Flight 77 - What hit the Light Poles?

[reprehensor]

Flight Data Recorder Analysis - Last Second of Data - 09:37:44

08/20/06

We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.

We have an animation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. I have sat through the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to the impact at the Pentagon in real time.

The screenshot below shows the very last frame of the recorded data. Its stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet according to Google Earth. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment.

YouTube video excerpt;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0

-------------------------------------------

Some scanned documents to help authenticate that this indeed was supplied to "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" as the result of a FOIA request... it seems the UK FOIA requests are more successful than some American ones...

(attachments at bottom of blog entry)
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2321

[greyl]

1. At least the question isn't "what hit the pentagon?"

(Or is it?)

Flight 77 hit the light poles.
Here's a great 3D animation that makes sense of the evidence, and illustrates the final moments of the flight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8 from mikejwilson.com

Some good commentary on the OP's video can be found here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1874107

[mhatrw]

5. That demonstration has nothing to do with Flight 77's FDR information

which was recently released.

[greyl]

6. No kidding. The link I provided does though.

So do a few of the posts in this thread so far. I look forward to your comment on those.

Regarding the very fine demo I posted, do you see any problems with it?
I thinks it's great. Now that we have the NTSB animation to look at, and the pdfs from the FOIA requests, we should be getting closer to the full truth, don't you think?

[spooked911]

17. it's a friggin cartoon, but if it makes you happy, fine.

I'm sure you won't find any problems with it because it fits your world view.

But there are problems with it.

[greyl]

24. Your replies concerning this model are pathetic.

I hope you don't miss the point that it's a model. How much do you know about creating models?

But there are problems with it.

Feel free to explain.

[spooked911]

18. how do you know it has nothing to do with the FDR?

this simulation was taken from the FDR

[greyl]

26. Because of its date of creation. nt

[mirandapriestly]

49. That is a ficticious account. It is made to fit the "facts"

rather than to explain them

[greyl]

57. Made to fit the facts? Made To Fit The Facts? MADE TO FIT THE FACTS!?

Holy jesus.
Yes, it's made to fit the facts. That's why it's good.

By contrast, conspiracism begins with a conclusion and then fits or ignores the actual facts in order to conform to the abstract conspiracy.

[mirandapriestly]

74. to fit the "made up facts"

[greyl]

77. What "made up facts"? nt

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

156. Thanks for pointing out that re-creation. It was good.

But the hole in the bulding (too small) and the single exit hole in ring c, and the lack of a image of the plane in the air still has me wondering what happened there. Oh yeah, and the lack of large wings on fire on the lawn too??

But thanks for letting us see that.

Peace

[mogster]

52. One wonders how

a person with an exceptional rotten flight record could keep that plane just a few feet above the ground for so long.

[LARED]

2. Some light

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_level

[gbwarming]

3. The altimeters were reset at 9:24:16. See Columns CG and CH in the FDR

The FDR data csv file may be found by following the link in the OP. The barometric correction on the #1 altimeter was 29.92 to 30.24 over the course of several seconds, and #2 was set from 29.92 to 30.23. This occurred at descent thru the standard US airspace transition altitude of 18,000ft. Perhaps it is an automated function of the FMS.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x109508

[bmcatt]

14. Class A airspace - 29.92 alitimeter setting

I'll need to defer to an actual ATP (pilot holding an Airline Transport Pilot rating) for in-the-cockpit information, but...

Class A airspace is defined as everything from 18,000 feet up to 60,000 feet. At that point, they're referred to as "Flight Levels" and the last two zeroes are dropped off (hence, FL180 through FL600). The regulations state that "real" altimeter settings (based on ground stations) are required below FL180. At and above FL180, though, the altimeters are all to be set to 29.92 ("standard" sea-level air pressure).

Unless an ATP indicates that this is an automated function of a Boeing's flight instrumentation, this would, I believe, indicate that there was someone in the cockpit who was *actively* changing things right when the plane crossed below FL180. If that's the case, that, right there, might very well be a "smoking gun".

After all, why would a hijacker *care* about following proper procedures regarding flight instruments?

[Kingshakabobo]

23. "why would a hijacker *care* about following proper procedures"

Habit? Repetitive training in a flight simulator?

[bmcatt]

27. Not for a VFR pilot

The only reason that VFR (non-instrument-rated) pilots know the rule is because it's part of the FARs that all pilots are required to know. Actually paying close attention to the altimeter while descending and *making* the altitude adjustment strains credulity.

I've said this before and I'm sure I'll say it again - if you've never piloted a plane, you have *no idea* of the workload that's placed upon a pilot, especially a marginal one who's never been in that particular cockpit before. Any non-ATP who was most definitely *not* type-rated for that particular aircraft would have been spending all their time simply trying to fly the damn plane and (presumably) navigate to where they wanted to go. Expecting them to follow what, for them, would have been obscure flight regulations is just not believable.

[Kingshakabobo]

34. Are you a pilot?

edit to add:
My understanding is, that he had simulator time in this aircraft. No? Those simulators are very lifelike. His instructor would have been instructing him on proper altimeter settings.

[bmcatt]

36. Yes

PP-ASEL (Private Pilot - Airplane, Single-Engine, Land)

[Kingshakabobo]

37. I just edited while you were responding......So am I....

[bmcatt]

38. Responding to edit...

I agree that some simulators are very "life-like". Others, however, are not life-like or are not life-like for airliner cockpits. Does anyone (and this is an open question) know what kind of sims were used for training?

Also, I'm pretty sure that none of the flight instructors were particularly impressed by their prowess in even a sim cockpit. As such, I'm not sure they'd've been focusing on things like altimeter settings instead of "fly the damn plane!"

[Kingshakabobo]

39. Here is some info from the 911 commission:

I don't think these guys were using the ww2 vintage mechanical simulators I used in high school. These were serious professional flight schools. I know the instructors weren't impressed but altimeter setting is basic stuff and their use of it is HARDLY a "smoking gun."

Question: What is your opinion on the so called "fancy maneuver"? It appears to me that he used that go around to bleed off 6000ft in altitude and set up an approach.


http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm


In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa. An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing. Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001

....

The three pilots in Florida continued with their training. Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses. They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.65

[bmcatt]

40. Some thoughts

I don't think these guys were using the ww2 vintage mechanical simulators I used in high school. These were serious professional flight schools. I know the instructors weren't impressed but altimeter setting is basic stuff and their use of it is HARDLY a "smoking gun."

Based on the subsequent info about the type of simulator they were using, granted. I still say, though, that a single pilot in an unfamiliar aircraft (how many hours do ATPs need to qualify left-seat again? :)) has many more things to worry about than tweaking the altimeter.

Question: What is your opinion on the so called "fancy maneuver"? It appears to me that he used that go around to bleed off 6000ft in altitude and set up an approach.

I don't believe it's a "fancy" maneuver. However, at the same time, I also don't believe that anyone aiming for the pentagon would do anything other than aim for the bullseye.

1) Even at 6K+ altitude, the aircraft was close to the ground and he was doing a descending turn. Is it a complicated maneuver? No. But that doesn't mean that it's trivial either. He was unable to see his target for some significant duration of that *very nice* 30 degree-ish-bank descending turn.

2) Why bother setting up the approach at all? It's not like he was trying to preserve the airframe and land it? If he was so good, he could've put the plane into a slip on his original approach and planned to slam into the bullseye.

[Kingshakabobo]

41. I think you are making my point.

If he WAS so good he would have put it in a slip. I think the go around was the armature move - more in line with his basic training.

The altitude was 8k not 6k. he bled off 6k with his maneuver. I try to put my self in his place and I can picture my self looking for my target. Once I have a visual and I think I'm too high I revert back to my basic airport approach training and set it up "like a landing" by doing a go-around. After all, when you are flying VFR looking for an airport, you just don't fly right to the runway. You locate it visually and set up from there. Don't confuse it with trying to "preserve the airframe."

No mater which way you slice it, the go around isn't any kind of smoking gun.

[bmcatt]

45. Who said anything about the go around smoking?

I never said that the maneuver was in any way, shape, or form a "smoking gun".

My two points of contention are:

1) So if the plane wasn't sufficiently low enough, what *did* impact the light poles?

2) What controls changing from 29.92 to a local altimeter setting when descending through FL180? If it was manually done, then I don't understand how / why an amateur pilot would bother resetting it.

[Kingshakabobo]

47. The VIDEO makes a lot of hay out of a simple turn.

I don't understand why it's so hard to believe an instrument rated pilot changing altimeter settings?? After all, he wanted to fly the plane in to the ground at a certain point. Wouldn't it make sense that he know were the ground is??

[AZCat]

48. It's like 25 hrs right seat in type, right?

I think these guys were training on at least class "C" sims.

[sofa king]

50. 2) is a really, really good question.

And I can think of a really, really good answer, which is that perhaps the pilot wasn't just aiming at the building in general.

Perhaps the pilot was aiming at something specific within that building. But if you go looking for what that specific thing is and find it, then you have to ask, "how in the hell did he know that?"

Whatever "that" is.

[sgsmith]

4. So - Are the people at pilotsfor911truth liars?

Or just don't know enough to interpret the FDR data correctly? I'm going for the answer of "got an agenda".

To straighten this out. The entire clip in the original post about the altimeter being misset, and resultant altitude descrepency that would prevent the light poles from being knocked down, is absolute BS.

Will Pilots for 911 truth correct this BS? Doubtful.

Will the YouTube video (with it's editorial comments in the middle of the simulation) correct this BS? Doubtful.

Will both of these links be used to "prove" the lie of Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon? Ya betcha.

You know, the mistruths and lies are prevelant on both sides. You need to keep a skeptical eye on everyone's claims.

This is just like 911review.org statment that flight 93 had to be shot down because the altitude trace never reached 0. Of course, the elevation of Shanksville, PA is approximately 2,300 feet, which is approximately the ending altitude on the FDR. But, 911review still has their "proof" up and active.

To restart what GBWARMING says, the altimeters adjusted on the climb from the departure airport's (Dulles) barometric setting of 30.21 to the standard setting of 29.92 at 18,000 feet altitude. On the descent towards Washington, when the airplane dropped below 18,000 feet, the altimeters adjusted to about 30.23. I don't know if this is an automated function of the flight management computer, but the FDR data shows the changes occurring almost exactly at 18,000 feet. I doubt a airline pilot would be so accurate on the way up and it's extremely doubtful that a hijacker would change the setting at all.

[medienanalyse]

7. Where is the problem ?

What makes you come to the conclusion that one of the case studies is wrong ?

What ?

Why is it necessary to “believe” or “not believe” in AAL77 ?

Pose the correct question, and you get answers.

Was it possible for Hani Hanjour to fly that manoeuvre ? No, for sure not. He was unable to fly a Cessna.

Can anybody else fly the Boeing that way ? Hardly. Maybe if you are a very well trained military pilot with excellent knowledge of the area.

Are we stuck now ?

No. It can very well be the AAL77 – but no human pilot. Bothe videos fit together excellently.

[Kingshakabobo]

103. What utter bunk.....

Was it possible for Hani Hanjour to fly that manoeuvre ? No, for sure not. He was unable to fly a Cessna.

He was unable to fly a Cessna? That's a new one on me since he was licensed AND had a commercial/instrument rating.

Can anybody else fly the Boeing that way ? Hardly. Maybe if you are a very well trained military pilot with excellent knowledge of the area.

Nonsense. It was a fairly simple maneuver - not unlike a landing. Are you saying only a military pilot can land a 757?


Stop spreading bullshit.

[Jazz2006]

10. Well, they're an offshoot of the loose change club so...

draw your own conclusions.

One of the moderators at the loose change forum just started the "pilotsfortruth" site recently. It appears that he got mad when his flight data recorder "research" wasn't received very well at the loose change site and he got all huffy about it and said he was moving it to his fledgling site.
But the "pilotsfortruth" site doesn't seem to actually have many pilots around, maybe a couple (at best) but it looks like most of the members there are conspiracy theorists from the loose change forum.

So, no, I wouldn't count on any corrections or retractions any time soon.

[spooked911]

19. are you saying the animation released by the NTSB is wrong?

or what?

aren't you a pilot?

;)

[greyl]

30. Are you admitting that the FDR from Flight 77 is real? nt

[reprehensor]

8. Interview with JohnDoeX

Here's a radio interview with JohnDoeX
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/jackblood2906.mp3

This is posted at the Loose Change forum, there is much more discussion there. You may have to register to view it.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11092&view=findpost&p=6871719


The cvs shows pressure alt throughout


IAD Depature
cvs file
08:19:01 41 feet

animation
08:19:01 300 feet <~~~ field elevation


Climb through FL180 cvs file. No change in trend. Pressure alt is reported in cvs file.
08:28:00 AM 18015 30.21
08:28:01 AM 18056
08:28:02 AM 18093 30.21
08:28:03 AM 18132
08:28:04 AM 18170 29.91
08:28:05 AM 18210
08:28:06 AM 18247 29.94
08:28:07 AM 18288
08:28:08 AM 18324 29.91
08:28:09 AM 18364
08:28:10 AM 18402 29.92



Animation.

08:28:00 18300
08:28:01 18056 <~~~ set to 29.92 change in trend. Animation alt matches cvs file from here till 09:37:44.
08:28:02 18093
08:28:03 18132
08:28:04 18170
("snap-back" easily seen on animation file)


Descent
cvs file

09:24:14 AM 18126 29.92
09:24:15 AM 18088
09:24:16 AM 18049 30.23
09:24:17 AM 18011
09:24:18 AM 17972 30.01
09:24:19 AM 17932
09:24:20 AM 17895 30.23
09:24:21 AM 17855
09:24:22 AM 17815 30.07
09:24:23 AM 17775
09:24:24 AM 17734 30.23
09:24:25 AM 17694
09:24:26 AM 17653 30.29 <~~~ no change in trend. (pressure alt reported)
09:24:27 AM 17612
09:24:28 AM 17569 30.20
09:24:29 AM 17526
09:24:30 AM 17482 29.97
09:24:31 AM 17439
09:24:32 AM 17396 30.23
09:24:33 AM 17354
09:24:34 AM 17308 29.99
09:24:35 AM 17264
09:24:36 AM 17221 30.23
09:24:37 AM 17178
09:24:38 AM 17134 30.06
09:24:39 AM 17089
09:24:40 AM 17047 30.23
09:24:41 AM 17002
09:24:42 AM 16958 30.22
09:24:43 AM 16917
09:24:44 AM 16872 30.23
09:24:45 AM 16830
09:24:46 AM 16787 30.24
09:24:47 AM 16745
09:24:48 AM 16703 30.23
09:24:49 AM 16662
09:24:50 AM 16620 30.24


Animation. (no change in trend as was on the climb. Alt was NOT set on the way down in the animation. Im thinking they didnt want to show it set, because it would show 480MSL at 09:37:44)
09:24:14 AM 18126
09:24:15 AM 18088
09:24:16 AM 18049
09:24:17 AM 18011
09:24:18 AM 17972
09:24:19 AM 17932
09:24:20 AM 17895
09:24:21 AM 17855
09:24:22 AM 17815
09:24:23 AM 17775
09:24:24 AM 17734
09:24:25 AM 17694
09:24:26 AM 17653<~~~ no change in trend. (alt still set to 29.92)
09:24:27 AM 17612
09:24:28 AM 17569
09:24:29 AM 17526
09:24:30 AM 17482


09:37:44

cvs file 173'
animation 180'
(discrepancy in feet due to recordings in fractions of a second)


Not that it matters.. but either altitude (pressure or true) could not have hit the light poles...

[gbwarming]

11. No discontinuities at 18,000 ft suggests that the FDR is showing Press Alt

I think he's correct about that.

There is a source of error in the altitude readings which he has not discussed. The descent rate over the last several seconds of the flight is ~5400 ft/min, WAY above normal. There is a lag in altimeter readings during climb and descent due to the instrument dynamics which pilots are trained to anticipate. Could it be 300+ ft at 5400 ft/min? Maybe.

There was also a ground proximity (GPWS) warning beginning at 9:37:31, 13 seconds before the end of the data record (cell HE37702) for whatever that's worth.

[greyl]

13. Based on the physical evidence, it did hit them.

It would be ridiculous to totally ignore the physical evidence at the scene in favor of a misinterpration of the too-vague-for-comfort FDR.

edit: Here are just a few key frames from "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77"



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

[spooked911]

15. that is a cartoon and it is obviously disinfo

anyway, there are plenty of reasons to think AA77 didn't thit the pentagon, this flight path simulation is incredibly important evidence in that regard

[greyl]

28. So, you want to use the FDR from a flight you say didn't exist

as evidence that the flight didn't exist? Okayyyy.

that is a cartoon and it is obviously disinfo

No, it's a scientific model based on the evidence. Feel free to explain your problems with it.

[Kingshakabobo]

9. Why is everyone making a big deal out of the fact........

......that he didn't start his final run in to the pentagon @ 8000ft? Starting at 8000ft, it would have been much more difficult to hit the pentagon at that height/distance. He is at 2000 ft. when he crosses his original path for his final run. I would have gone around and set it up the same way. I'm only a private pilot but that path makes sense. It wasn't any radical maneuver. As a matter of fact, it was more of an armature maneuver as a really experience pilot could have put the plane in a slip and dumped a ton of altitude over a shorter distance. It's hard to tell the distance from the animation but the "go around" was definitely an armature play. This was probably more in line with his basic training re: airport approach.


edit:spelling

[QuettaKid]

12. very interesting thread.

I have always wondered why a nose-down, nearly vertical approach wouldn't have been the obvious approach of choice. From overhead, the Pentagon is laid out, right there in front of you like a target. Why all the fancy manouvering?

[medienanalyse]

20. the fancy manouvering

must ensure only the wedge got hit which was

a)nearly empty and

b) reinforced by steel beams, blast resistant windows and kevlar as wallpaper

c) far enogh away from the heart of the pentagon - the NMCC, and Wolfowitz and Rumsfelds office.

Have a look what rumsfeld did
www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html

[Kingshakabobo]

22. Um, he crossed his original flight-path.

The "go around" maneuver doesn't seem to change what side he hits. It only bleeds off 6000ft of altitude before his final run/approach.

[mogster]

53. But he wasn't gonna land

He was gonna crash. Create maximum damage. Terrorize. Why not take a nose dive? It would be more dramatic and more in accordance with what you'd think a terrorist would do. As the plane was supposedly full of passengers, held compliant only by knives and box cutters, would the slow circled descent fit a picture of a supposed badly trained pilot with passengers about to riot?

[Kingshakabobo]

58. Why not take a nose dive?

Because a nose dive is much more difficult than a landing type approach. The nose dive would be next to impossible for an inexperienced pilot. As the nose is pushed down, the plane picks up excess speed FAST. As it picks up speed, it generates lift. In the case of a nose-down attitude, the upward lift becomes forward lift making the airplane difficult to control - and hit a target. An EXPERIENCED pilot MIGHT have used a maneuver called a "slip" where the plane's controls(ailerons and rudder) are crossed in such a manner to cause the plane to "crab" or turn sideways. This maneuver causes a loss of lift enabling the pilot to dump altitude without picking up excess speed.

The 3 minute turn and approach these guys executed was the amateur play AND the sure bet. I don't think an additional 3 minutes was too long to wait for the sure bet to see the 72 virgins - or whatever. They might have only received 36 virgins if they only hit the parking-lot.

[mogster]

63. You are seeing this in retrospect

I'm talking about a terrorist who reportedly was a lousy pilot. If I was a lousy pilot and wanted to crash a plane, I'd think like that; nosedive. You think he had trained nosediving with intent to crash at the flight school? ;-)

So, he didn't turn his plane on the direct course to crash in the midst of the rather large target Pentagon represents, but instead took a long turn, then flew only a few metres above the ground for a period of time, on a course where he had many obstacles such as lamp posts, then hit the wall without even touching the ground in front of it.

I'm sorry, but that's not a very reasonable theory. It won't win you any virgins from me, at any rate.

[Kingshakabobo]

66. I'm seeing this as a private pilot who has flown for 20 years.

I try to see this from a pilot's perspective. I try to see this as someone who was once an inexperienced pilot. I know, and I'm quite certain anyone with basic aviation knowledge would know, NOT to try and nose-dive in.

I don't usually speak up on these threads unless I have some insight or input. It just so happens that I do on this matter. The commentary on the YouTube video is bullshit. Some of the posts on this thread are uninformed bullshit - like a lot of the CT opinions.

1. It wasn't any kind of difficult maneuver. It was a simple 30-40 degree bank turn and go-around......basic shit.
2. The easiest way to hit the broad-side of a building would be to do it at a shallow angle of attack-not a nose dive.
3. I wish I had a dollar for every time I executed similar maneuvers upon sighting my target- an airport in my case. That goes for when I was brand new to now.

Is it possible the pilot could have dived on the target? Sure, but it's not at all likely since these guys planned and trained to hit a target not miss. They were schooled in the basics. By the way, these guys WERE licensed pilots. No matter how marginal their skills were, they still had enough knowledge to run a plane in to the side of a building.

Sheesh.

[medienanalyse]

70. "Is it possible " -"not at all likely " - "these guys WERE "

Obviously conspiracy theories.

Fact is

- the plane hit the only reinforced wedge

- the plane took the most complicated way

- "these guys" were never identified

- the alleged "pilot" had no ticket and there is no proof he ever boarded the plane

- "a licensed pilot" is like " a licensed driver", a Cessna is not a Boeing like a car is not a bus

You are spreading conspiracy crap. After five years of getting the chance og knowing better

[Kingshakabobo]

100. I'll only speak to what I have some insight. The flight path...

....the FAA's recreation and the "so called" difficult maneuver...

- the plane took the most complicated way

100% wrong. Not true. 100% the opposite.

- "a licensed pilot" is like " a licensed driver", a Cessna is not a Boeing like a car is not a bus

Do you think you wouldn't be able to handle the wheel of a bus? I know I could. I wouldn't be able to make tight turns and navigate narrow city streets but I could certainly handle it on open roads and turns where I had plenty of room to maneuver. You wouldn't want me to pick up your grandmother on the curb cause I might run her over but I could "drive" it. Your analogy makes my point. The LICENSED - INSTRUMENT - RATED - COMMERCIAL PILOT had simulator training in the basics of large jet operation. CERTAINLY enough training to run the plane in to a wall. Take off, landing and day-to-day safe operation are a whole other story. I fly Cessnas and I know for a fact I could handle a jet in a similar manner given their advanced(yes they had advanced licenses) training and advanced simulator training.

[medienanalyse]

106. "100% wrong. Not true. 100% the opposite. "

I like your arguments. They are so convincing. And I tried to laugh but failed.

"I wouldn't be able to make tight turns " Not even with a bus, you Cessna-pilot. But Hani with a Boeing.

Tight turns seem to be difficult in two dimensions but 100"% easy fo beginners in 3 dimensions with a vehicle a bit more compli.... oh my god, that is wrong again, 100%. Sorry.

[Kingshakabobo]

108. He was an instrument/commercial rated licensed pilot........

.....but don't let the facts confuse you.

[mogster]

71. You are quick to dismiss other opinions as bullshit

It is not a good stance if you want to find the truth.

There must have been chaos at that plane the last minutes, when the pilot took that turn. All passengers held at bay by some knives and box-cutters only, yet he managed to take the turn and fly only a couple of meters above ground and hit a wall straight in the middle without even touching the ground.

[greyl]

76. How long should one wait before calling bullshit?

The FDR doesn't provide any info on what the hijackers were thinking.

Have you considered that the passengers may have been told they were going to land safely at National Airport(right 'behind' the Pentagon) if they didn't cause trouble?
If you want to find the truth, it's something to consider, don't you think?

[mogster]

78. True, but they were thinking beings

Some of the passengers had spoken on mobile phones to the outside world, and as this crash happened long after the WTC crashes, you'd think they would've known the fate of the other planes?

[medienanalyse]

81. "Some of the passengers had spoken on mobile phones "? NO

It was only barbara Olson who allegedly did so. Reading all interviews with the only man who brought up the "tragic last call" stories you will find it was coincidentally Mr. Olson, Bushs lawyer who saved his career when the elections were discussed by the supreme court.

Mr. olson was unable to stick to one story: one time it was a mobile phone, then the phone in the backseat, one time he spoke to her personally, one time all was only told to him because she was unable to reach him - and so on.

He is a liar and admitted so when asked if it is usefull to lie for political reasons.

So do not take the alleged phone calls as proof for anything. They would not stand one minute in a court room.

[greyl]

83. No, you're incorrect. Renee May also called her mother.

According to this:

At 9:12, Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane. She asked her mother to alert American Airlines.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-26.html

More info on the Olson's

[mogster]

86. Six individuals

At least two, maybe more, would have been busy in the cockpit. That leaves three, maybe four people, to herd the passengers/crew into the back and keep them quiet. Armed with knives - which would probably not be of the machete type - and box cutters.
Now, look at the passenger and crew list:

CREW

Charles Burlingame of Herndon, Virginia, was the plane's captain. He is survived by a wife, a daughter and a grandson. He had more than 20 years of experience flying with American Airlines and was a former U.S. Navy pilot.

David Charlebois, who lived in Washington's Dupont Circle neighborhood, was the first officer on the flight. "He was handsome and happy and very centered," his neighbor Travis White, told The Washington Post. "His life was the kind of life I wanted to have some day."

Michele Heidenberger of Chevy Chase, Maryland, was a flight attendant for 30 years. She left behind a husband, a pilot, and a daughter and son.

Flight attendant Jennifer Lewis, 38, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the wife of flight attendant Kenneth Lewis.

Flight attendant Kenneth Lewis, 49, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the husband of flight attendant Jennifer Lewis.

Renee May, 39, of Baltimore, Maryland, was a flight attendant.

More:
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

More than 50 people altogether, many of them young and fit. True, many of them too young to fight, but still.

As for the Olson's phone communications; why aren't phone records able to prove the exact time and duration of their calls?
After all, that's what he asked for according to that very wishful page you're linking to:

"Olson' recollection of the call's timing is extremely vague, saying it "must have been 9:15 or 9:30. Someone would have to reconstruct the time for me.""
(from a CNN report)

As for the faq.org page, it lists more or less what I'd have done in the last paragraph:

At 9:34,Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Ser-vice of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House.Amer-
ican 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a
330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet,
pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington.The hijacker pilot then
advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.

Maximum power, then dive straight in.

[greyl]

88. Do you think air travel employees were trained to fight back

before 9/11? They weren't. Just like any civilian employee working retail, they were trained to cooperate. The vast majority of pre-9/11 hijackings ended with safe landings, so they had little compelling reason to fight.

Why aren't you admitting that we don't know that the hijackers only had knives or razors? On what reports are you basing that?

[DoYouEverWonder]

93. I remember seeing Ted Olson being interviewed

right after 9-11. I think it was the Saturday night after, possibly CNN?

In that interview, he spoke about the phone calls from his wife Susan Olsen. He claimed to have spoken directly to her three different times. The first two calls were about the hijacking and what should she tell the pilots, etc. However, the third call, which somehow is now forgotten, Olson claims that it was more personal, where they said the things that two people who loved each other would say in that situation. So here's Barbara minutes away from dying, apparently giving up on helping the pilots, calling back her hubbie one last time to whisper sweet nothings. Something doesn't smell right here. Especially, since it seems Ted's story has been revised at least a few times.

[medienanalyse]

98. I counted 13 different versions in 2003

It might be more Olsen stories today as time passed by.

But better than to discredit liars which is necessary but takes active energy I would prefer to let those come on with proof

who allege they know that muslims hijacked the planes.

They have the evidence - so show it up.
They have the bodies of those 5 "hijackers" on ice. Hani Hanjouur had no ticket, could not fly, but his body is iced and as idenrifiable as the one of all the others like Barbara Olsen or Burlingame.

Make your points, OCT guys. Prove your allegations. We must not prove. You must, Bushists.

We relax and smile.

[greyl]

82. Even if they knew about the other planes,

why wouldn't they be hopeful to live if the hijackers told them they would if they didn't cause trouble?
Maybe some passengers did cause trouble and were killed?
(Maybe they were all killed at some point before the crash but after the phone calls?)

You seem to be starting with an assumption that passengers would invariably fight the hijackers. Maybe the 'thinking beings' wondered how the hell they would land safely if they killed all the hijackeres, including the one flying the plane?

[mogster]

84. No

Even if I hadn't heard about the other planes, there's no way I would have let a person armed with knife and box cutter only take over the plane, let alone drive it for almost an hour into an unknown destiny, without doing resistance.

So, yes, I don't see the passengers as mindless sitting ducks, as they were thinking and resourceful beings capable of taking care of a situation like this - especially if told about the top news that day. So, were the pilots killed, then? As they weren't able to take over flying if the hijackers were killed, I mean?

[greyl]

85. But you weren't on the plane.

Furthermore, how do we know all they had were knives or razor blades? We don't know that. Passengers on another flight said via phone that the hijackers said they had bombs, and isn't it reasonable to expect hijackers to do the most they possibly could to have a succesful mission?
You may not have noticed, but your argument is perilously close to some lousy arguments I've heard about rape cases.

"So, were the pilots killed, then? As they weren't able to take over flying if the hijackers were killed, I mean?"

What makes the most sense to you?

[mogster]

87. Well, we have the phone calls

You think they wouldn't have mentioned a bomb, if the hijackers had threatened to blow up the plane? ;-)
Oh, maybe they just wispered it to everybody but Renee May and Barbara Olson, so it wouldn't get out to the public.

You most surely would not know, but the way you argument match, point by point, what the Christian fundies in my country list as their undying defence for the Bush administration. One is of course evasion of facts by dragging in factors not in the picture, like rape. I call it fundamentalism; where you already have made up your mind, and the debate is just a defence of the assured facts.

[greyl]

89. The strength of my argument doesn't depend on bombs at all.

I just offered that as a possibility to consider on our "search for truth" as you put it. Forget the possibility of bombs, and my argument still stands.

You most surely would not know, but the way you argument match, point by point, what the Christian fundies in my country list as their undying defence for the Bush administration.

I don't understand that statement because of how it's worded.
You surely can't be saying that the Christian fundies in your country value analytical thinking and open mindedness?

[mogster]

90. No

They value the jumping, erratic fundamentalist debate; where one's not arguing in an open manner to find out what happened, but already have made up their mind, subsequently the debate becomes a battlefield where they:
1. Evade the points in the argument that conflicts with their view
2. Try to project a number of percieved opinions upon their 'opponent' (that would be me), a natural stance that comes from
3. The blacksacking of their debate 'opponent' as a conspiracy theorist, where he/she inherits eveything said about the current topic - no matter how silly - that has the opposing view that they carry

The Christian fundies I debate at home think I'm mad for suggesting that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that there exists Americans that don't support Bush, that John Kerry is anything but a Maoist communist (AND a selfish capitalist), et cetera.

They most certainly see themselves as analytical and open minded people, though.

You say your argument still stands, yet I just rationalized that bombs probably weren't a part of the threat picture on the plane. Four hijackers with knives and box cutters supposedly held more than 50 passengers at bay while a dip-shit lousy pilot were propelling them towards their death, taking the almost incredible care to hit the outer wall of the Pentagon instead of plunging the god damn plane into the eye of evil, as seen from above. As another sceptic said, hitting the parking lot would only produce 36 or so virgins, so you'd think the howlin' (but cold, well-trained and efficent) fanatics would see the outer wall of the section that was being repaired to produce not as many virgins as the smack down in the middle hit.

[greyl]

91. I said forget the bombs, and justify

your statement that all they had were knives and box cutters on Flight 77.

[mogster]

92. It's the official explanation?

:shrug:

[medienanalyse]

79. "the passengers may have been told "

is conspiracy theory.

Prove that there were hijackers in the plane who COULD have told this or that.

Prove. Before alleging and considering.

[greyl]

80. No, it's a reasoned, speculative hypothesis. nt

[greyl]

68. Hindsight is what? ;) nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

96. You are assuming they didint try a nose dive first

on Microsoft Flight Simulator or the like. You don't think they practiced this? I think you would find the level flight approach gave you the best chance of a hit.

[mirandapriestly]

72. rumsfeld time line scary -

it's just.....unbelieveable

[treestar]

125. There were trained ER personnel to help victims and Rummy is

running to them, as if to make himself look heroic and dramatic, when in his case, one could assume that he does not run for the victims but to take care of the bigger picture.

Like *, who should have immediately been "at the controls" He is the one they make out to be this heroic leader. Such a one would have insisted on going to NYC immediately, even if he was in danger.

Rummy would have been "at the controls" immediately, not making a show of looking "helpful."

Without even invoking LIHOP or MIHOP, Rummy looks like someone concerned with his image above all things.

* looks like a coward, sneaking away.

[Kingshakabobo]

21. That's the thing. It wasn't at all fancy.

It was quite amateurish. He set it up more like a landing approach. That's what drives me nuts about these theories. I'm not an aviation "expert", except for my 20 years private pilot experience, but that maneuver(3 minute long right-hand turn) wasn't even close to fancy. Of course, all you need is a website and some eerie music to make it so, I guess.

[greyl]

29. Yes. In addition,

the FDR shows the pilot was continually over-correcting on his final approach which jibes with what we know about his experience. Do you suppose he anticipated using the ground effect to avoid hitting the ground as he hit his target? edit: iow, the increase in pressure below the wings?

[Kingshakabobo]

42. I'm not sure what you question is re: ground effect.

I don't THINK it would be much of an issue @ 400 knots nose down. I think the larger problem would be the lift created by such increase in speed on his final run. You can see, in the animation, where the plane starts to float up as he increases the throttle to full. The faster he goes, the more he has to push the yoke forward. THAT would be the issue with trying to dump the plane on the pentagon from 8000ft when he makes initial visual contact. Hence, the go around and set up to bleed altitude.

Of course, it's been a while since my last Kamikaze training. :)

[greyl]

43. Thanks, I see.

I was trying to find an explanation beyond "somewhat lucky coincidence" that the plane came so close to the ground without hitting it. What you've explained is helpful.
Is it true, that with the gear up, a cushion would be created between the plane and the ground because the downward diverted air would have less space to divert to, thus increasing the pressure below the wings?

[Kingshakabobo]

44. I suppose there would be a ground effect.

How much, if any, would be a question for someone a whole lot smarter than me.

Like I said, if anything, he would have had a hard time not flying OVER the building based on his increase in airspeed alone. Watch the flight-path arc up as he increases throttle on final run. Power setting and speed is what is used to control altitude. Notice how he throttles back at first and almost never goes nose below the artificial horizon......until the very end.

The rule of thumb for ground effect is the height equal to or less the the planes wing-span. The larger the wing-span the higher the effect. (again, I don't fly the big-boys so the "rule of thumb" could be different)

I'm only familiar with its affect on a light single engine aircraft. It's discussed more when talking about take-off. For instance, one would use it during a soft-field take-off by pulling all the way back on the yoke at a speed below actual minimum take-off speed so as to "fly" the aircraft "in the ground-effect" until reaching minimum take off speed. The theory is that it's easier to gain speed in the air than on a soft field.

[DoYouEverWonder]

126. In the words of Paul Wolfowitz

"There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was."

[treestar]

128. If one is not a pilot, it is hard to tell who to believe

But even if the maneuver was difficult, Hani Hanjour would've been desperate to succeed, and that can do a lot. I'm willing to believe he could have done it. Then again, I find it weird that plane is not around. That plane should have still been there after the accident, shouldn't it have? I don't buy the theory it "vaporized." It wasn't a nuclear bomb that was involved.

All the planes appear to have "vaporized" or been so totally broken down upon impact that they cannot be found and studied, which strikes me as suspicious, because they have been for other accidents/terrorist incidents.

[spooked911]

16. can you say smoking gun?

If the plane wasn't low enough to hit the light poles, then no way in hell could it have come in low enough to produce the damage pattern seen at the pentagon.

Official story dead

[Kingshakabobo]

25. So, what hit the polls? A missile? nt

[boolean]

31. ONCE AGAIN

Explain to me why the people behind the conspiracy would purposely knock down the light poles. What possible REASON would they have?

Why do you guys always ignore the lack of motive for all the bullshit? "OMG! The plane couldn't have hit the light poles!!! IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY!!!"

[bmcatt]

32. What's wrong with just asking the questions?

That's the part that always confounds me - people who act like the questions can't even be asked. There certainly seems to be a legitimate question here of "what *did* knock the light poles over because it seems that it couldn't have been the planes?"

I'm perfectly willing to accept that there *may be* a reasonable answer to that question. But I haven't heard one. And, until I do, the mere existence of the question is troubling.

[greyl]

33. Strawman. There's nothing wrong with asking questions.

However, Invincible Ignorance is something to be wary of.

What do you think of some of the answers provided in this thread?
See? Even I ask questions. ;)

[mirandapriestly]

73. You're right, and it's no strawman.eom

[treestar]

127. Have to agree. Those who say that would make terrible police

detectives, I hope they don't hold that job. It's as if you can't ask the question unless you know the answer and can explain everything from the Beginning of Time.

[DoYouEverWonder]

51. Wouldn't hitting the lightpoles

have caused some serious damage to the plane too? If the fuel is in the wings, wouldn't that have caused the plane to start to break up and possibly explode before it hit the Pentagon?

[sgsmith]

54. Combustion takes time to start

We saw that with the crash into WTC1. The plane was entirely in the building before the explosion started. So, if the lampposts were strong enough to break through the leading edge spar (hint 1: that's a substantial piece of metal), and cause a leak in the fuel tanks, it would still take some time for a fire to start.

Hint 2: Many lampposts are designed to fall down easily if hit by a vehicle. Since an airplane is much larger than a car or truck, I think the airplane wins this battle.

[DoYouEverWonder]

55. Breaking of wings doesn't?

After hitting multiple light pools the plane should have started falling apart and losing speed before it hit the wall.

We are supposed to believe that this plane remained completely intact until it went through and all the way inside the first wall of the Pentagon. Only in the moves can a plane do that.

[greyl]

56. The light poles are designed to break away, not the wings! nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

59. Light poles designed to break away?

Oh, that sounds like a good idea. You mean, if I hit a light pole with my car, the pole is supposed to break away and fall over? That doesn't sound very safe. Not only do I smash my own car but now the falling light pole can hit other cars or pedestrians. I don't think so.

[greyl]

60. Yes, designed to break away.

It doesn't matter if you think it's a good idea or not.

Transpo's "Double Neck" Pole-Safe® is an omni-directional breakaway support system for light poles located within roadside clear zones and other locations vulnerable to vehicular impacts. The primary component of the system is a high-strength coupling, designed to break away quickly and cleanly upon impact, saving lives and reducing property damage. Pole-Safe® couplings are omni-directional, meaning the system breaks away with consistent, predictable behavior, regardless of the vehicle's angle of impact.
www.transpo.com/breakaways.htm

"FHWA should require retrofit for breakaway poles, light supports and other highway appurtenances on federal-aid highways."
http://www.saferoads.org/polls/stuckinneutral.htm

625.03 General. Use lighting terminology as defined in the American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting. Exceptions are as follows:
A. A luminaire includes the direct appurtenances such as a reflector, refractor, housing, and supports that are integral with the housing and high intensity discharge (HID) or fluorescent ballasts when applicable. The luminaire includes the lamp.
B. A light pole includes the pole, bracket arm if required, transformer base, couplings, slip plates or other break-away device as specified, and integral hardware to support luminaries.
www.ctre.iastate.edu-pubs-tsinfo-ts21-25.doc

edit: adding this link for overkill: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/those-magic-light-poles.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

61. So is there any proof

that these were the kind of light poles installed around the Pentagon?

Also, these are designed for something hitting them at the base of the pole, the fact that they can break away shouldn't have made a difference to the incoming airplane hitting them. The plane would still be damaged and the pole was going to get knocked down anyway.

[greyl]

62. Yes, in answer to your question:

"So is there any proof that these were the kind of light poles installed around the Pentagon?"

Here's a friendly suggestion: Do some investigative journalism for yourself and make up your mind independently. I've provided some links to help in the previous post.

Also, these are designed for something hitting them at the base of the pole, the fact that they can break away shouldn't have made a difference to the incoming airplane hitting them. The plane would still be damaged and the pole was going to get knocked down anyway.

I doubt that it did make a difference to the plane. I'm not arguing that the plane wasn't damaged, only that in a battle between the poles and the wings, the wings win. In fact, you may recall from upthread that I posted an screenshot that shows that the plane was damaged by one of the luminaries entering the engine.

[Kingshakabobo]

64. Do you ever get the feeling you are talking to a brick wall? nt

[greyl]

69. Hehe. I think I'd rather call it

tilting at windmills. ;)

[DoYouEverWonder]

65. I don't have time for your wild goose chases

that wouldn't prove anything anyway.

You're the one making the claims. It is up to you to do your own homework.

[greyl]

67. Oh c'mon. I wouldn't call your original question a wild goose chase.

You asked a question, and have received several responses from more than one person. Now you call my encouraging you to finish your line of inquiry independently using the links I've already provided is a wild goose chase? Nice.

[rman]

122. to make it look as though a large plane came in very low,

to lend credibility to the OCT.

[Nozebro]

123. Do you have any proof of how the light poles were brought down?

If so, please provide it.

[Make7]

35. What hit the Light Poles? - Was the landing gear down?

j/k

:) Make7

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Just a question

The animation is talking about the altitude above "sea level". Has adjustment been made for the fact that the Pentagon is situated on ground that's above sea level?

[Sinti]

75. Knocked down by jet engine blow back maybe??

I don't know. I'm grasping at straws there. The route the NTSB is now reporting is ridiculous, IMO. That plane would have flown right over my neighborhood twice, the second time in basically a nose dive. No one in my old neighborhood saw/heard/felt a plane. We only experienced the "BOOM" when it hit. The whole thing pings my BS meter, but why give an incorrect flight path... makes no sense.

[AZCat]

95. I think we've talked about that possibility before...

but I'm not sure when (or what thread). I might take a look at the archives later, because I don't remember the outcome of the discussion.

[vincent_vega_lives]

97. Nope

Very little "Jet engine blow back", better known as thrust, when an aircraft is moving at flight speed, enough to overcome air friction and maintain lift.

When you see air displaced by the thrust of jet exaust knocking over cars and such the aircraft is accelerating from a standing start.

Equal and opposite reaction...

[Kingshakabobo]

101. I'm confused. What would you have heard?

It wasn't a "nose dive." I guess you could call it a shallow dive. According to the recreation, he never exceeded 15-20% nose-down attitude. I suppose you would have heard a loud engine noise on the final run because 400 knots is pretty fast that close to the ground. I doubt you would have noticed anything out of the ordinary prior to, during, and immediately after the first pass over @8000ft... or second pass at 2000ft - If you were under the intersection of both paths.

[Sinti]

104. It would have been exceedingly out of the ordinary

I lived less than 15 miles from the Pentagon at the time (I could see the Pentagon from my 9th floor apartment window), one block up from Rt. 7, that's King St, and two blocks down from 495. Planes don't fly over that space basically ever. It would have been very shocking to the whole neighborhood, a real WTF??? moment. - lots and lots of people outside, waiting for the bus in the morning. Had there been no crash into the Pentagon, it still would have caused an uproar, complaints, did you see that airliner, what the hell was he doing flying over our neighborhood. They got a lot of fussy yuppie people, you know. In this case, no one saw the plane. Initially I thought they said he took the river approach, which is normal for National Airport, then veered wildly off course.

That said, let me be clear I am in no way suggesting there's something nefarious going on with NTSB. I figure they just have their map slightly off. I think this is the third round of flight path we've gotten IIRC. We may get a fourth, who knows. :shrug:

[Kingshakabobo]

105. Wow. Your neighborhood goes in to a tizzy over a plane.....

.......at 2000ft and 8000ft? I hope you don't own a stereo or a lawn mower.

[Sinti]

107. Perhaps I'm mistaken, did he totally nosedive in the last 10 miles or so?

There's a graph, and another map that goes with it, which suggest that he was much lower than 2000 feet on the second pass. Perhaps I am totally misreading what I see here, or maybe these are old and don't go with the new info. Goodness knows I have an incredible capacity for being wrong. You can see what I'm talking about in the images below.




Nonetheless, regardless of noise level, planes don't go over that area, and no one saw one. I would have personally seen this plane had he flown that path and it would have been unusual, what can I say.

[Kingshakabobo]

109. I'm not sure what you are saying but the graph seems to be a bit...

.....decieving on the eye. I think it looks deceiving because it's done over time - not distance. Sure, it makes it look like a nose-dive on the decent side but then you have to believe the plane took off like a rocket on the ascent side. The flight-path I was referring to was the visual model provided on youtube. I'm assuming that's correct. I've seen several of these NTSB models due to my morbid hobby/curiosity for plane crashes. The model shows him crossing under his original(8000ft) path at about 2000ft. I don't now his distance from target at that intersection?? The maps you provide only show the final as a little loop at the end - there doesn't seem to be any help re:scale or distance. Also, the artificial horizon/attitude indicator doesn't show anything more than 15-20% nose down attitude. The plane would have probably resembled a plane landing except for the load noise due to full power and excess speed that close to the ground.

[Sinti]

110. I see. There's a corollary map of the "final approach" from NTSB

that's supposed to show where the plane is, in relation to various streets and such on the ground. I think they messed this part up - perhaps their mapping to the ground is a little off. This close up map begins after "F" on the other two diagrams. If people could see it coming down from 14th Street Bridge, at least people said they did and why would they lie, I'm absolutely certain we would have seen it from my neighborhood if it was on our side. The 14th street witnesses may be why I thought (as other did) that it took the river approach.

To get an idea of scale, the space between Rt. 236 and Rt. 50, at the wide point following Rt. 7, is only about 10 miles. OTOH, perhaps there is newer data that puts the plane elsewhere. The distance from where the two points meet in this circle to the Pentagon is less than 15 miles, not as the crow flies, but the long way, if you will. :shrug: Maybe the data is slightly off, at high speed I imagine that could make quite a bit of difference.

[Kingshakabobo]

111. Was there a picture embedded? All I got was a "red X" nt

[Sinti]

112. Let me try again see if uploadfile.info works better than hotlinking

[Make7]

115. RE: map scale

The map in post #112 shows an area approximately 16.5 miles wide by 12.25 miles high.

I estimate that the Pentagon is about 3.5 miles from the point where the loop intersects itself.

- Make7

[Make7]

116. There has only been one officially released flight path.

Was 495 a typo?

- Make7

[Sinti]

118. Was 495 a typo? Yep, or maybe just a brain fart. I meant 395 and Rt. 7

95, 495, 395, and 295 are all related. 95 is the highway that goes out into the boonies (and from NY to FLA), starts in Springfield VA, I believe - 495 is the outer loop, 395 is the inner loop, and 295 is the last bit that goes into DC itself. :dunce:

[reprehensor]

94. JohnDoeX in defense of analysis and anonymity

JohnDoeX posted this defense of the altitude discrepency and current anonymity over at ColbertNation.com;

http://www.colboard.com/viewtopic.php?p=113130#113130

Anyone here who belives the csv altimeter reports actual altitude also believes that AA77 was 260 feet below the surface at Dulles.

The csv file shows pressure altitude (as set to 29.92), something the "skeptics" fail to realize. The animation shows true altitude in the beginning of the flight.. but shows pressure altitude later in the flight. This discrepency makes the average viewer expect the aircraft to be at 180 feet so it appears to be more plausible to have hit the light poles (although still too high even with a 75 foot margin of error allowed by the FAA, see explaination below). But, if you knew what you were looking at, you'd realize that the local altimeter pressure was 30.22 which makes that airplane actual altitude 300 feet higher than indicated.

The whole analysis is here... including screenshots... of how the altimeter wasnt set in the animation on descent.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11092&view=findpost&p=6871719

Both the csv file and the animation match exactly, except for the fact where the csv file shows the altimeter as being set on the descent under the "baro co" column. This is not reflected in the animation as they probably didnt want to show people that the aircraft was actually near 500 feet when crossing the light poles. They probably thought no one would catch it.. they were wrong.


As for the continued attacks on my credibility without you people having ANYproof, its typical of people who cant debate the facts.

Here is a PM i sent to abbyanne explaining why im not public with my name on the internet..


"Im anonymous to YOU... im not anonymous to Dylan, Glen, Merc, Russell, Valis, JackD, TheQuest.. etc etc.... NO ONE knows who KT is...

But.. you all will know exactly who i am eventually.. radio interviews are being set up.. and eventually a list will be posted on Pilots For Truth with all our names and ratings.. depending on FAA database since anyone can get our full address via the internet and the FAA dBase.


http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*85534369!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/pages/search.html

Isnt that weird though.. how anynoe can find any pilot on the net.. find his address, kill him.. steal his passport, Airline ID and pilot license.. and go jumpseat on an airliner.. you would think in todays day and age with terrorism.. they wouldnt provide that information to just anyone on the internet...... you can even get apathoids address if you know his name... and you thought our skies were safe.."

MarkX, be sure to show apathoid how to look up Glen Stanish.

Now, if you guys want to debate the facts and show me how 180 feet was the properly set altitude.. im all ears.. But i warn you, you wont find it.

Next, even if the altimeter was set properly when showing 180 feet.. it STILL couldnt have hit the poles.. The ground elevation is 40 feet above sea level.. and the poles are another 37 feet. If you know how to add, thats 77 feet and still doesnt reach. Even with the margin of error allowed by the FAA of 75 feet... it still comes up short. However, this point is moot since the aircraft was 480 feet above sea level.

Going around saying im not a pilot without being able to debate any of my facts really isnt a very strong debate strategy and shows your agenda.

Have fun people... more interviews are comig up.. i'll keep you posted.

All sp SIC.

[gbwarming]

99. Ask him how much atlimeter lag we should see 5400ft/min descent rate.

After looking more at the fdr data I agreed (upthread) that the pressure altitude column is most liekly showing pressure altitude without the barometric correction for the entire record. I have not seen anyone address the lag issue. Pilots are trained to level off in climbs and descents to compensate for altimeter lag - one rule of thumb is to begin the level off at 10% climb or descent rate before the target altitude. For example, at 1000ft/min climb you would level off at 9900ft if you sere planning to go to 10000ft.

Another factor so far not discussed is the filtering and damping applied to that data channel. It is interesing that if indeed it is pressure altitude then this data is never directly displayed to the pilots.

Based on the physics of a pressure altimeter the lag cannot be zero. So what is the number?

[Kingshakabobo]

102. Do we even know, for a fact, that this isn't a radar altimeter? nt

[sgsmith]

113. The FDR column is labeled as "pressure alt"

The pitot / static system is used in aircraft from Piper Cubs, all the way up to supersonic fighters. In fact, improper maintenace of the pitot / static system has killed hundreds of people over the years, also from Piper Cubs to commercial airliners.

As discussed above, the altimeter is adjusted to the local pressure setting several times during a typical flight. Definately, the altimeter is set at the beginning of a flight and early in the arrival at an airport.

The question should be did the ground proximity warning system trigger during the flight. And the answer is "Yes", at approximately 1,400 feet.

[Kingshakabobo]

114. Thanks. I understand there are readings for the pressure alt.

I was curious if we knew for a fact that the altimeter readings displayed on the NTSB animation were from THAT data?

It appears it is. I would like to see the radar altimeter data. I wonder if they have a record of that since it's much more accurate close to the ground.....no lag time.

A rule of thumb used is 10% of the vertical velocity for lag in the pressure altimeter. A pressure altimeter isn't perfect. That's why the big boys use a radar altimeter for landings. If the plane was dropping at a significant rate, say 3000ft per minute, there could be a significant lag in the altimeter reading of 300ft.

[johndoeX]

117. Kingshakabobo

amature.... lol

[greyl]

119. Welcome to DU!

Are you the same johndoex who is 26 years old and has 20 years experience as a pilot?

[johndoeX]

120. 26 yrs old?

nope. not me....

But i do have over 20 years flying experience... plus a CFI II MEI... wanna test me?

[johndoeX]

121. or perhaps you can debate the facts?

Common Strategy Prior to 9/11/2001.

I find it hard to believe Capt. Burlingame gave up his ship to Hani Hanjour pointing a boxcutter at him... period...

Pilots know The Common Strategy prior to 9/11. Capt. Burlingame would have taken them where they wanted to go, but only after seeing more than a "boxcutter" or knife. Why did Burlingame, a 6'5" retired Military Officer with training in anti-terrorism, give up his airplane to 5 foot nothing.. 100 and nothing Hani Hanjour holding a "boxcutter". (Exaggeration added for size of Hani.. he was tiny.. lets just put it that way).

"Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters"

The pilots' number 1 priority is the safety of the passengers. Number 2 priority is to get them to their destination on time. Pilots dont just give up their airplane to someone with a knife.. regardless of what the press has told you about The Common Strategy prior to 9/11.


To those pilots out there. Think about the old Common Strategy... we know it was to cooperate.. but was it to give up your ship to anyone with a knife? No! What the press doesnt tell the public is that there is alot more to the old Common Strategy than "complete, full cooperation".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Flight Data Recorder Analysis

Last Second of Data

09:37:44

08/20/06

We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.

We have an animation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. I have sat through the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to the impact at the Pentagon in real time.

The screenshot below shows the very last frame of the recorded data. Its stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to Google Earth. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment.



For a more in depth analysis on altimeter settings, please see right margin.The FDR Research Team


Phone call to NTSB and FBI

Special thanks to "shure" over at the Loose Change forums for making and providing these calls.

shure has a list of calls to various agencies on his site www.pumpitout.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, the JetTech manager."

"The operations manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix said she called the FAA inspector that oversaw her school three times in January and February 2001 to express her concerns about Hanjour. "

"Chevrette, the flight school manager, said she told Anthony she believed Hanjour could not write or speak English fluently as required to get a U.S. commercial pilot's license."

"The thing that really concerned me was that John had a conversation in the hallway with Hani and realized what his skills were at that point and his ability to speak English," Chevrette said.

Chevrette said she was surprised when the FAA official suggested the school might consider getting a translator to help Hanjour.

"He offered a translator," Chevrette said. "Of course, I brought up the fact that went against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently before they even get their license


Copyright © 2006 PilotsForTruth. All Rights Reserved.
[e-mail]

http://pilotsfor911truth.bravehost.com/pentagon.html

[greyl]

136. Perhaps I can. State one. nt

[Kingshakabobo]

140. Funny stuff goin on at YouTube........

I posted some messages, as did someone else, regarding his contradictions re:altimeter lag AND his bogus profile.............

They disappeared.....DOH....Now I"M a conspiracy theorist!!!!

Here it goes again:

KINGSHAKABOBO (11 seconds ago)
Oh wait. Now you are saying down-thread that Baro altimeters DO, in fact, Lag. You contradict your self. THAT and your bogus profile stating you are 26yrs old which has subsequently been charged to 104yrs. 20 years pilot experience my ass. Busted- you're 26 LOL.
(reply to this)
View All 39 Comments
Comment on this video Post a Video Response

[Kingshakabobo]

141. And....Poof! It's gone!

An hour and it's gone. I wonder how that happens????

My only guess is the , so called, "truth seekers" are flagging messages they don't want to hear as spam. I would think it would have to be an organized effort.

Doh! it's a conspiracy I tells ya!

It doesn't surprise me. I went on "pilots for truth" and they ban people when called on their bull-shit. Liar liar- pants on fire.

[gbwarming]

129. CFII? Do you know what altimeter lag is on the 757 >5000ft/min nt

[greyl]

130. according to the Youtube profile. nt

[Kingshakabobo]

131. LOL. Another internet phony. 26 years old with 20 years experience. nt

Busted:rofl:

Of course, the profile has been changed to 104 years old.:rofl:

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kingshakabobo]

139. Any comments on Hysteresis and its effect on an altimeter during...

....a rapid descent?

We have you - and your dubious Youtube profile.

And then we have LINKS from independent 3rd party sources.

http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14030/css/14030_45.htm

Hysteresis Error.— Hysteresis error is a lag in altitude indication due to the elastic properties of the material within the altimeter. This occurs after an aircraft has maintained a constant altitude for an extended period of time and then makes a large, rapid altitude change. After a rapid descent, altimeter readings are higher than actual. This error is negligible during climbs and descent at a slow rate or after maintaining a new altitude for a short period of time.


HYSTERESIS:

Hysteresis results from the imperfect elasticity of aneroid capsules and springs which tend to retain a given shape even though the external forces have changed. It is present during rapid altitude changes and for a short duration thereafter. Hysteresis affects pressure altimeters.

REVERSAL ERROR:

Reversal error results from induced false static pressure sensations caused by large or abrupt pitch changes which give a momentary indication in the opposite direction. It affects pressure altimeters and vertical-speed indicators.

[leftofthedial]

124. it was the ay-rab goat herder

flying that big jet like it was a piper cub (which he also couldn't fly)

[greyl]

132. "ay-rab goat herder"?

Can you do us a favor? Can you look up the ratio of Arab Phds to Arab goat herders?
I'd ask you to list how many of the hijackers were goat herders, but apparently you don't believe there were any hijackers. (Is that correct?)

[leftofthedial]

133. someone took over those planes

but where the planes were and who was flying them at various times is unknown.

every real patriot knows that everyone in the middle east except the Israelis is an Ay-rab and that nearly all Ay-rabs are goat herders. Don't you listen to the radio?

[greyl]

135. "Don't you listen to the radio?"

Doesn't matter, because of posts like yours that keep me informed.

[leftofthedial]

137. I'm glad to be of help

you have any questions now, you just ask.

[Nozebro]

138. There's no proof that ANYTHING "hit" the light poles.

If you have some credible proof that something "hit" the light poles, please produce it. "If this, then this" logic is not proof - so don't bother with the long ago discredited reasoning of "well, there's a photo of a cab with a broken windshield and a light pole nearby, so "the plane" MUST have hit the pole."

Not so fast, Mr. and Mrs. "Bush is incompetent but not mean enough to condone something that would cause the life of anyone - whether an American or not". The light poles could have been unscrewed, removed and planted and the damaged cab could have been worked-over with a baseball bat.

[mirandapriestly]

142. Cabbie who was hit by a light pole supposedly

The LC guys interviewed him, very interesting (notice no damage to the hood of the car)
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=15140

[Nozebro]

144. What is an "LC" guy? Is it too much to just spell it out? EOM

nt

[mirandapriestly]

143. Bush Senior's plane clipped a pole & tore off a wing

Remember that?

the wing was torn off, the pole as you can see was bent in half.

http://analysis.batcave.net/pentagon.html

[Nozebro]

145. Of course - but disruptors will say "different kind of plane, ma'am". NT

NT

[Kingshakabobo]

146. Sure, don't let the factinistas get in your way or slow you down....

Don't let the fact that the pentagon plane was 3 or 4 times heavier and traveling @ 3 or 4 times the speed. Don't let size and location of wing main-spar affect your "critical" thinking.

Nah! Why let facts get in your way?

[Nozebro]

147. You neglected to mention about the poles. Remember the POLES?

Those puppies are lighter than puppies. The one that "hit" the taxicab didn't even put so much as a dent in the hood of the car.

Now to your predictable observation that the alleged pentagon plane was heavy and traveling fast. Hypothetically, let's say a B757 WAS flying at 400+MPH (or take your pick, whatever air speed makes you happy) and let's say it struck a light pole. About how far would you estimate that light pole would be thrown?

[Kingshakabobo]

148. I try to speak about only what I know............

I know for a FACT that your comparison of the Gulfstream accident and the pentagon 757 strike is DOWNRIGHT SILLY. You knew it when you posted it but that didn't stop you, did it?


Watch the video of this "black-ops" operator.


http://www.nbc4.com/news/8988021/detail.html

[Nozebro]

153. Now I understand why you didn't respond to the points I made.

"I try to speak about only what I know"

Also, where in my post is there any mention of a Gulfstream?

[Kingshakabobo]

154. "where in my post is there any mention of a Gulfstream?"

Um, this whole sub-thread started with a silly post comparing the Gulfstream(pole strike) accident to the 757(pole strike) accident. You commented on it with the insinuation that anyone questioning it was a "disruptor." Please remove your head from your rear before releasing the snark.

I only commented on the ridiculous comparison because I happen to know a little bit about airplanes....not that it wouldn't have taken you two minutes to google the 2 airplane's weight and speed....Nah that would be too much to ask.

As for the rest of your nonsensical blather I chose to ignore: Neither one of us has enough information to comment on what the light-pole would or wouldn't have done during the pentagon strike. You COULD listen to the cab-driver witness.


P.s. According to another poster in this thread, the Gulfstream pole was, in fact, a 200 ft. "light tower" - with a light assembly the size of a car located at the top...not a run-of-the-mill break away designed street light.

[Nozebro]

155. Your post is little more than an excuse for not being able to refute mine.

Try one of the easy ones: How far would you expect a light pole to go after it had been hit by a big 757 airliner? Two feet? 150 feet? 200 yards? What?

[Kingshakabobo]

157. I have no idea and neither do you!

I'm a pilot....not a PHD in light-pole dynamics.

If a Lincoln Town-Car happened to be in the way, I would suspect that's as far as it would go. How's that for an answer?

He says only a portion of the pole went through his windshield.

Absent any PROOF or expert opinion, I think I'll stick to the evidence.

[Nozebro]

158. I'll stick with the proof/expert opinion. N/T

nt

[Kingshakabobo]

159. Which would be........what?

There is an eyewitness(the guy that almost got killed by the pole), a photograph and my blathering "expert" opinion. :)

Whaddyuo got? Except for questions? I must have missed something. Did you put forth any expert opinion re:the light-pole trajectory?

[gbwarming]

149. Good point, the poles were bigger too, 200 feet tall

http://www.nbc5i.com/travelgetaways/3938189/detail.html
Officials said the Gulfstream jet, carrying three passengers, crashed at 6:23 a.m. near the toll road between South Wayside and Cullen, just south of the toll plaza near Highway 288.

Here, I think (use the hybrid view and zoom out to see the street names):
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=houston+tx&ie=UTF8&z=19&ll=29.600057,-95.328967&spn=0.001584,0.00339&t=k&om=1
Compare the length of the light pole shadows to those of the sign across over the highway just to the east.

200 foot tall obstacles on the approach to RWY 4
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0609/00198IL4.PDF

Much taller than the pentagon poles with a ring of lamps at the top with a diameter about the length of a car.

[Kingshakabobo]

150. I'm not sure what your point is???

The Huston poles seemed to be light "towers"(not street lights) if they were, in fact, 200 feet high... Wouldn't we assume the larger tower would do MORE damage?

I'm going to take a guess here and assume the 200 foot light tower wasn't designed to "break away" like a regular street light.....I could be wrong.


edit add:
If they had a ring of lights around them, I'm familiar with them. We have them along I55 in chicago. Those things are huge. 200 feet seems about right. No wonder they caused more damage(besides the plane size differential) The lights are on a device meant to slide up and down the pole via a pulley system. This is to facilitate bulb changes.

another case closed.

[gbwarming]

151. I'd expect more damage from larger poles/towers too

Sorry that I wasn't clear about that.

[Kingshakabobo]

152. That's what I thought....

:-)

[johndoeX]

160. Vertical Speed/Alternate Analysis/Fallacy of Lag issues

Lag issues also addressed here.

Alternate Analysis working back from impact hole (Elevations from US Geological Survey. Accurate pole lengths)
Final Draft: New Elevations/Calculations from the USGS




Pole 1 - 43'MSL ground elevation + 31.5 pole impact height = 74.5 MSL Total height above sea level.
Pole 1 aircraft height - 87'+38'ground elevation of pentagon+10.38' imapct hole height = 135.38 MSL.
Aircraft was 60.88 feet above Pole #1.

(not sure of exact reported impact height so i'll use the full 40' for pole length)
Pole 2 - 43'+ 40' = 83' MSL Pole Height
Pole 2 Aircraft Height - 74' + 48.38 = 122.38 MSL
Aircraft was 39.38' above pole #2

Pole 3 - 42'+ 40 = 82' MSL pole height
Pole 3 Aircraft Height - 60' + 50.38 = 110.38 MSL
Aircraft was 28.38' above Pole #3

Pole 4 - 42' + 40 = 82' MSL
Pole 4 Aircraft Height - 50' + 50.38 = 100.38 MSL
Aircraft was 18.38' above Pole # 4

Pole 5 - 41' + 40 = 81' MSL
Pole 5 Aircraft Height - 39' + 50.38 = 89.38
Aircraft was 8.38'above Pole #5

Numbers in black bold above represent the height above impact hole at pentagon based on descent rate of 66 ft/sec and distance from impact hole at pentagon to pole with a forward speed of 784 ft/sec.

To draw your own line.. go here... http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/viewer.php>USGS Seamless Data Distribution

As a reminder, the above an alternate analysis based on working back from the pentagon impact hole. For a more accurate Aircraft height, please visit here for the Flight Data Recorder analysis mid page.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html>http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

The ground elevation is drawn directly over the USGS Profile shown in the first post, then stretched/skewed to match distance based on GE measuring tool for the specified length of flight path.



http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=84

Vertical Speed and lag issues addressed.
We all know the Dept of Defense video shows an onject going level across the lawn. So "debunkers" have tried to offer the theory that the FDR altimeter may be lagging due to pressure differentials. I have plotted the last few seconds side by side to address this issue based on the FDR data.

Altitudes are in bold. Please remember the following altitudes are from the csv file and reflect Pressure altitude. You need to add 300 feet to get the actual altitude of the aircraft.

09:37:42 AM 307

09:37:43 AM 239

09:37:44 AM 173

09:37:45 AM
09:37:46 AM


Between :42-43: seconds is a 4080 fpm decent. A typical normal descent for a jet aircraft with a professional pilot at the helm.

Between :43-:44 seconds is a 3980 fpm descent. Again.. nothing major for a professional in a jet aircraft. This is even considered "normal". A steep descent sure.. but nothing "abnormal". Abnormal would be in excess of 7000 fpm.

The total fpm descent rate from 42-44 is 4020 fpm. Definitely a good rate of descent, but not abnormal for a professional pilot. Hani, if he did have training as a pilot in Cessnas, would only be used to 1,000 fpm descents. But we already know Hani couldnt control a 172, so i have no idea how he would handle 4000 fpm without hitting the pentagon lawn.

A quote someone was helpful to point out about altimeter lag...

e) Hysteresis: This error is a lag in the altitude indications caused by the elastic properties of the materials used in the aneroids. It occurs when an aircraft initiates a large, rapid altitude change or an abrupt level-off from a rapid climb or descent. It takes a period of time for the aneroids to catch up with the new pressure environment; hence, a lag in indications. This error has been significantly reduced in modern altimeters and is considered negligible at normal rates of descent for jet aircraft.
http://allstar.fiu.edu/aero/PSI.htm>http://allstar.fiu.edu/aero/PSI.htm

Basically. The above quote is correct. That altimeters do lag. When you abruptly change altitudes. In other words, when you are level and quickly move the stick, you will see a lag in the altimeter momentarily. Then it catches up as your are in the descent. You will also notice most modern altimeters have reduced this lag and that it is negligible in modern jets (mainly due to static port design and computers installed on modern jets).

Another helpful quote from a training site I had found during a quick search (when arguing the lag issue). I used to actually teach this to new students when i instructed full time years ago in Cessna's and Cherokee's.

c. Lag in the altimeter.
(1) Make an abrupt pitch change and point out the momentary lag in the altimeter.
(2) Make small, smooth pitch changes and point out that the altimeter, for practical purposes, has no lag. .
http://www.geocities.com/cfidarren/iplesson1.htm>http://www.geocities.com/cfidarren/iplesson1.htm

Now we see in the http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=DzR-q0ijbV0&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DDzR-q0ijbV0>animation descent that it was deliberate, smooth and not abrupt. The descent rate wasnt abnormal for a modern jet. Therefore... no lag. This may be the reason why Boeing, the NTSB and the FBI do not want to help us decode the additional FDR data to help us confirm that there was most likely no lag. However, the data still needs to be decoded. You would think if this additional data supported the official story, they would be stepping forward to decode it. They arent. Also, if the additional data does lend itself to altimeter lag, then the increased descent rate would have to be explained as it currently conflicts with the DOD video of an object level across the pentagon lawn.



Now, if this altimeter is lagging, which we see from the above quotes it shouldnt be, the descent rate will increase from its present data and will be in further conflict with the Dept Of defense video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1440278264701456007&q=Pentagon+video&hl=en>The "5 Frames Video") showing a level object crossing the pentagon lawn. The above object, which the NTSB says is AA77, its showing a 4000 fpm descent rate for the last two seconds of data in its present form. The video shows it level across the lawn for the very last second (1:26-1:27 in the above video).

If the official impact time was at 09:37:45, that means that AA77 would have had to pull out of a 4000 fpm descent instantaneously and be level across that lawn. IMPOSSIBLE! If this aircraft was too high to hit the light poles (480 feet as noted in the current data provided by the NTSB), it would have more time/altitude available to pull out of this descent and overshoot the pentagon. Leaving a fireball in its wake while quickly exiting the area. Very possible.


If you account for altimeter lag, the descent rate is increased to more than 4000 fpm.

Something is rotten in Denmark.

Now we all know why Boeing and the NTSB do not want to explain nor decode the further data we have. It will only conflict further with the DOD video if they want to use the "lag" excuse. But we know from the quotes its improbable the altimeter showed lag.

Final conclusion, either..

A. altimeter is accurate via the 4 sources of information we have that match and conflicts with the official govt story regarding the light poles and DOD video.

or...

B. The increased descent rate makes it that much more improbable (read: impossible) an object was able to be level across the lawn in the DOD video.

(I may add/edit for typos in the future on this post)
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=73

[rman]

162. wings of a large plane might not have torn off,

but also it isn't very likely that it would have uprooted any poles that were hit - as opposed to bending/breaking the poles.

[LARED]

163. And this is relevant because? (n/t)

[greyl]

161. kick nt