9/11 Video

[fossten]

With a target effectively as wide as 5 runways it is a miracle he hit it at all, but the most amazing and fantastical part of the impact is the fact that a completely novice pilot, flying a plane he'd never flown on, managed to guide a jumbo jet in to a corridor of space that was smaller than the jet itself....that...that is amazing...

So...in conclusion, are you saying that you believe what the conspiracy theorists are saying?

Are you saying that you think you've proved it?

 

[raVeneyes]

So...in conclusion, are you saying that you believe what the conspiracy theorists are saying?

Are you saying that you think you've proved it?

No, I made my conclusion pages ago. I haven't seen proof of *what* hit the Pentagon building on 9/11. As Calibro and I were both able to agree, the wild jumps that conspiracy theorists make are inane, just because there's evidence that clearly shows we don't know the whole story, it doesn't discount the evidence and widespread witness reports (though I won't go through the trouble of explaining why any number of witness reports are no more valuable than one, suffice it to say there are people who witnessed a plane going in to the building).

I've proven that it would be very difficult to fly a Boeing 757 in to the first floor of the Pentagon if you are an untrained pilot, and that proof does not allow me to draw further conclusions.

It's simply something that should make anyone question.

 

[Dominus]

What a bunch of BS. I'm going to make this real simple for everyone.

Ok, when you have the FAA's word on this subject let me know, because as of yet you haven't quoted where you're getting your data from, even though I have at every turn.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

The quote you presented and the quote I presented say the same exact thing, only the quote you presented includes the useless section of the wingspan that is made up of the body of the plane. This portion of the wingspan can not be factored in to the height for ground effect, but since it's relatively small, it rarely comes in to question. Whether it's 25% of the wing span or 50% of one wing's length they're almost the same number.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

When was the last time you landed a plane??? Every one I've ever landed was a nose down attitude (not altitude) of at least 5-10 degrees until moments before contact with the runway at which point the throttle is adjusted back and the nose is tipped up (flare).

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

Sure...the FAA knows more than me, and get one FAA scientist to respond to these questions with logical and direct answers and I'd be happy.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

No, read again, the plane came in to ground effect at approximately 27.75 feet height from the ground...a mere 3/4 of a second before impact based on triangulation and speed.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

Nice name calling thrown in



at 3/4 of a second before impact my assertion is that the pilot, being inexperienced, wouldn't have had time to adjust for ground effect and would have hit the building higher. That's not to discount coincidence, it is after all possible that he did in fact come in to ground effect before the highway because he had aimed his plane at the intersection of the highway and the lawn, but that would be the only way he would have had time to adjust, and is an illogical mistake to have been made by such an inexperienced pilot.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

again nice name calling

The FAA to this date has never officially published an account of what happened to the four planes that were reported as hijacked on 9/11 or a set of findings for what they found at the crash sites of 9/11

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

Wow, not only rude and name calling, but obviously wrong as I have over and over and over again proved that you haven't even the slightest clue as to what's going on (Take off speed of a 757, existence of ground effect at high speed, speed of plane during crash, what is considered high and low speed for the 757, the effects of ground effect, the typical angle of attack of a landing plane, etc... etc... etc...) and I do, and have provided hard fact and documents you can read for yourself to back up my points.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

You are correct, this however makes zero bit of difference on how ground effect affects the plane.


What is this sentence supposed to say?

An Ekranoplan can't do anything that would cause a 757 to stall and crash... in fact, the stall angle on an Ekranoplan is even shallower than a 757 because of its stubby wings. AN Ekranoplan relies on ground effect to maintain it's lift capabilities, a 757 is designed to fly out of ground effect. Though the two designs are different in the air out of ground effect, they operate exactly the same in ground effect. Ground effect doesn't change based on what it's affecting, it works just the same for a car, a plane, a boat, or an Ekranoplan.

That wasn't my point, but as you've demonstrated a deep inability to read and comprehend I'll clarify:

Many debunk sites say that ground effect would have had no affect on a Boeing 757 for only ONE reason. The Boeing 757 is a fly-by-wire plane. This means all control inputs are translated through computers and on to a servo mechanism which moves the flight control surfaces. These computers during normal flight operations use the algorithms I provided the acronyms for to maintain a constant level flight, in the exact direction of the control inputs, regardless of turbulence or sudden air effects. These flight control systems during flight change the angle and deflection rate of control surfaces and the amount of throttle provided to each engine to compensate for any air changes, and it is very good at quickly recovering normal flight when hitting a change in air density or movement.

Unfortunately all these systems must be disengaged in order to fly the plane in to a building like it was...and any maneuvers made like the ones documented by the radar control centers will automatically disengage any of these systems which may have been accidentally left on.

It actually is an amazing feat. Landing a Boeing 757 without the aid of a radio flight path is almost impossible... the plane handles like a cruise liner, not like a Cesna. Control inputs don't directly translate to immediate movements, in fact, the pilots are told to take an extra long time when trimming out the plane for cross country flight because any changes in trim will take several seconds to play out in the flight characteristics of the 757.

With a target effectively as wide as 5 runways it is a miracle he hit it at all, but the most amazing and fantastical part of the impact is the fact that a completely novice pilot, flying a plane he'd never flown on, managed to guide a jumbo jet in to a corridor of space that was smaller than the jet itself....that...that is amazing...

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

What more needs to be said? One dude with no qualifications vs. THE authority on aircraft.

That's the best part about conspiracy theorists. They actually believe that they can think of things that a giant authority of THE best experts hasn't.

Why even dice back and forth about it? You're automatically wrong because you have no basis on which to challenge the findings. LOL

 

[raVeneyes]

What a bunch of BS. I'm going to make this real simple for everyone.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

The FAA concluded a 757 hit the Pentagon. End of story.

What more needs to be said? One dude with no qualifications vs. THE authority on aircraft.

That's the best part about conspiracy theorists. They actually believe that they can think of things that a giant authority of THE best experts hasn't.

Why even dice back and forth about it? You're automatically wrong because you have no basis on which to challenge the findings. LOL

The FAA to this date has never officially published an account of what happened to the four planes that were reported as hijacked on 9/11 or a set of findings for what they found at the crash sites of 9/11

So maybe all the conspiracy theorists are thinking of things because to date the FAA hasn't said word one about it.

 

[fossten]

The FAA to this date has never officially published an account of what happened to the four planes that were reported as hijacked on 9/11 or a set of findings for what they found at the crash sites of 9/11

So maybe all the conspiracy theorists are thinking of things because to date the FAA hasn't said word one about it.

SO WHAT?

MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE. BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Maybe they are still investigating the whole thing and can't release all the data yet.

MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE.

 

[raVeneyes]

SO WHAT?

My point is Dominus seems to think there is some sort of word from on high in the form of an official FAA conclusion, and there is not...that's so what.

 

[Dominus]

Is this a joke? The FAA never concluded that a 757 was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon?

Funny, last time I checked, the FAA recorded Flight 77 as having been hijacked and crashed intot he Pentagon. Could you please show me this FAA report on Flight 77 where they supposedly say "Sorry, dunno what happened. Kinda went off our radar screen so we don't know anything!"


I suppose all of this extra security that the FAA has instituted is just for the hell of it eh? I mean, they don't know what happened and never ever explained it as being a terrorist hijacking in which terrorists flew the plane into a building. It's just an unexplained crash on their records I presume?

 

[Dominus]

My point is Dominus seems to think there is some sort of word from on high in the form of an official FAA conclusion, and there is not...that's so what.

Um, there is. Look it up. According tot he FAA, Flight 77 was jacked and crashed into the Pentagon. The FAA has very few unsolved plane crashes. Flight 77 is not one of them.

 

[MonsterMark]

Is this a joke? The FAA never concluded that a 757 was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon?

Funny, last time I checked, the FAA recorded Flight 77 as having been hijacked and crashed intot he Pentagon. Could you please show me this FAA report on Flight 77 where they supposedly say "Sorry, dunno what happened. Kinda went off our radar screen so we don't know anything!"

The story I heard was that the plane flew OVER the Pentagon and landed at Ronald Reagan (Republican Airport). It was quickly ferried to a secret hangar and all American citizens are either dead and buried under the hangar concrete or they are interned at one of Bush's secret prisons overseas.

You must not get out much. I thought everybody knew that that is what happened.

 

[Dominus]

I'm just very curious as to how it is that the FAA has a missing 757 (they never concluded it was hijacked and hit the Pentagon, right raven?) and they haven't called out a search for it.

I'm even more curious at how the FAA never concluded that Flight 77 was hijacked or crashed intot he Pentagon, yet on September 17th, they issued a full report on Flight 77 in a report titled "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events, September 11, 2001" in which they state it was crashed into the Pentagon by hijackers.

Very strange that they would say such lies about this missing flight 77 that they have no idea where it went or who took control of it.

 

[MonsterMark]

Um, there is. Look it up. According tot he FAA, Flight 77 was jacked and crashed into the Pentagon. The FAA has very few unsolved plane crashes. Flight 77 is not one of them.

Here is a timeline that the FAA and NORAD made up.

Military officials at NORAD ordered fighter jets from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to intercept the flight, but neither the FAA, NORAD, nor any other federal government organization made any effort to evacuate the buildings in Washington.

Officials at the Pentagon said that no mechanism existed within the U.S. government to notify various departments and agencies under such circumstances.

Officials also told CNN that President George W. Bush had not given authorization to the Defense Department to shoot down a passenger airliner until after the Pentagon had been struck.

Officials at the Pentagon also said that they were never made aware of the threat from hijacked United Airlines flight 93 until after it crashed in Pennsylvania.

The informed defense officials laid out a timeline of the events surrounding the series of terrorist attacks as follows: (Times are EDT and reflect actual, rather than scheduled departure times of flights.)

--7:59 a.m.: American Airlines flight 11 takes off from Boston's Logan International Airport.

--8:14 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 takes off from Boston's Logan International Airport.

--8:20 a.m.: American Airlines flight 11 stops transmitting IFF beacon signal while over the Hudson River.

--8:20 a.m.: American Airlines flight 77 departs Dulles International Airport near Washington.

--8:38 a.m.: Boston air traffic center notifies NORAD that American Airlines flight 11 has been hijacked.

--8:43 a.m.: FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines flight 175 has been hijacked.

--8:44 a.m.: Otis Air National Guard Base in Mass. orders to fighters scrambled.

--8:46 a.m.: American Airlines flight 11 strikes the World Trade Center's north tower.

--8:47 a.m.: NORAD informed of the plane striking the World Trade Center.

--8:50 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 deviates from its assigned flight path.

--8:52 a.m.: Two F-15 Eagles take off from Otis ANG Base in effort to intercept hijacked plane(s) after first plane has struck the World Trade Center.

--9:02 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center's south tower (F-15 fighter jets from Otis ANG Base are still 70 miles away.)

--9:25 a.m.: FAA notifies NORAD that United flight 77 may have been hijacked.

--9:27 a.m.: (approximate time) NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to head to intercept United Airlines flight 77.

--9:35 a.m.: Three F-16 Fighting Falcons take off from Langley AFB headed toward Washington area.

--9:37 a.m.: American Airlines flight 77 is lost from radar screens.

--9:38 a.m.: American Airlines flight 77 strikes the Pentagon.

--9:49 a.m.: F-16 fighter jets arrive over Washington, D.C. to perform Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over city. (The fighters broke the sound barrier and traveled supersonic at 720 knots to Washington, making the approximately 130 miles in 14 minutes.)

 

[fossten]

I'm just very curious as to how it is that the FAA has a missing 757 (they never concluded it was hijacked and hit the Pentagon, right raven?) and they haven't called out a search for it.

I'm even more curious at how the FAA never concluded that Flight 77 was hijacked or crashed intot he Pentagon, yet on September 17th, they issued a full report on Flight 77 in a report titled "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events, September 11, 2001" in which they state it was crashed into the Pentagon by hijackers.

Very strange that they would say such lies about this missing flight 77 that they have no idea where it went or who took control of it.

Gee, you're right, here it is (pdf file):

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

Any more falsehoods to make up for us, Raveneyes?

 

[MonsterMark]

Here is what a C-130 pilot had to say...

"It was like coming up to an intersection. When air traffic control asked me if we had him in sight, I told him that was an understatement - by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away.
...
They told us to turn and follow that aircraft - in 20-plus years of flying, I've never been asked to do something like that. With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out.
The next thing I saw was the fireball. It was huge. I told Washington the airplane has impacted the ground. Shook everyone up pretty good. I told them the approximate location was close to the Potomac. I figured he'd had some in-flight emergency and was trying to get back on the ground to Washington National. Suddenly, I could see the outline of the Pentagon. It was horrible. I told Washington this thing has impacted the west side of the Pentagon"

 

[Dominus]

LOL, that's the C-130 that conspiracy theorists always cry about.

"WITNESSES SAW A C-130 IN THE AREA! OMG!"

 

[raVeneyes]

The FAA report for the Factual causes of the crash near Arlington, VA of a Boeing 757-200 Regist. Number N644AA ( http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp )

"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. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket."

 

[raVeneyes]

Gee, you're right, here it is (pdf file):

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

Any more falsehoods to make up for us, Raveneyes?

Any more falsehoods to make up for us, Fossten?

 

[raVeneyes]

The next few posts are in the spirit of Dominus, so please excuse the mess...

 

[raVeneyes]

Is this a joke? The FAA never concluded that a 757 was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon?

Funny, last time I checked, the FAA recorded Flight 77 as having been hijacked and crashed intot he Pentagon. Could you please show me this FAA report on Flight 77 where they supposedly say "Sorry, dunno what happened. Kinda went off our radar screen so we don't know anything!"


I suppose all of this extra security that the FAA has instituted is just for the hell of it eh? I mean, they don't know what happened and never ever explained it as being a terrorist hijacking in which terrorists flew the plane into a building. It's just an unexplained crash on their records I presume?

The FAA report for the Factual causes of the crash near Arlington, VA of a Boeing 757-200 Regist. Number N644AA ( http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp )

"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. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket."

 

[raVeneyes]

Um, there is. Look it up. According tot he FAA, Flight 77 was jacked and crashed into the Pentagon. The FAA has very few unsolved plane crashes. Flight 77 is not one of them.

The FAA report for the Factual causes of the crash near Arlington, VA of a Boeing 757-200 Regist. Number N644AA ( http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp )

"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. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket."

 

[Dominus]

The FAA report for the Factual causes of the crash near Arlington, VA of a Boeing 757-200 Regist. Number N644AA ( http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp )

"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. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket."

Are you kidding? This is all you have?

All that means is that they are defaulting to the FBI's expertise in providing a final word. Their Summary of the HIJACKING documents that they already had determined the cause of the plane crash.

But let's do this you way. Let's see what the FBI has to say about 9/11:

Terrorists hijacked the damn plane!

So there, we can just change "FAA>you" to "FBI>you". The FBI also knows more and has more qualification for the investigation and conclusion of these events than you will ever imagine in your life.

The funny part is, your own post here is a rebuttal to an earlier post in which you said:

So maybe all the conspiracy theorists are thinking of things because to date the FAA hasn't said word one about it.

Answer is: It's apparently not their frickin' jurisdiction, or they just didn't feel it was in their jurisdiction to make a final conclusion.

Either way, their Summary of Air Traffic HIJACK Events proves they they were far fom clueless as to what happened to Flight 77. They said as plain as it could be, that it was a hijacking. The agency(ies) that handled the investigation(s) all have far more credibility, qualifications, and experience in such matters, and for that reason alone, you are in place to challenge their findings, and everything you say is worthless in comparison to their conclusions.

 

[raVeneyes]

Their Summary of the HIJACKING documents that they already had determined the cause of the plane crash.

Umm...no, that means the FAA will never release a public statement on what happened exactly to the four flights hijacked on 9/11

Why wouldn't they release their own report, rich with details like the exact flight pattern of the planes and exact control changes the terrorists made to the public so that in the future plans could be made to thwart these kinds of attacks, and cockpit procedures could properly be updated to limit an untrained pilot's ability to take over a plane?

Let's see what the FBI has to say about 9/11:

Terrorists hijacked the damn plane!

The only thing the FBI said about the planes can be found here:
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm#page_19

In which they give a brief four paragraph description of what happened, without any sort of technical data.

In fact, much of the information on that page is wrong as it has since been learned that several of the presumed hijackers were not in fact members of the hijacking teams on 9/11.

everything you say is worthless in comparison to their conclusions.

This is the kind of thinking that some would like all of us to have. I personally don't subscribe to the idea that there is less intelligence or expertise in the public than there is in the FBI or FAA. The points I, and others, make raise valid concerns...concerns which the four paragraphs the FBI has lavished us with do not answer. They make no attempt to explain what happened and provide only cursory glimpse at the truth of the matter.

In the absence of proof of intelligence or explanation the questions stand.

No matter how flabbergasted you get and how often you say in your red-in-the-face tone that the FBI and FAA are more intelligent than me, you have yet to provide any sort of answers to the questions raised or any sort of valid conclusion from the evidence presented. You have also been unable to quote from these sources which you hold on high their explanations as to what happened on 9/11. The reason you can't quote them? Because the explanations don't exist. For very smart people, they've proven very bad at providing a simple explanation.

 

[fossten]

Umm...no, that means the FAA will never release a public statement on what happened exactly to the four flights hijacked on 9/11 [SO WHAT?]

Why wouldn't they release their own report, rich with details like the exact flight pattern of the planes and exact control changes the terrorists made to the public so that in the future plans could be made to thwart these kinds of attacks, and cockpit procedures could properly be updated to limit an untrained pilot's ability to take over a plane? [could be because that info is classified?]


The only thing the FBI said about the planes can be found here:
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm#page_19

In which they give a brief four paragraph description of what happened, without any sort of technical data.

In fact, much of the information on that page is wrong as it has since been learned that several of the presumed hijackers were not in fact members of the hijacking teams on 9/11.


This is the kind of thinking that some would like all of us to have. I personally don't subscribe to the idea that there is less intelligence or expertise in the public than there is in the FBI or FAA. [BUT APPARENTLY YOU BELIEVE THERE IS NO ONE INTELLIGENT EXCEPT YOU? LOL] The points I, and others, make raise valid concerns...concerns which the four paragraphs the FBI has lavished us with do not answer. They make no attempt to explain what happened and provide only cursory glimpse at the truth of the matter.

In the absence of proof of intelligence or explanation the questions stand.

No matter how flabbergasted you get and how often you say in your red-in-the-face tone that the FBI and FAA are more intelligent than me, you have yet to provide any sort of answers to the questions raised or any sort of valid conclusion from the evidence presented. You have also been unable to quote from these sources which you hold on high their explanations as to what happened on 9/11. The reason you can't quote them? Because the explanations don't exist. For very smart people, they've proven very bad at providing a simple explanation.

This is so like you Raveneyes, to claim that FOUR pages of intelligent answers to your questions suddenly don't exist. That's your modus operandi. The trouble is, everyone can go back and read all these pages and see that what you said is NOT TRUE. No matter what you say, Dominus clearly answered your questions. But he doesn't speak for the FBI nor the FAA. If you dream up some sort of absurd question for them, go ask them. But setting up a straw man so you can knock it down in here is lame and amateurish. Nobody's falling for it.

You also talk out of both sides of your mouth. You say we shouldn't believe the FBI or the FAA, but you don't want to commit to believing the conspiracy theorists either. What are you, an agnostic? You don't believe in anything? The Pentagon was hit by aliens? Take a freaking stand for something, man!

 

[raVeneyes]

This is so like you Raveneyes, to claim that FOUR pages of intelligent answers to your questions suddenly don't exist. That's your modus operandi. The trouble is, everyone can go back and read all these pages and see that what you said is NOT TRUE. No matter what you say, Dominus clearly answered your questions.

Quote one 'answer' Dominus gave to the questions raised by my points that was correct or not simply "The FAA/FBI is smarter than you are". There isn't one of those either. Everything Dominus has said was less useful than t!ts on a boar hog.

But he doesn't speak for the FBI nor the FAA. If you dream up some sort of absurd question for them, go ask them. But setting up a straw man so you can knock it down in here is lame and amateurish. Nobody's falling for it.

I set up no straw man. These are tough questions...questions we obviously don't have answers to and questions that are answered in every other case of air traffic accident. The lack of information to go along with these crashes is astounding, and there is no reason for any of the information to be "classified" as the events already occurred...

You also talk out of both sides of your mouth. You say we shouldn't believe the FBI or the FAA, but you don't want to commit to believing the conspiracy theorists either. What are you, an agnostic? You don't believe in anything? The Pentagon was hit by aliens? Take a freaking stand for something, man!

I didn't say we shouldn't believe the FBI or the FAA fossten, in fact I said if someone from the FBI or the FAA would like to provide the answers to the technical questions I've asked I'd be more than satisfied with the expertise of the answers they gave, however what I have said, and proven, and re-proven is that the answers to these questions do not exist and the people who are charged with answering these types of question have flat out stated that they are not going to answer them.

My stand is the same as I stated a couple of pages ago. It's clear we don't have the answers, it's also clear that there isn't enough public evidence to know what happened. As there is no official documentation of what happened, and not enough information in the public domain to ascertain what happened, the points that I brought up *are* things that should make people question what really happened. Draw your own conclusions...If the weight of evidence to you says "An American Airlines passenger plane was hijacked by an inexperience pilot who was a member of an international terrorist organization and crashed in to the side of the Pentagon with all hands and crew" then by all means go ahead and believe it so. My beliefs are that the "official" story is full of holes, and I'd like more information so that I can verify for myself what happened on 9/11