activated. Both pilots were active at the control columns and a maximum up input was made. A split between left and right elevator was indicated at this time. It appears the split occurred due to both pilots being active at the controls. The pilots did not register the aural warnings. During the dive the airspeed increased to 251 kt and the lowest altitude in the recovery was 321 ft radio altitude with a peaked load factor of +3.59 gs. 2
How does this apply to the 2.5 minute 270-degree spiral turn? The G forces produced by such a turn can be calculated using the following formula.
RCF = 0.001118 * r * N^2
where
RCF = Relative Centrifugal Force (gravities)
r = rotation radius (meters)
N = rotation speed (revolutions per minute)
If the plane were traveling at 400 miles per hour it would travel 16.666 miles, or 26,821 meters, in 2.5 minutes. Assuming it was traveling in a circular arc, it would trace out 3/4ths of a circle with a 35,761-meter circumference, giving a rotation radius of 5,691 meters and rotation speed of 0.3 rotations per minute. Plugging those values into the above equation, we obtain a centrifugal force of 0.5726 Gs -- hardly a problem for a 757 whose rated G limits are over two.
Final Approach
Also cited as evidence against 757 involvement in the attack is the shallow descent angle of the aircraft as it made its final approach of the Pentagon. Photographs show no signs of gouging of the lawn by a 757's low-hanging engines, even though direct impact damage was limited to the first and second floors of the building. How could such a large aircraft be flown so close to the ground, and with such precision?
Two distinct questions are implicit in the previous one.
* Were alleged hijackers capable of piloting the airliner through the maneuvers?
* Could a 757-200 perform the maneuvers?
Hani Hanjour may not have been up to the task, but a 757's flight control computer seems sufficient. It's equipped with radar altimeters and accurate GPS monitors for precise altitude and position tracking. It can analyze and respond to conditions hundreds of times per second. Examples of the extreme capabilities of fly-by-wire systems are reverse swept-wing aircraft, which are inherently unstable and require rapid adjustment of the plane's control surfaces. After further scrutiny of the latest evidence I will say that the absence of abundant public evidence of the remains of Flight 77 is suspicious, but it is not evidence the jetliner did not crash there.
wait wait wait are you posting this and trying to use it as evidence a plane di dnot crash into the pentagon? Did you even read it?? are you still holding onto the looney idea that flight 77 did not crash into the pentagon??? Seriously?? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You get what you pay for America... Welcome to the Obamanation.....
|
|
|
|
Retro Fit
|
|
« Reply #122 on: April 21, 2008, 04:37:18 PM » |
|
wait wait wait are you posting this and trying to use it as evidence a plane di dnot crash into the pentagon?
Did you even read it??
are you still holding onto the looney idea that flight 77 did not crash into the pentagon??? Seriously?? Cant you read? I'm conceding. There does appear to be ample evidence to support the claim of a 757 actually hitting the pantagon.....I'm agreeing with you. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +137/-140
Posts: 1,724
Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics
|
|
« Reply #123 on: April 21, 2008, 06:29:02 PM » |
|
There does appear to be ample evidence to support the claim of a 757 actually hitting the pantagon Thank you Retro. I apologize for going loo-loo. I'm not saying "Official version" this or that, but yes it would appear pretty conclusive that the jet crashed there. I'm not going forget that. Ahk |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reaganite
|
|
« Reply #124 on: April 21, 2008, 09:03:53 PM » |
|
wait wait wait are you posting this and trying to use it as evidence a plane di dnot crash into the pentagon?
Did you even read it??
are you still holding onto the looney idea that flight 77 did not crash into the pentagon??? Seriously?? Cant you read? I'm conceding. There does appear to be ample evidence to support the claim of a 757 actually hitting the pantagon.....I'm agreeing with you. ahh ok... well what other questions do you have? that you think is lies? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You get what you pay for America... Welcome to the Obamanation.....
|
|
|
|
Pond Scum
|
|
« Reply #125 on: April 21, 2008, 11:56:39 PM » |
|
If the government has nothing to hide, why has it only released a few frames of video from the PENTAGON AND WHY HAS IT ONLY RELEASED ONE AIRPORT VIDEO, WHICH IS SUSPICIOUS?
It is easy to agree with whatever the establishment tells you, but thinking people ask why the government would withhold such vital evidence from the public? What is the reason for not releasing these videos?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Retro Fit
|
|
« Reply #126 on: April 22, 2008, 01:03:32 AM » |
|
If the government has nothing to hide, why has it only released a few frames of video from the PENTAGON AND WHY HAS IT ONLY RELEASED ONE AIRPORT VIDEO, WHICH IS SUSPICIOUS?
It is easy to agree with whatever the establishment tells you, but thinking people ask why the government would withhold such vital evidence from the public? What is the reason for not releasing these videos? Pond, I agree. There is no reason for them to withhold those videos. But, that, in itself doesnt prove anything one way or another. I'm at an impasse on this one. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +137/-140
Posts: 1,724
Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics
|
|
« Reply #127 on: April 22, 2008, 05:42:49 AM » |
|
If the government has nothing to hide, why has it only released a few frames of video from the PENTAGON AND WHY HAS IT ONLY RELEASED ONE AIRPORT VIDEO, WHICH IS SUSPICIOUS?
It is easy to agree with whatever the establishment tells you, but thinking people ask why the government would withhold such vital evidence from the public? What is the reason for not releasing these videos? I really wish you'd stop this childish accusation of “listening only to the establishment”-- if only for your own benefit. You sound very silly telling us that we simply, "agree with whatever the establishment tells us", when in fact we listen to what our reason tells us - regardless of whether we're right or wrong. And our reason tells us while we're up to our necks in flame and aircraft debris, that an air plane crashed there. I do not need the "establishment" to tell me that. Your insistence that we are all just goose-stepping with whatever we were "told" to believe, frankly, only tells us that this is actually the case with you. Because despite the 100 tons of aircraft pulled out of the Pentagon, and all the bodies, you are going to just listen to whatever your 9/11 conspiracy subculture establishment is telling you. When there's a flaming wreak sitting there I do not need the 'establishment" to tell me what happened, and it is the epitome of childishness to sit there and try and tease or chide people into taking you seriously by acting as though they were simply accepting whatever they were told to believe when it's really no different than seeing a car wreak -- I don't need the 'establishment' to tell me that it crashed. I'm not going by what the establishment says. I'm going by the 110 tons of flaming debris. but thinking people ask why the government would withhold such vital evidence from the public? Well compulsive people maybe. Perhaps as a thinking person you could enlighten me as to what, exactly, do you think is going to be on those videos that is going to change the fact that a jet liner crashed into the pentagon? Ahk |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 22, 2008, 06:23:23 AM by Ahkenaten »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +215/-216
Posts: 4,184
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #128 on: April 22, 2008, 09:29:57 AM » |
|
Well, Ahk, I personally don't want to stand next to 9/11 nutters if I can avoid it, but if nothing else, the fact that there are only 11 grainy pictures of a smeary blob ramming into the most important military structure in the US is kinda suspicous.
I'm not going to speculate as to why... but reason suggests that a building like the Pentagon has more security than a $30 gate camera some guy bought at "Securities 'R Us".
Again, if nothing else... it's suspicious.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
machioveli
|
|
« Reply #129 on: April 22, 2008, 09:50:14 AM » |
|
Well, Ahk, I personally don't want to stand next to 9/11 nutters if I can avoid it, but if nothing else, the fact that there are only 11 grainy pictures of a smeary blob ramming into the most important military structure in the US is kinda suspicous.
I'm not going to speculate as to why... but reason suggests that a building like the Pentagon has more security than a $30 gate camera some guy bought at "Securities 'R Us".
Again, if nothing else... it's suspicious.
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htmThe pentagon was not moved but repaired so reason for holding some of the video was probably for security reasons. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +137/-140
Posts: 1,724
Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics
|
|
« Reply #130 on: April 22, 2008, 10:02:29 AM » |
|
Well, Ahk, I personally don't want to stand next to 9/11 nutters if I can avoid it, but if nothing else, the fact that there are only 11 grainy pictures of a smeary blob ramming into the most important military structure in the US is kinda suspicous.
I'm not going to speculate as to why... but reason suggests that a building like the Pentagon has more security than a $30 gate camera some guy bought at "Securities 'R Us".
Again, if nothing else... it's suspicious.
I'm not going to debate what is suspicious and what isn't. That someone finds something suspicious is not a problem for me or any kind of indicator that the person is nuts. I have no problem with suspicions or stories that don't match the official version. What is nuts is to look at a what is plainly an aircraft crash and say there's no physical evidence for it (as you stamp out the jet fuel flames). (not picking on you Retro -- just saying) What is really silly and insulting is to tell people who are looking at a flaming plane wreak that they are sheeple or agreeing mindlessly to whatever the "establishment" is saying, (I thought Jessie Ventura was part of the establishment), for simply calling a spade a spade. A flaming plane wreak is not an illusion. It's not a magic trick. It is there. It could only have gotten there through an "unintentional landing" or an otherwise sudden and unplanned conclusion to it's low-Earth orbit. A crash = a crash. No need for a story from the "establishment". It crashed. This is all I'm saying. How it crashed is up for speculation. Why it crashed is up for speculation. The fact that it DID crash is not up for speculation. A flaming plane crash = a flaming plane crash no matter what the reasoning is. Never before in history has a plane crashed, it's remains removed by 100's (1000's?) of emergency + forensic personnel, lots of news footage of the crash after the fact, and yet suffer the scrutiny of needing, requiring a clear security cam picture of the actual event to prove it crashed. Just sayin' dudes. Ahk |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 22, 2008, 10:42:39 AM by Ahkenaten »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pond Scum
|
|
« Reply #131 on: April 22, 2008, 10:54:19 AM » |
|
You are not interested in Congressional Testimony concerning the US government's use of propaganda? No I'm not. Why? Because I never debated the existence of propaganda or even a budget for it. Are you rpetending to forget what I asked for in terms of evidence and what this debate was a bout? Besides even the testemony is ambiguous as to what we're talking about in terms or propaganda and where it's being used. So once again just so we can stop you from diverting: The challenge was to prove (remember now Free claims to have had a link for this at one point), that they are spending $1.6 billion on people to go online and spread disinformation. You Googled "CIA" + "Propaganda" + "billion" and come back with 3 irrelevant stories. Again, this is the contention: They spend $1.6 BILLION a year paying people to gho on-line and spread dis-information. It's being spent somewhere, may as well be here too, right Patton? And for 6 pages we've been trying to get all you "open-minded people" to admit that there's nothing solid you can point to to prove that accusation and that yes indeed regardless of whether or not an airliner crashed into the pentagon, that indeed there is ample physical evidence to support it. If you or Free could prove it, y'all wouldn't need to scramble for any story that shares the same tag words right? You guys can't even admit that and you're stunted by your own need to save face. Basically none of you (except maybe Free) truly believes this crap your dishing out, it's just that you've become so invested now that all you can do is close your eyes, cover your ears stamp your feet and cry "Is not! Is Not!"The most pathetic thing is to watch you guys squirm -- do anything but look honestly at the evidence -- and listen to you guys claim we don't understand logic or evidence or have closed minds. So pathetic you'd think you were in Junior High. I feel like I'm arguing the existence of England and despite all the physical evidence and eyewitnesses you guys are sitting there going "Well I haven't seen it so how do I know?", or "All those people could be lying"  Ahk What is pathetic is closed minded sheep who ask for proof for everything when we have a government who lies, burys the truth, burys evidence, twists the truth, tells half truths, lies so often that the people have learned to accept it. What is pathetic is any brainwashed moron who supports either of the two parties or who defends the government on any issue. What was the original figure quoted for the Iraq war and what are the new figures? You asked for proof for a claim by Free and he couldn't deliver. I searched for and posted the closest info I could find, mostly because I like Free and because he is one of the few people here who is not a brainwashed moron. While you seem more open minded than most people here, why do you insist on haarping on this? You KNOW the government uses propaganda on a daily basis. ALL THINKING PEOPLE KNOW THEY HAVE INFILTRATED OUR MEDIA. Is it really that big of a reach to think they might have assets who go to discussion forums to spread disinformation? Jeesh. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +112/-146
Posts: 1,944
|
|
« Reply #132 on: April 22, 2008, 11:44:31 AM » |
|
I'm not going to speculate as to why... but reason suggests that a building like the Pentagon has more security than a $30 gate camera some guy bought at "Securities 'R Us".
Again, if nothing else... it's suspicious. If security is your primary intrest, why divulge ANY information at all? To pacify a few internet conspiracy nuts and Alex Jones? Sorry.....not good enough. I wouldn't be surprised if there are high definition photos/video of the plane clear enough to give the tail number....but release of the photo/video would give away the fact the surveillance exists...and the angles could give away approximate locations of the equipment that could be used to disable or render impotent from a future attack.... If I was in charge of Pentagon security, I wouldn't give you a thing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +137/-140
Posts: 1,724
Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics
|
|
« Reply #133 on: April 22, 2008, 11:44:36 AM » |
|
What is pathetic is closed minded sheep who ask for proof for everything when we have a government who lies Yep..>Just a little baby crying and ranting. Maybe when you decide to argue what i say instead of what I didnt say you can partake in an adult discussion. why do you insist on haarping on this?
Ex-fucking-scuse me? I responed to this: If the government has nothing to hide, why has it only released a few frames of video from the PENTAGON AND WHY HAS IT ONLY RELEASED ONE AIRPORT VIDEO, WHICH IS SUSPICIOUS?
It is easy to agree with whatever the establishment tells you, but thinking people ask why the government would withhold such vital evidence from the public? We've established the plane crashed. Whether you're on board with that is beside the point. So after finally after 8 pages of photos and eye witness statements it's finally decided that yes all that flaming debris is an air plane and you STILL figure we came to that conclusion because of what the establsihment thinks. When are you going to get it through your thick skull that I and many many others DO NOT think that a jet plane hit the pentagon because the "establishment" told us, but rather because of the OVER-FUCKING-WELMING physical evidence? Huh? When are you going to drop the fucking "because the establishment tells you" crap?! When are YOU going to quit harping on that?! When are you going to understand that when a rational person looks at a plane wreak he isn't a mindless robot following the establishment if he lets his reasoning and intuition guide him to the conslusion a plane crashed there? So childish of you to make those bullshit accusations. Boom! 100 tons of burning metal -- but if you dare awknowledge it's presence you're just goose-stepping with the establishment. unbelievable! Ahk |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +137/-140
Posts: 1,724
Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics
|
|
« Reply #134 on: April 22, 2008, 11:50:39 AM » |
|
You KNOW the government uses propaganda on a daily basis. ALL THINKING PEOPLE KNOW THEY HAVE INFILTRATED OUR MEDIA.
Oh just shut up already. If you were remotely close to a thinking person you'd understand the simple english I used when i told you no one's fucking debating propaganda you compulsive little pea brain. You just rant and rant and rant and dont listen for a second to what others are saying. A plane crashed into the pentagon and they are not spenind $1.6B to pay people to go online and spread disinformation. Thay aren't. They aren't. They aren't. And you haven't been able to address that directly once, not without leaps of logic, ambiguities and heresay. When you decide to debate what I said instead of the random voices in your tiny little mind I'll consider continuing with you. Until then just do everyone here a favor and stfu. Ahk |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
