Two questions to MercutioATC (and RH too)

[FannySS]

Mercutio, I found your statements very informative, and I also "subscribe" what you once wrote:

"Actually, if I was forced to subscribe to a CT, "remote control" looks the best. I don't believe it, but there's no evidence refuting a scenario where a hidden remote control device was used to fly the planes. Every other scenario has BIG holes."

I personally don´t think this is too improbable, but anyway, I would like to ask 2 questions:

1) A remote control in a 757: how precise would it work? I know that GPS or DGPS could be very very precise, so a remote controlled plane could be flewn MORE exactly than the BEST pilot could do; but the question is, how precise could react the 757? I mean, could it direct a 757 on the facade at plus/minus 1 or 2 meters?

2) If you should speculate; which scenario regarding the ATC / Air Defense problem ist mostly compatible with Ockams Razor, in your opinion?

Thank you very much,

Fanny

[Old and In the Way]

1. "could it direct a 757 on the facade at plus/minus 1 or 2 meters?"

A better question: could Hans Hanjour, or any terrorist, with only limited time in a flight simulator accomplish that? Personally, I don't see how they go from 7000 feet at cruise speed, drop 270 degrees, and place it in the Pentagon. Any novice pilot would probably destroy the airframe well before they contact the Pentagon. What are the odds of pulling this off the way they did? Pretty damn high I think.

[FannySS]

2. That´s not my point...

... Hani Hanjour did not have to bother, if he could direct the plane plus/minus 1 or 2 meters. It would be good enough if he could hit the building nearly anywhere.

My question to M. has another background.

Fanny

[John Doe II]

8. Hani bothering

I know this was not your question but please let me give a short insertion here because the argument that Hani didn't have to bother was used several times on DU and I think it's not a solid argument
Of course Hani had to bother. He very much had to bother not to crash into the ground before hitting the Pentagon. That his 330° turn while descending from 7000 feet was very difficult has been pointed out by numerous persons. Only from this observation I don't think we can jump to any conclusion but certainly
Hani very much had to bother the last seconds of his flight!

[RH]

11. I have not yet any data

to define the radius of the turn, nor even the speed at which it turned.

So according to what then is any opinion of difficulty justified?

The notion is bogus. It is not even clear that Hanjour flew the plane, and if he was it is anything but clear that he was in full control of it.

[John Doe II]

12. Commission Report

I based my post onn the Commission Report (p. 9f)

They talk of 330° and that it hit the Pentagon at 530 mph.
That Hanjour is assumed hijacker. I don't think I've to give a source for that.
Do you go with the CR or do you question it?

Btw I'm happy you check my sources on Bukhari but I would be very intersted in what you actually think of what I've written.

[RH]

15. Huh?

What in the Commission Report alludes to any difficulty?

What is difficult about a 330 degree turn?

According to the Commission Report the plane throttled up after it was pointed at the Pentagon, implying that the turn before then was conducted at something less than 530 m.p.h.

I see nothing in the report to define the radius of the turn.

According to the CR notes there was an NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77," Is it anywhere online?

[John Doe II]

18. Huh!

I have not yet any data to define the radius of the turn"

At 9:34 (...) American 77 (...) 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 davanced the throttles to the maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon. At 9:37:46, AA 77 crashed"."

That's what the CR says. If that's not enough info for you then ask them!
Oherwise we can only use the data we have. That's what I did. So reason for an "Huh"?!

[Make7]

19. radius

radius

n 1: the length of a line segment between the center and circumference of a circle or sphere 2: a straight line from the center to the perimeter of a circle (or from the center to the surface of a sphere) 3: a circular region whose area is indicated by the length of its radius; "they located it within a radius of 2 miles"

dictionary.com

-Make7

[k-robjoe]

21. Cryptic

But anyhow. Here is a pic that a poster on the letsroll discussion board posted over there. It´s taken from the Sheraton hotel, and he has attempted to draw in an approximate flightpath.





Another poster at letsroll commented that, considering that the speed of the plane was so high that it would be only 8 (9-10?) seconds from passing the hotel, until slamming into the Pentagon, what we´re talking about here is really a manouver that "...would make an Imperial Star Fleet Commander proud."

Another poster commented : "I live in DC and look at the Pentagon every time I drive by. It would be impossible for a low-maneuverability aircraft like a passenger jet to hit the Pentagon from that side,(...). It would have to be a pretty steep dive - like the BBC video!"

He really has a good point. When you look at this pic of the area :
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/506344/L
it just doesn´t make sense that anyone would fly in from that direction, UNLESS they had decided to hit that particular wing.

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

"Quiz" :

19 arabs plan to crash a passenger jet into the Pentagon. Their planning is pretty thorough.

Question 1 : Does their planning include taking a trip to Washington to have a look at their target?

Yes / No / Ofcourse / Ofcourse not

Question 2 : Having a look at the target ( driving past ), do they notice that there is work going on in one of the wings?
( Contractor trailors, cable spools, generator, people working )

Yes / No / Ofcourse / Ofcourse not

Quetion 3 : Do they conclude that the wing will be mostly empty, and so - if their aim is to hurt the american military the most - there will be little point in hitting this particular wing?

Yes / No / Ofcourse / Ofcourse not

[Make7]

25. A 330 degree turn...

is not difficult if the radius is large (i.e. not a "tight" turn), and difficult to impossible if it is very small (i.e. an extremely "tight" turn.)

Without knowing the radius, nothing can be said about the difficulty (or ease) of the turn.

Thought I'd post the definition of radius to maybe help clarify things. I guess I could have explained it more.

:) Make7

I can't tell how easy/difficult the turn was from that picture. Maybe I am missing something.

Your quiz starts off on an unknowable assumption. Was the Pentagon the intended target? Or was it a change of plan? Why a 330 degree turn if they knew where they were going? How would one know any of this with any degree of certainty? But....

If it were their intended target, it does not make sense that they would hit the area under construction. But on the other hand, they might have just been lucky to hit it at all. Regardless of what one may hear, those big planes do not practically fly themselves.

[John Doe II]

27. Intended target or change of plan

So far I've often read that the Pentagon wasn't the intended target but eg White House.
If the change of plane really was the case then what the hell was the reason for Hani to change the plan less than four minutes before hitting the target?
And on the other hand: If the plan for whatever reason was changed then it seems very bizarre he decided to go for the turn (even if it is less difficult than often believed) and not to nosedive into the Pentagon which was less difficult and would have created more damage!?

[RH]

33. The plane was lined up

directly with the Capitol Dome.

If you suppose that the intention was to hit the Capitol while buzzing low over the Pentagon for good effect, the trajectory then begins to make some sense.

The reason for a last minute change of plan could have been the unexpected interception by a cowboy in a military C130. I'd like to know how close it really was to the wayward B757.

[FannySS]

35. Could it be, that ..

Could it be, that the terrorists originally wanted to hit the Capitol (or the White House, which isn´t too far from the "line"), but then were attacked by passengers?

There have been telephone calls with passengers before 9:37 and they knew what will happen...

Fanny

[John Doe II]

39. As far as I know

there is only the call of Barbara Olson. The last one taking place less than seven minutes before the plane crashed. She says nothing about a plan.
But assuming the passengers attacked: Then Hani's tour makes even less sense. Why not simply nosedive into the Pentagon? Especially if one has no time left for any sightseeing because passengers are attacking?
Down in this thread you asked what the sense would the missile theory have. I agree to your questions but what sense does Hani's tour make??

[FannySS]

40. Olson was informed, and

Olson was informed what´s going on.

And Hani could not "simply nosedive". Nosediving isn´t simple. Did you ever fly as a pilot?

And I think AA 77 was western of the Pentagon after Olsons call. So it was already in the line of the Pentagon / Capitol, and crashing the Pentagon brings the attack to and end arround one minute earlier; this could be decisive.

Fanny

[John Doe II]

41. No, I'm not a pilot

The 330° turn began according to the CR (p. 9) at 9:34. As newspaper account place Olson's call at 9:30 and she says nothing about any plan I don't really see how within only four minutes the passengers could have passed infos, come up with a plan, stormed the cockpit door and lead Hani to start his final action and all this in less than four minutes.
You say nosediving isn't simple. As I said I'm not a pilot. But for my common sense nosediving into a building of the size of the Pentagon seems clearly less difficult as going for the Hani Hanjour turn and crash the plane between the first and second floor of the Pentagon. If you think otherwse or if you could simply point out the special difficulties of nosediving I'd be very interested. As honestly I'm simply lacking any special knowledge and base my assumption only on common sense.

[RH]

45. Consider the geography.

The plane had been flying towards the sun from the west. The Pentagon is not so easy to see from that side, with the Arlington Heights in the way.

[John Doe II]

56. Towards the sun

Flying towards the sun certainly doesn't simplify nosediving into the Pentagon but I'd think it certainly doesn't simplify the Hanjour circle neither. So given the size of the Pentagon I still like to know why not nosediving especially if they changed plan at the very last minute (moreover this quite likely imply that they didn't know the surrounding of the Pentagon very well and if the Hanjour turn is possible)

[John Doe II]

38. Ok

Sure the C-130 story, the very same that turns up at Shanksville when UA 93 crashed needs further clarification.
But assuming the Capitol was the target and there was (for whatever reason) a last minute change of mind then why didn't Hani go for the siple solution and nosedive right into the Pentagon (however one turns it this certainly is simpler than what AA 77 is supposed to have done and it would have created far greater damage and it would have ivolved the chance to kill Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (but this of course only if the hijackers had some preplaning concerning the Pentagon).

[k-robjoe]

31. turn

> "Thought I'd post the definition of radius to maybe help clarify things."

OK, that smiley got me all soft. I guess the reason your post turned out so cheeky, is because it was all intermingled in RH´s stuff, and John Doe II was answering to RH.

But anyhow, what have we got?

"At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn."

And the time of the crash 9:38.

Then we set the speed to 500 mph. ( A lower speed will give a shorter radius. )

Then with a bit of hocus pocus I get that the radius of the turn will be between 2.5 and 3 miles.

So what does it tell me? Nothing I´m afraid.

For my part I feel that it is the last 15 seconds of the flight that is revealing what kind of pilot we are dealing with.

But anyway, I`ll add an excerpt from an interview with the pilot Russ Wittenberg, who has actually flown both the United Airlines planes that crashed on 911 :

" (...) would Hani Hanjour be able to do this?

RW : No. No way. I mean, the airplane... I was watching a 60 Minutes...did you see the 60 Minutes segment they did about three or four weeks ago on the...on the Washington D.C. sector patroller that followed that flight (...)?

VT : No.

RW : OK. Well I recorded that flight and it´s so full of holes it looks like a swiss cheese. The airplane could not possibly have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won´t go that fast when you start pulling those high-G maneuvers at those...those bank angles. So for them to expect this airplane to run these maneuvers with this total amateur at the controls is totally ludicrous."

Now, when I´m reading this I´m thinking, he must be exaggerating it, but then, I never even heard about a "high speed stall".

(Don´t have the URL. The transcript was posted on a discussion forum so there´s no help googling either. But if you go to Wing TV, you might be able to see the interview.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Why a 330 degree turn if they knew where they were going?"

Good question. My take on it is that it´s a frameup, so they don´t go in from the North because it would make it too obvious that they were going for that prticular wing. So they come in from the West. And coming in from the West you might as well make a 330 degree turn as going North, then East, then South, if you get what I mean.

The idea that they didn´t know where they were going seems pretty farfetched to me.

[RH]

32. So why not

then take the professional advice?

If it was not possible for Hanjour to perform the turn successfully, the need is then to consider the alternative hypothesis: Whoever or whatever was in the pilot seat lost control.

Did anybody yet suppose that there was no intended destination? I merely doubt that an intended destination would involve a collision with five lamp poles.

[k-robjoe]

73. Stall

I don´t know what happens if a plane gets into a high speed stall.
Does it mean that it will not be possible to steer it either way, and it will simply crash to the ground. If this is so, then Flight 77 was not in a high speed stall. It was very much steered to hit the Pentagon.

Is it like, an amateur like Hanjour would definately get into a high speed stall, because he wouldn´t know the special kind of flying you would have to do to prevent it, doing that curve?

Came across this on a letsroll thread : " Slats (...)used to slow the aircraft, but prevent stalling."

[Abe Linkman]

74. Is there any evidence that places Hani at the controls of FL 77?

With all due respect, isn't it a little much to accept the premise that Hani Hanjour could even be remotely likely to fly anything more than a paper airplane, much less a large jet? Don't you think any jet pilot worth his/her salt is deeply offended at the notion that a total amateur like Hani Hanjour could even conceivably have been able to fly a B757?

[RH]

75. I have seen nothing

absolutely definitive to suppose that Hanjour was in the pilot seat.

I have no doubt though that he would be able to steer the thing. Just about anybody with no previous experience could achieve the same on a simulator. There used to be a TV program the theme of which was to test the ability of previously untrained people to land using a simulator. They did remarkably well.

[AZCat]

77. I actually had a similar discussion about a month ago

I work on-and-off at a flight simulator company here, and about a month ago one of the instructors was chatting about when he brought his 11-year-old grandson to the center. He said that within ten minutes, the child had the simulator (a Lear-60 I think - I don't remember which sim he was in) doing just about everything possible. The question of a pilot's competency has always struck me as irrelevant, because most of the testing done concerns procedures related to takeoffs and landings, and actually flying the plane is of little concern. In fact, the major air carrier companies don't have their pilots do much flying as cockpit management. Programming the flight director, scanning for problems related to the aircraft - these are things that are emphasized. Hanjour may not have been able to excecute a missed approach or a LDA with glide slope approach, but flying the plane itself isn't particularly difficult.

But I am probably not the most well-informed person on these boards with respect to aircraft. DemoTex has far more experience than I do, and has proven willing in the past to share his extensive knowledge with the DU community.

[Abe Linkman]

78. Hani "The Boy Wonder" pilot WAS allegedly landing

I forget what the term is for a perfect landing, but if you believe the OCT, HaniBoy made one.

Which does raise a question about just how much overpaid ARE pilots these days?

[MercutioATC]

79. That's a complete misrepresentation.

"Landing" and "crashing" are two different things. It might not be easy to land a commercial aircraft, but anybody can crash one.

I'll try to illustrate:

Throw a baseball at a wall. Would it be reasonable to state that you have incredible pitching accuracy because you hit the wall exactly where you hit it or would it be more reasonable to think that it wasn't all that difficult to hit the wall and the exact place the ball hit the wall was a matter of chance?

You can't equate the difficulty of landing a 757 with the skill necessary to crash one.

The Pentagon may have been the target, but the exact position of the strike was chance.

[Abe Linkman]

80. Any misrepresentation is in YOUR message, Mr - not mine..

Hani could fly and when it was time to land, he did that, too. He may have maybe landed a few feet short of the designated landing spot, but he put 'er down. Just because the Gov't won't show us any videotape of his landing, and just because the aircraft magically disappeared immediately upon landing, is no reason to speculate about Hani's flying skills or his objective.

[MercutioATC]

81. You're still avoiding the issue.

Show me proof that there was a "designated landing spot" that was a "few feet short" of where Hani "put 'er down".

You can't because you have none.

Given that the Pentagon was the target, AAL77 hit its target, true. To presume that the specific target was exactly where AAL77 hit it, though, is ridiculous.

Hani (or whomever was flying the plane) hit the Pentagon. Exactly WHERE he hit the Pentagon is immaterial. Hitting the building was all that was required. It wasn't a particularly difficult task because no "landing" was involved...crashing into a very big building was the only goal.

[Abe Linkman]

85. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. (even if it isn't just yours

Just one question: it sounds like you might be at least implying that Hani was coming in for a landing, but maybe got a case of the nerves right at the last moment. Am I right about that?

[MercutioATC]

88. As are you.

I'm certainly not implying that Hany was attempting to land the plane. He (or whomever was flying it) was attempting to crash it...and did so successfully, I might add.

My point was that it takes training to safely land a commercial airliner. Crashing one is relatively easy. The pilot of AAL77 didn't have to be a competent pilot, he just needed to understand how to work the throttles and turn the plane.

[Abe Linkman]

89. Here we go again with another UNPROVEN, false premise.

Saying that something happened whenever the weight of the available evidence suggests at the very least that it's an open question, and whenever the best evidence is purposely withheld by the party with the most to gain by withholding it, ought to cause an OBJECTIVE person to refrain from making statements and claims that arise from an unproven, and arguably very false premise. Keyword: Objective.

[MercutioATC]

90. Unproven and false? Like a missile?

...or an F-16? Or "shaped charges"? Or...

well, you get the idea.

You disagree that landing a plane safely takes more skill than crashing it?

[AZCat]

82. The pilot wasn't landing in the normal sense

A landing normally involves a lot of cockpit management - following an approach profile, talking with the tower, etc. All the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon appeared to be doing was flying the plane (admittedly into the ground) - not dealing with all the extra things a pilot and copilot must manage in a successful landing.



And yes - line captains in the big air carriers are paid A LOT - but that discussion probably doesn't belong here.

[MercutioATC]

83. Yes, pilots (with senority in the majors) are paid a lot.

They deserve every penny.

[AZCat]

84. I deal mostly with part 135 and JAA pilots

I don't know much about air carrier operations, but the pilots I do know earn their pay. I am a little worried about the rat brain (see this thread) but I think that is a long way off.

[MercutioATC]

87. I'm not too concerned about the rat brain...

...nobody's going to voluntarily get into a large aluminum cylinder that's being flung through the sky by a rodent.

Human pilots (and air traffic controllers) are going to be around a while, I suspect.

[Abe Linkman]

86. NOTHING was normal about Hani's flying skills, were they?

I certainly don't claim to know what was in his mind on that day. Hell, I don't even know where he WAS on that day. For sure, no one here has provided any evidence whatsoever that Hani was sitting in the Captain's seat, or even that he was on a plane that day.

I still maintain that if Hani could fly as well as some people are suggesting, then airline pilots are grossly overpaid. Hani was some kind of A-MAYZING flying fool, eh what?

[MercutioATC]

91. Tell you what, Abe...

If you can't see the difference between landing safely (which requires training and skill) and crashing (which anybody can do), I have a great healthcare plan for you...

I have no medical training, but I'm willing to perform surgery for a reasonable price. I can cut into somebody as well as anybody can. It's silly to use one of those "grossly overpaid" doctors just because they know what they're doing...

[k-robjoe]

92. Maybe you could try out this

on the 757 simulator program:

You are going at a speed of about 400 mph.
You are passing over a five story building.( The Naval Annex.)



Now your task is to dive down to the ground and level out,
and do this fast enough to hit the lamp-posts by the street below.
I have this idea that this will be very difficult, even for a top gun.

[tngledwebb]

94. Looks like the hard way...

The video tapes might tell all one day, if they still exist.

However, it still seems very long odds that any inexperienced pilot, accidentally or not, succeeded in such a difficult and unnecessary maneuver, managing to hit the GROUND floor of the ONE wall of a FIVE-(that's five not the usual four)-sided building undergoing extensive renovations to defend against similar, though until that very day, unprecedented attacks, and of course that part of the building also happened to be relatively empty of all 'important' personnel, unlike the rest of the place; which, even a good while after the 2nd WTC attack, remained un-evacuated; and then, soon after the THIRD devastating attack on the homeland in US history, a certain Secretary of Defense, and the one man who should have taken most, but as yet has escaped ALL blame for 9/11, a Mr. Donald Rumsfeld by name, happened to take a casual stroll outside, and be photographed doing so, with an expression as if checking the growth rate of the Pentagon's crabgrass.

All in all, astronomical odds must have been in play. What I'd give for a bookmaker or similar expert in statistics who can parse it all out for us amateurs. Especially how fortunate for the USA that the attackers hit, on purpose or by chance, the one out of five sides that resulted in the least number of fatalities.

[RH]

99. How do you work that out?

What makes you think that an inexperienced pilot would be less likely than an experienced pilot to perform an unnecessary maneuver?

Is that what they teach them at flight school, to prefer to perform unnecessary maneuvers?

:shrug:

[k-robjoe]

102. We don´t know

how unnecessary it was.
If the aim was to take out some people in a particular room ( maybe in the C ring )...

On edit : On the first floor, I must add.
Point being that if it had hit on the second floor, it go over their heads, staying on the second floor...

[Abe Linkman]

100. Hasn't "Mercutio ATC" referred you to the ASCE report yet?

Difficult, if not impossible-to-answer questions about the Pentagon & 9/11 are handled primarily by Mercutio ATC & his ever-ready ASCE report that, as you know, was written by professionals -- that's what makes it sound so prima facie plausible, (minutia issues are usually parried by the gentleman from Heathrow. Perceptive questions (of substance and/or motivation/agenda etc.) are handled by "Lared", with assistance by the Fan man. Issues requiring special genius in unlimited subjects are generally handled by VVegaIsStillAlive.

I apologize to any other primary OCTheorist if I neglected to mention you. Some crossover matters into more than one primary 9/11 area may be handled by the same OCTheorist.

Answers to most questions about the Pentagon attack can be found in the ASCE report...which was written by professionals - so, like Powdermilk biscuits, it's pure (propaganda) MOSTLY.

Acid indigestion? Check your ASCE source.

Can't understand how an evildoer who could barely find his way to a cockpit, and then with zero experience be instantly transformed into a flying ace whenever he allegedly boards a large airplane with the intent to fly it to Heaven (with a quick detour to the Pentagon to teach the Infidels a lesson)...flying just as if his life didn't depend on it? Check your ASCE report.

If more people would just read that ASCE report, they would certainly have a better understanding of how operations like 9/11 can be carried out successfully despite the absurdities of an Official Conspiracy Theory that lays the actual blame on a CIA asset who lives in caves and has a pair of bad oil filters which require regular maintenance.

Folks, it's all right there in the ASCE report. Have some...TODAY. In NEW, EASY to swallow propaganda form.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[Abe Linkman]

105. What falls away -- or disappears into the electronic ink wastebasket

One of the evildoer terrusts has apparently hacked into the DU site, and did an operation (psyops?) on my original message. The original message said that questions (substantive or otherwise) concerning the WTC attacks are handled by "lared". Somehow his association with WTC issues was removed from the message, thus weakening the notion of his special knowledge of WTC crappola. Most likely, one of the bush people did it. But, I'll concede that it's possible I may have accidentally deleted the WTC notation.
I still think it was an evildoer who done it, but in these days of modern times it's not only hard to know WHERDY GO? but it's also hard sometimes to just figure out WHO DONE IT (Abbott or Lou?).

All of my important comments and prescient opinions regarding what seems to have become your special interest can be found in the ASCE report. Just ASCE. It really is all there. Take a look at it. No. Really.
Then, you'll have a better appreciation for why ATC answers questions and makes so many dubious claims based on it.

[MercutioATC]

111. You're an intelligent man, Abe. Just respond to the ASCE report.

I understand you don't agree with its conclusions. Just tell us what, specifically, with what you don't agree.

I know I've asked this (over and over and over), but I'm hoping to get lucky this time...

[AZCat]

112. Isn't the definition of insanity...

repeating the same thing over and over - while expecting a different result?


Methinks you have chosen your Sisyphean task, MercutioATC. Good luck.

[MercutioATC]

113. Point taken. I'm just an idealist.

I keep believing that he'll stick to a subject long enough for us to actually discuss it...

That aside, you're one of the few aviation people here. I try to qualify whatever I say about pilots and airlines, but if I'm ever in error, please let me know. We work with pilots every day, but we still operate in two different worlds and I want to make sure I've got an accurate picture of the "other side".

Thanks for hanging out here. It's helped me understand things from another aspect.

[AZCat]

114. No problem

The same goes for me. I wish I knew more about air carrier operations, but as I've said before, most (if not all) of the training done is by the operators themselves. It's especially helpful that you work (and worked) in the area of interest (regarding September 11th). While there are lots of important questions to be asked, you have been good about limiting the "theory spread" by responding regularly to questions. It's interesting reading about ATC operations also, so please continue posting. I appreciate it.

[MercutioATC]

115. Thanks.

If you ever get over this way, let me know. As long as I have a few day's notice (thanks to new security procedures...) I can show off our little operation.

Failing that, it'd be great to just have a beer or two...

[AZCat]

116. Sure! The same goes here

Although summers are better (for some reason) for scheduling "slack time" in the sims.

I'd love to see an ATC layout. I don't know when I'll be up that direction - have some friends there - but my last family member in the NE shucked out of there last summer. I'll have to see what I'm doing this spring.

Regarding security measures - yeah, they're crazy here for some people (non-citizens) but it's pretty relaxed for most. As you might imagine, Middle Easterners were persona non grata for a while here, but things are calming down. Corporate bows to the almighty dollar after all, and there are lots of royal air forces in the Middle East that need training.

[MercutioATC]

117. Sim time (even just observing) would be really cool.

I've done Fam flights (a kind of ride-along program that existed before 9/11) before, but I really think any exposure we can get to pilots' issues is a great thing.

Let me know...PM me if you get up this way and I'll get you in.

[AZCat]

118. We've got a whole crop of sims

I may be at a wedding next April there (just checked the calendar between posts). I'll be sure to let you know if I'm gonna make it.

Sims the Tucson Center has: LR-25, LR-31, LR-35, LR-45, LR-55, LR-60, CL-601, CL-604. I like the LR-60 - it handles pretty sweet. All of the sims except the LR-25 are level C or D (full motion). I'll see if we have the Cleveland area modelled. Usually we use the Tucson airport or the Wichita (KS) airport, but we have a bunch of others that get dragged out for clients.

[MercutioATC]

119. Just let me know...I've lived here for the past 29 years (since I was 8).

I can show you Cleveland Center, get you into Cleveland Approach (if you'd like) and clue you in on a couple of good restaurants and bars.

[AZCat]

120. Yeah - that would be great

I don't know how much time we're going to have, as I haven't figured out what I'm doing this spring (work or school). They (the people getting married) live in a 'burb of Cleveland - Westlake(?). I'll PM you sometime in February when I have a better idea of how long we're going to take off.

As for now, it's past 2 here and I'm getting punchy, so I'm going to head to bed. Have a good time covering the night shift postings here (that "No plane wreckage..." thread is getting huge, by the way).

[MercutioATC]

121. Looking forward to it...(BTW, I live in Westlake)

take care.

[Abe Linkman]

128. Repeatedly responding to legitimate questions by referring to a .......

propaganda piece like the ASCE report isn't necessarily insane. It may
be the result of lack of knowledge of how governments operate. However; anyone today who is even mildly informed surely knows about how bushco
scammed us with their lies about Iraq (dishonest reports about alleged WMD, dishonest speeches at the U.N. by the Secretary of My Lai Massacre Coverups and State)...yet acts as though the ASCE report is as honest as Abe, may well be suspected of acting in accordance with your repetition theory.

Is it your position also, that the ASCE report is an honest piece of objective work by a group of people who started with no predetermined conclusion and sought to find the truth about what really happened?

Would you like to go on the DU record as a "true believer"? You know, just so WE'LL know where you're coming from - whenever you leave the made-up world of the simulator room.

[RH]

133. What standard or criteria

would qualify as "propaganda", in the Abe Linkman book?

In view of nothing but name calling and irrelevance it is all but impossible to guess.

The ASCE report was commissioned to review architectural issues.

[AZCat]

176. Sure, I'll go on the record regarding the ASCE report

Have I read it? I have read the January 2003 report titled, "The Pentagon Building Performance Report". As I understand it, there will be a followup report released soon (if it hasn't been already).

Is it my position that "the ASCE report is an honest piece of objective work by a group of people who started with no predetermined conclusion and sought to find the truth about what really happened?" (quote from your post)

Let's start with what I know:
First, I am under no illusion that engineers are incapable of either lying or intentionally misinterpreting information in order to advance a particular agenda. I have read quite a bit about the history of organizations such as the Army Corps of Engineers (and their water projects). Coupled with my own observations (of peers) it is clear that this kind of behavior is not as uncommon as I would like it to be.

Second, I do not believe that the group assigned the task of analyzing the Pentagon damage started with no preconceptions about what happened. While they did interview witnesses, their primary purpose seems to be to determine the point of impact of the aircraft, the attitude at impact, and other possible relevant information (such as the clipped generator). It is probable that they would have discounted any information that didn't mesh with the accepted version of events, although this is just speculation barring testimony of the building performance study team members.

Third, while it is possible that there may have been some ulterior motive for falsifying the report, it is unusual for such a thing to occur without some outcry from professionals who disagree. This does take some time, but just because an organization like the ASCE sponsors a report doesn't mean there aren't engineers who (like many on these forums) like to double-check the results. I have not read any such analysis yet.

Finally, I think it is important to understand the purpose of the ASCE report. As it has been stated before, the report was not written to explore possible alternatives to the official story, but rather to examine the damage done to the Pentagon using the official story as a framework. Impacts are highly nonlinear, and it is virtually impossible to reconstruct an event such as this without some assumptions (too many variables). Does this report prove that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon? No, but it doesn't disprove that theory either. Ultimately, the report (IMHO) is a decent collection of information that we can reference. Because there are many on this forum who disagree strongly with some of the basic assumptions of the report, it does not serve as confirmation of theory, until we can reach some consensus regarding those assumptions (which may never happen).

Does this answer your question? Sorry I didn't answer right away - it's a busy time of year for me (as it is for many of us).

Regarding your comment on the "made-up world of the simulator room" - That has been a topic of conversation at work a number of times while I've been there. Ultimately, to prove (or disprove) something about an aircraft you have to get out and fly it, because simulators don't manage to "simulate" everything completely. Because of this, you may have noticed that I (try to) defer to those with extensive piloting experience (DemoTex comes to mind). Feel free to call "B.S" on anything I post, but I try hard to correctly qualify any statements I make.

[Abe Linkman]

177. Pentagon Building Damage Assessment Report

"Does this report prove that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon? No, but it doesn't disprove that theory either."

Is that supposed to mean that since it doesn't DISPROVE the fairy tale,
that must mean the fairy tale isn't...a fairy tale?

[AZCat]

179. Wow - that was fast.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. By "fairy tale", do you mean what this forum has been calling the "official story"?

And what do you mean by the second half of the sentence: "that must mean the fairy tale isn't...a fairy tale?"

If I understand it correctly, you are asking if I believe that because the report doesn't disprove the official story, that means the official story is the truth.

In answer to that question, I think that we need to use other sources of information besides the ASCE report to determine the validity of the official story. The report is not enough.

Please correct me if I misunderstood.

[Abe Linkman]

127. Thanks for the compliment. Since you ASCE, read this.

My own response to the ASCE report is to hope that one day our Gov't will no longer undertake actions that require covering up via reports such as the ASCE report.

Most people aren't smart enough to be honest, and the same goes for Governments. So, whether it's your local police department issuing a
report to cover-up allegations of police misconduct and criminality...or
an official commission appointed by the U.S. Federal Government such as the Warren Commission (which, like the ASCE report) started with an unproven premise and conclusion, then "found" evidence which supported the predetermined outcome, and ignored findings which would have led to
a full disclosure (and accountability for) what really happened -- concerned citizens are well-advised to be suspicious of any Gov't report
issued by Gov't appointed commissions whose neutrality is questionable.
Fidelity to the truth is often sacrificed to fidelity to the "butter".

Don't YOU want honest investigations and honest reports of crimes like those of 9/11? If you do and I'm sure that's the case, then the ASCE report isn't very encouraging, is it?

[MercutioATC]

130. So which of the ASCE reports conclusions do you disagree with, and why?

Your philosophy aside, do you have a specific beef with the report or do you have issues with ANY report commissioned by the government?

[Abe Linkman]

134. The ASCE report is propaganda. So, why would you ask such a question?

People who urge others to agree with propaganda often engage in making phony appeals to their critics. Of course, you would never do such a thing. Right? Because, you're just here to be helpful. On behalf of whom? I'm sure you take your marching orders ONLY from your own authentic, sincere desire to be of help to those who don't know as much as you or I.

So, what other Gov't propaganda do you agree with? WMD in Iraq? Warren Commission Report? bush won in 2000 and this year, too? SS needs to be privatized? OBL is not and never has been a CIA asset? There's no such thing as Disinformation Agents? Larry Silverstein said "Pull it" out of a genuine, sincere concern that more people might die if the building wasn't brought down? Gulf of Tonkin incident? Pearl Harbor was a total surprise? bushco wants the truth to come out about what really happened on 9/11? Ted Olsen wouldn't lie about something as important as those alleged calls from Babs? If the Gov't thought it would do more good than harm to release 9/11 evidence that has been witheld from the public
for more than three years, it would?

Thank you, I'll hold while you figure out how to duck MY question.

[MercutioATC]

136. So you don't have a response?

I'm asking the question because you speak so vehemently against the ASCE report but I've yet to see you refute one single element of its conclusions.

I understand that you think it's "propaganda", but do you also think its conclusions are wrong? Which ones? Refute them.


THAT was my question. We can discuss why you think it's propaganda next, if you'd like.

[Abe Linkman]

137. The sole purpose of the ASCE report was to provide cover for a lie.

What conclusion are you talking about?

[MercutioATC]

141. The purpose of the ASCE report was to reach conclusions on the damage

to the Pentagon.

I'm talking about the observations of the damage and the explanations of how the damage could have been caused by a 757 crash.

[Abe Linkman]

142. You could say the same thing about the "magic bullet theory"

Gotta have SOMETHING that the mainstream media can "sell" to the trusting public to explain a lie.

As noted in the subject line: You could say the same thing about Arlen Specter's opus magnus...and YOU (and yours) just MIGHT, and probably would. Come to think of it, you DO support that Official Story, too, don't you?

[MercutioATC]

144. Ok, you said "magic bullet"...so you disagree with SPECIFICS of the

report. You don't believe a bullet could behave as the Warren Commission Report claims. I've no doubt you have read reports written by trained, degreed experts who explain exactly why a bullet could not do what was claimed. You don't disbelieve it simply because the government commissioned the report, you have a SPECIFIC reason you doubt it.

That's what I'm asking for. Give me the "magic bullet" in the ASCE report and rebuttals from trained, degreed experts.

[Abe Linkman]

149. ASCE report is propaganda. As w/WCR, it is BS from the get-go.

As you know, the Warren Commission Report starts with a predetermined conclusion: the lie that a lone gunman (LHO) murdered President Kennedy.

The ASCE report is a propaganda piece that starts with a predetermined conclusion: that a B757 crashed into the Pentagon.

It is now used by disinformation agents and even some sincere supporters of the "Cavemen Did It" fairy tale. They use it to try and fool naive people into believing that it proves a lie: that a B757 crashed into the Pentagon. When they are caught doing this, their defense is that they never SAID the ASCE report PROVES a B757 crashed, only that the damage at the Pentagon COULD have been caused by a B757 crash.

The Gov't could have just as easily appointed a commission to write a report to "prove" that the Pentagon damage is consistent with a missile hit or even that no plane, missile, or other flying object hit the building. Likewise; they could appoint a commmission to "prove" that the damage COULD have been caused by explosions (alleged eyewitness accounts reported smelling cordite...and eyewitness accounts that are already "on the record" are so all over the board that the Gov't probably wouldn't even have to cook up any new ones - they'd just "play up" some that have already been written about, and play down others.

[MercutioATC]

152. So you can't refute any of the ASCE report's conclusions?

...or you choose not to?

I've used the ASCE report as a reference to refute CTists' claims that the damage to the Pentagon was inconsistent with a 757 crash. That's simply not true. The ASCE report explains it.

Just for the record...I've asked you the same question a few times now and you still haven't answered. I know that you think the ASCE report is "propaganda". What is your response to its conclusion that a 757 could have caused the damage to the Pentagon (the mechanics of the crash, the size of the entry breach, etc.)?

[Abe Linkman]

153. ASCE report is propaganda. It's "conclusions" don't mean anything.

The ASCE report is today's Warren Commission Report. Unless you are bound to the Official Conspiracy Theory ("Caveman Plotted, Planned, Organized, and Ochestrated"), it's hard to understand why you keep bring ing it up.

The ASCE report does nothing to shed light on what really happened at the Pentagon. You could just as easily commission a report that "explains" how the damage at the Pentagon is NOT inconsistent with fire and explosions. Whoop de doo.

You must think most people here don't know all of this. Or, is your intended audience new readers?

[MercutioATC]

155. You're the one who first mentioned the ASCE report in this thread...

The subject post had nothing to do with anything covered in the ASCE report. I didn't bring it up.

YOU made it an issue...I didn't.

What's hard to understand it why YOU keep bringing it up, especially in threads where it has no bearing.


Oh, and the Warren Commission Report isn't "propaganda" just because the government commissioned it. It's propaganda because there are CONCLUSIONS it reaches that have been successfully rebutted by specialists, making it's true purpose of supporting the government's official story obvious. If the ASCE report is just a modern-day Warren Report, it must have similar specific errors (akin to the "magic bullet"). I'm just asking you to name one.....just one.

[Abe Linkman]

156. Official purpose of ASCE report ( Pentagon Bldg. Performance Report)

(ASCE 2003) That particular document details the damage to support columns inside the building, as well as providing an accurate track for the incoming aircraft, as revealed by the penetration of a presumed engine core to the rear of the inner ring. It was not within the mandate of the inquiry to determine what aircraft struck the Pentagon, but rather to evaluate how well the building withstood the impact, fire, and subsequent collapse of a section of the building.

I don't know of anyone who disputes the measurements and observed damage
to the Pentagon building, as reported in the ASCE report.

At the same time, INDEPENDENT experts who have examined BOTH the ASCE report AND available evidence of the Pentagon "attack", and THEY (the INDEPENDENT experts) concluded that the Pentagon was NOT hit by a B757.

Your claims about what the ASCE report purportedly explains is WRONG.
Can you cite where, in the ASCE report, it says that their findings are consistent with a B757 crashing into the building? If so, then I'll ask you a few questions, just for clarification, if that's okay.

[MercutioATC]

157. I have so many issues with that post that I don't know where to begin...

1) You must have a LOT of people on "ignore" if you haven't seen the "the hole was too small for a 757" threads that get posted here.

2) Show me an "expert" with credentials comparable to the engineers who wrote the ASCE report who concludes that the Pentagon was not hit by a 757.

3) If you can't see where the report's findings are consistent with a 757 crash, I'm doubting that you've read it. Before you ask any MORE questions, though, why not give me the ONE answer I've been asking for? What specific elements of the ASCE report do you refute?

[Abe Linkman]

159. Wouldn't it be better if YOU could respond? I answered your question.

(ASCE 2003) That particular document details the damage to support columns inside the building, as well as providing an accurate track for the incoming aircraft, as revealed by the penetration of a presumed engine core to the rear of the inner ring. It was not within the mandate of the inquiry to determine what aircraft struck the Pentagon, but rather to evaluate how well the building withstood the impact, fire, and subsequent collapse of a section of the building.

I don't know of anyone who disputes the measurements and observed damage to the Pentagon building, as reported in the ASCE report.

Your claims about what the ASCE report purportedly explains is WRONG.
Can you cite where, in the ASCE report, it says that their findings are consistent with a B757 crashing into the building? If so, then I'll ask you a few questions, just for clarification, if that's okay.

[Abe Linkman]

160. M-atc: ASCE report question for you. (worthless report w/out an answer)

Where in the ASCE report does it explain how the damage is consistent with what would have happened to the WINGS of a B757, if such an aircraft had crashed into the Pentagon?

Unless the report gives a coherent explanation for the LACK of wing parts of a B757, it's value is worthless as evidence in support of the Official Version Conspiracy Theory.

In other words, Mercutio: without an explanation for what happened to the wings if a B757 had crashed into the Pentagon, it simply isn't reasonable to conclude that one did, is it?


Help me out.

[MercutioATC]

171. The wings? They did the same thing as the fuselage...

...broke into very little pieces. However, they did impact the limestone facing intact (or, intact except for the outer part of the strarboard wing):

"The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20). The projected width, perpendicular to the path of the aircraft, was approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft. An examination of the area encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the right wing. The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building.

It is possible that less of the right wing than the left wing entered the building because the right wing struck the facade crossing the level of the second-floor slab. The strength of the second-floor slab in its own plane would have severed the right wing approximately at the location of the right engine. The left wing did not encounter a slab, so it penetrated more easily.

In any event, the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft struck the building. This is consistent with eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building and that the left engine struck a ground-level, external vent structure. It is possible that these impacts, which occurred not more than 100 ft before the nose of the aircraft struck the building, may have damaged the wings and caused debris to strike the Pentagon facade and the heliport control building."

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

Notice the line "The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft...." Please tell me how an F-16 with a wingspan of 31 feet and a length of 49 feet, 4 inches caused this damage...

Hmmm...the damage isn't consistent with a 757 but you believe it was caused by an F-16?? It seems ONE of us doesn't have supporting evidence (and it isn't me).

[Abe Linkman]

174. See. The ASCE report IS worthless re: evid. FL 77 crashed at Pentagon

NO wing parts or debris was found outside the Pentagon -- and if a B757 had crashed there, photos taken within a few minutes of the explosions and fire at the Pentagon would have shown large sections of the wings.
Since no wing debris was photographed or even described by anyone on the ground at the Pentagon, your ASCE report is totally worthless for the purpose that you use it for. In fact, it's flagrantly misleading and frankly, you should stop using it in the deceptive manner it has been used heretofore.

If you want to say that there is a government-sponsored report which assesses the physical damage to the Pentagon, that is accurate. But, the ASCE report does NOT say that the damage they found and assessed is consistent with a B757 crash having caused it, and you are wrong to try and mislead people by suggesting otherwise.

What you cited (from the ASCE report) does NOT even mention a B757. It only refers to an "aircraft".

Will you apologize now?

[MercutioATC]

181. Did we read the same report?

1) "photos taken within a few minutes of the explosions and fire at the Pentagon would have shown large sections of the wings"

How long are you thinking it takes things to disintegrate in a high-speed crash? Had you read the report, you'd know that the aircraft disintegrated in seconds. Your assumption that there'd be wing pieces lying around is erroneous.

2) "a Boeing 757-200" is the aircraft referred to in the report. Just because they don't say "a Boeing 757-200" every time they refer to it and say "the aircraft" doesn't mean they're talking about a different plane.

Out of curiousity, since the wings are such an issue with you, where are the wings from the F-16 that YOU claim was involved?

[Abe Linkman]

186. Where does it say that the aircraft disintegrated in seconds?

You asked where are the wings from the attack plane (which some believe was an F-16)? They disintegrated. Read the report.

[MercutioATC]

189. Why are F-16 wings "allowed" to disintegrate and not 757 wings?

Gotta love the double standard (and complete logical disconnect) of some CTists....

Oh, by the way...

"Therefore, the aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft."

You do the math. A Boeing 757-200 is 155 feet, 3 inches long. At 400 MPH, how long would it take to travel its own length?

Seriously...either read the report or just stop asking me asinine questions.

[Abe Linkman]

190. NO wings, no wing debris, NO B757 crashed. ASCE report useless.

Gotta love the way that ASCE report conveniently doesn't mention anything that supports HOW the damage to the building was caused. But, since its only purpose was to ASSESS the damage, it's difficult to understand why any OBJECTIVE, sincere person would cite it as somehow supporting the notion of how a B757 could crash without leaving any evidence of its having done so.

Photos taken right after the crash do NOT show ANY evidence of wings or wing debris where it should have been if a 757 HAD crashed there.

Your theory is weaker than water. Stick to ATC factual questions. You have stuck out in your "case" for the proposition that FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon (or anywhere else).

[Sweet Pea]

191. References

"and if a B757 had crashed there, photos taken within a few minutes of the explosions and fire at the Pentagon would have shown large sections of the wings."

Could you provide or cite what references you obtained this statement from?

Or, if it is a statement from you based on your technical expertise and acumen of a history of analytical examination of aircraft crash sites, please state so.

[Abe Linkman]

180. NO wings debris was found in photos taken hours before cleanup began.

If the wings had sheared off, they would have shown up in photographs taken shortly after the "attack". There is NO evidence that they broke into pieces so small that they wouldn't have been seen and photographed.

There were NO B757 wing pieces found outside the Pentagon. WHERDY GO?

If there were no wing pieces found where they would be expected to be found if a B757 had crashed -- that is proof that a B757 didn't crash at the Pentagon.

Whatever happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, one thing is for sure:
AA FL77 didn't crash there and the Official Conspiracy Theory that a cave dweller in Afghanistan plotted, planned, and directed an attack on the Pentagon via a B757 is a lie.

[MercutioATC]

182. Are you going to double-post in reply to ALL of my posts?

Can't we just do it on a 1-for-1 basis?

Want a reply? Read Post #181 (where I've already answered)

[seatnineb]

183. Malleable wings.

Who knows what happened to those infamouse fl77 wings,Abe!

High calibre pentagon eye-witnesses don't know....that is for sure....

"The wings folded back"
Mike Walter.

"The wings flew forward"
Tim Timmerman.

"The wings disappeared"
Penny Eglas.

The wings came off as it went through the archway"
Tom Hovis.

The likes of Ron Harvey and co have been working overtime to keep these contradictions obscured from the masses ....but the question is ...for how long?...

[Abe Linkman]

185. And, remember what might be the "best" one of all:

"The wings? Oh, they disintegrated and disappeared. They be bye-bye."

All those little itty bitty pieces that were too small to be seen or captured on film just floted up...ascended on a cloud of some General's stale cigar smoke, and went up, up and away. See? YES, and that's also what happened to the engines, too. Gone. Poof. Disintegrated. Body parts? MUSH? Same thing. Uh-huh, that's right.

[seatnineb]

187. Yeah.....

Like Steve DiChiaro.....

One of the first to arrive on the scene......

Apart from seeing a lampost bent in half,he had this to say.....

" my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building," he said. "No tail. No wings. No nothing."

[Abe Linkman]

188. Speaking of the lampost brother Steve mentioned...

How exactly does a B757 traveling faster than the speed of M. Atta on coke...manage to only "bend" the lampost? In fact, weren't most of them
only bent, not broken? Must have gotten hit by the only section of the wing that had recently undergone extra padding renovation.

[seatnineb]

194. Graduate in Pentagon physics....

Come on Abe!

I think we need to enrol on that Pentagon physics course run by Ron Harvey and Sarah Roberts......

I can see myself getting an F-...no problem!

;-)

BTW I found this little statement from Ron that he made a while back........

Ron Harvey
Light Poles
Fri Sep 26 17:23:16 2003
82.43.120.104


How on Earth does this sort of ignorance persist for so long?

"The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is circa 40 meters. And such a huge plane could not have flown in from the west and penetrated the west facade - WITHOUT first having broken several of the numerous amount of Light Poles and Traffic Signs which were surrounding the Pentagons west side. But these lightpoles were left unharmed. ."!?!?!?!?!?!?

Check out the pictures for yourself,
please see
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/9-27-03/discussion.cgi.50.html

Abe.......do you think Ron would care to enlighten us which traffic sign was struck by Hani Hanjour's 757.......

Cos it certainly aint this one........




.....when it should have been......

[Abe Linkman]

195. As a highly--principled plenipotentiary unto himself, Ron will surely...

leap at the opportunity to give us the benefit of understanding how he arrived at opposite conclusions without having a #9 migraine headache (Ross Perot moment). I'm thinking he'll surprise us with a crystal clear
explanation, in plain English.

[Sweet Pea]

192. So.....

"If there were no wing pieces found where they would be expected to be found if a B757 had crashed -- that is proof that a B757 didn't crash at the Pentagon."

So....based on this statement from you, a 757 didn't crash in Shanksville. 2 aircraft didn't crash into the WTCs. Any crash site where no wing pieces are found never happened.

Ok......

[Abe Linkman]

193. Here's a good book for you. I think you'll like it .

"Nonsense - How to Overcome It", by Robert J. Gula

The intelligent person's guide to dozens of foolproof techniques for dealing with smart alecks, foolishness, wishful thinking, improper GENERALIZATIONS, misinterpretations, inconsistences, and other NONSENSE.

Reading it won't give you anymore knowledge than you already have about 9/11, but it will arm you with better reasoning skills to deal with fallacious logic that many people use when talking about 9/11.

[Sweet Pea]

196. Ok again...

You didn't refute what I posted, so I can only come to the conclusion that any crash site that doesn't have "wing pieces" or some other readily identifiable aircraft part around never happened.

No "wing pieces" here....must not have ever happened

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w941031.htm

No "wing pieces" here....must not have ever happened.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w860831.htm

No "wing pieces" here....must not have ever happened.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w850812.htm

No "wing pieces" here....must not have ever happened.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w740303.htm

No NOTHING here...this REALLY must never have happened!

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w960511.htm

Interesting approach.

FYI...a pressureized aluminum tube with fuel in the wings hitting a kevlar reinforced concrete building at an estimated 460 knots will not leave much, let alone "wing pieces".

[MercutioATC]

197. Ask where the F-16 wing pieces are at the Pentagon, Sweet Pea...

It's a great conversation-stopper.

:hi:

[tngledwebb]

164. The purpose was to REACH conclusions.

Not to investigate?

[MercutioATC]

173. Most investigations are performed to reach a conclusion.

What would be the point, otherwise?

[Abe Linkman]

165. WHERE in the ASCE report does it say that it's purpose was to reach...

explanations of how the damage could have been caused by a 757 crash?

AND, WHERE in the ASCE report ARE those conclusions which say that the damage could have been caused by FL 77?

AND, WHERE in the ASCE report does the damage assessment from a 757 explain how a 757 could have crashed into the building without leaving any trace of the wings (approx. 52 feet of each should have been OUTSIDE of the building...but no evidence of wings were found) -- ?

Thank you. We'll wait for you. But, please - don't duck the question, don't change the subject, and don't run away. Step up to the plate.
If you have to equivocate, we'll have to take that into consideration, along with any substance you provide in your response.

[MercutioATC]

172. 52 feet outside the building???

Where are you getting that number?

1) AAL77 was a 757. The report shows how the damage to the Pentagon was consistent with a 757 crash. By logical extention, it also shows how the damage could have been caused by AAL77.

2) The wings? Here: "The analyses of the available data reveal that the wings severed exterior columns but were not strong enough to cut through the second-floor slab upon impact. (The right wing did not enter the building at the point where it struck the second-floor slab in its plane). The damage pattern throughout the building and the locations of fatalities and aircraft components, together with the deformation of columns, suggest that the entire aircraft disintegrated rapidly as it moved through the forest of columns on the first floor. As the moving debris from the aircraft pushed the contents and demolished exterior wall of the building forward, the debris from the aircraft and building most likely resembled a rapidly moving avalanche through the first floor of the building."

They, like the fuselage, rapidly disintegrated (aluminum does that when it hits reinforced concrete at high speed, or so I'm told).

Again, have you READ the report? You're asking questions that are easily answered by anybody who's read it.

[Abe Linkman]

138. So, you won't respond to a legitimate question. What are you afraid of?

So, what other Gov't propaganda do you agree with? WMD in Iraq? Warren Commission Report? bush won in 2000 and this year, too? SS needs to be privatized? OBL is not and never has been a CIA asset? There's no such thing as Disinformation Agents? Larry Silverstein said "Pull it" out of a genuine, sincere concern that more people might die if the building wasn't brought down? Gulf of Tonkin incident? Pearl Harbor was a total surprise? bushco wants the truth to come out about what really happened on 9/11? Ted Olsen wouldn't lie about something as important as those alleged calls from Babs? If the Gov't thought it would do more good than harm to release 9/11 evidence that has been witheld from the public
for more than three years, it would?

[MercutioATC]

143. I have no problem answering your question...will you answer mine?

Let's see...from the list you've provided (most of which have nothing to do with our discussion) I agree with:

1) Bush won in 2004.

2) OBL is not currently a CIA asset.

3) The Gulf of Tonkin story was a lie told by the government to sway public sentiment.

As for the rest:

1) I do not believe there were WMD in Iraq after sometime in the mid-late 90's.

2) I really have no opinion on the Warren Report.

3) Bush may have won Florida in 2000, but I have serious doubts.

4) OBL was trained and funded by the U.S. in the 80's to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Beyond that, I don't believe he was any type of "asset".

5) I don't think there are people paid by the government for the sole purpose of spreading disinformation, but I do believe that we only hear a small part of the truth from the government on many issues and occasionally they lie outright.

6) I do think WTC 7 was pulled for safety reasons.

7) I don't think we knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked, but I do believe we had reason to believe we would be attacked somewhere, which is what the government needed to gain public approval for entering WWII.

8) I believe the administration has things to hide about its decision-making process regarding Iraq. I also believe they have an agenda which involved invading Iraq. I don't think they want us to know everything.

9) Who knows what Ted Olson would or wouldn't lie about?

10) See #8.

I've just answered 13 of your questions. Feel like reciprocating by answering the ONE I asked you?

[AZCat]

95. We don't have Boeing simulators at my center

It's all Bombardier stuff (Learjet and CanadaAir). The big companies all run their own simulators, although we did have a contract with Boeing a couple of years ago, but it was ended (I don't know why).

Microsoft Flight Simulator allows you to fly a Boeing (747 I think). You could try it on your own with that.

[k-robjoe]

98. Microsoft

I googled for "Microsoft flight simulator", and found this :

http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulator/

I didn´t try it yet. But this is just a game, isnt it?
Nothing like the real thing at all?

It´s like, I hear people who are pilots (4 of them by now I think) saying there´s no way he could have done it. And then I hear nonpilots, saying, ah it´s not that hard...

[AZCat]

104. Maybe the pilots are right

I might be wrong (it won't be the first time). But what I do stand by is that the failure of any of the hijackers to qualify as pilots of a Boeing is not reason enough to discount the possibility that they could have been flying the plane. There are lots of reasons someone won't be certified that have nothing to do with actual flying skills. Unless we know specifically why the flight training centers didn't qualify the hijackers, I think it is premature to rule out the theories that involve one of them at the helm.


On Microsoft Flight Simulator - yes, that is what I was talking about. It is a "game", but it recreates the flight characteristics and the cockpit of a Boeing 737, 747, and 777 fairly accurately. Since Level C and D Flight Simulators cost several thousands of dollars (minimum) to get any time on, this is the closest most of us will ever get to trying our hand at the helm of an aircraft like the 747. Interestingly enough, I see they have the Learjet 45, which is one of the Level D simulators at the flight simulator company I work for. I will ask around and see if any of the LR-45 instructors have tried this, and I will ask the opinion of the accuracy of the Microsoft game of those who have.

[RH]

106. How can they be right?

How does anybody judge competence with regard to a turn trajectory without the data to define the trajectory? That's what they were talking about wasn't it?

I have never seen any hard data to define it, re. speed and radius. Have you?

So according to what did anybody else opine?

[AZCat]

107. That's what I mean (regarding lack of info)

It is possible that Hanjour was not piloting the aircraft when it crashed into the Pentagon. It is possible that the aircraft went through maneuvers too complex for Hanjour to execute. But there does seem to be a lack of information regarding either the flight path of the aircraft prior to crash or why Hanjour didn't qualify as a pilot.

While they (the pilots who have expressed opinions regarding Hanjour's ability to execute said maneuvers) may be correct that Hanjour would not have been able to do this, I believe that until more information surfaces, such opinions are still just speculation. I do not, however, claim that they are wrong - hence my statement that they might be right.

I apologise if I am not clear when explaining my position.

[Sweet Pea]

108. Just out of curiosity...

has anyone here ever had their hands on the controls of a jet aircraft? I mean hands on the throttle and the yoke (or stick) - not a simulator or a program.

[AZCat]

110. There are. I am not one of them

There are a number of ex-pilots on DU, and several have jet experience. I have only flown multi-engine, not jet (Cessna 310).

[Sweet Pea]

109. I thought the projected flight path

based on the severed light poles and the distribution of wreckage (as well as the path of destruction inside the building) indicates that the aircraft never passed directly over the Annex but further to the south - coming from the right-to-left in your photograph roughly following I-395 This would call for a much more gradual descent than the seemingly abrupt one you suggest.

[k-robjoe]

122. You actually

have a very difficult flightpath either way:

If you go to this site : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/trj-appr.html
and have a look at the top picture ( and click the box for flightpath, and the one for lamp-posts ), it seems clear that it must have past over the Annex.

But if you go to the pic below it, it seems like it might have been able to go to the right of the Annex.

I think it´s just a "trick" of the perspective that makes it seem like it this. But even if we say that it could have passed on the side, we must count in a couple of meters (5(?)) clearance between the Annex and the left wing, so what we get instead of the abrupt descent, would be an abrupt turn to the left and then straightening out. Abrupt enough to avoid hitting this :



( Not this one, but the other one just like it, that would be furter to the right in this pic, and that the plane just barely missed. )#

If the plane had hit this, it would have sheared the wing off, and the plane would have been "thrust"(?) to the ground.

Now when you have a look a this :



you´ll notice that the plane passed right between two of these huge traffic signs.

So with this kind of turn, you would still have a breathtaking path.


( # There´s a pic of it here : http://pentagoncab.multiservers.com/index.html (7th pic))

[RH]

124. thrust the ground?

What force would thrust it to the ground? Work out how long it takes at 500 mph to get from poles to Pentagon and then consider the kinetic energy. By the time it had got that far it was always going to hit the Pentagon one way or another.

If you draw a straight line from the corner of the Navy Annex to the eventual impact point it passes mid way between the five lamp poles. The starboard wing must have passed over top of the first overhead road traffic sign gantry, just missing a tall mast beside it.

[k-robjoe]

125. Not sure if I get you right

> "The starboard wing must have passed over top of the first overhead road traffic sign gantry, just missing a tall mast beside it."

The sign seems to be as tall as the lampposts. So it could not have gone over the sign, since it clipped a lamp-post standing just beside it.



So with "gantry" you´re refering to somthing else?

[RH]

131. The poles are taller.

The first two poles were possibly hit by engines rather than wings, disturbed by jet wake more than by actual contact. It is hard to tell from here.

The starboard engine seems to have skimmed the top of the tree. You can see the actual effect in some of the photos.

[k-robjoe]

139. Disagree

I think I can guess which pics you have been looking at since you got the impression that the lamp-posts are that much taller that the starboard wing could actually pass over the traffic sign.

I think you´ve been fooled by the perspective. ( Lamp-posts being closer to the camera than the traffic sign.)

Seems to me that if the lamp-posts are taller at all, it´s only a tiny bit, and no way could the lamp-post be clipped that far down and the wing pass over the traffic-sign. No way could it have been clipped by the engine, because then the outer part of the wing would have hit the traffic sign and been sheared off.

And no way did the jet wake clip off the lamp-post like that. It would have thrown the cars off the road before it did something like that.

[RH]

140. I am astounded.

I collected all the photos of the lamp poles. I drew maps and diagrams. I read all the reports. I spent months on it and still you think I dont know what I am talking about?

The poles are distinctly taller:




I did not say that jet wake clipped a lamp post. I said that they were disturbed by jet wake more than by actual contact.

[k-robjoe]

146. One point

to you. The difference is a bit bigger than I had thought.

But you have to look at the one a bit closer to the camera than the traffic sign. And then look at where the pole was clipped off. I still don´t think the wing could have passed over the traffic sign.

And the idea that it was "disturbed by the jet wake more than by actual contact" I find very implausible.

[RH]

150. Look at

the high resolution version of this photo:






Here:

http://www.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=67

Does what you see at the top of tree show exactly where the starboard engine clipped it?

If so the rest is a simple matter of geometry and geography.

[k-robjoe]

158. Very Interesting!

That is a very interesting pic!

Looks like it could very well be a pine tree (?), and it was chopped right off.
And that would be the upper half lying on the ground across the road(?)

But the way it seems to me, the tree was clipped at a hight that is hardly half the hight of the traffic sign.

So it seems to rule out the idea that the starboard wing passed over the traffic sign.

If it was the engine that hit it, wouldn´t it have sucked up the part that was chopped off?

( Well, that last question is of minor importance. )

[tngledwebb]

166. Where are the 24/7 ubiquitous answerers

when you need them?

Still, looking at said photo one can see clearly this: A little tree, possibly blowing in the wind!

Or, perhaps some vegetation photo-shopped to ook like the curve of a jet engine, if one really stretches ones 'failed imagination'.

But oddest of all, one sees a standing lamp pole that should have been knocked over by a jet.

Or is this the correct trajectory in the first place?

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Abe Linkman]

167. Maybe they're hoping pesky 24/7 questioners of the OCT will go away.n/t

n/t

[tngledwebb]

168. Or having a beer and a gab-fest

in beautiful downtown Cleveland.

[tngledwebb]

169. Sorry Abe, while you are here...

Does the photo RH posted make ANY SENSE?

Of course, it's likely I missed some nuance of the previous debate.

You know how it is when you are just part of the laity, ie not a civilian ATC, p/t simulated flight trainer, ex-navy man, or in any other aviation related profession.
I feel so ashamed.

[Abe Linkman]

170. No, it doesn't make a bit of sense to me. But, that's nothing. I never..

even learned the secret handshake. I think the photo might be like those alleged Osama videos. You know, hidden messages for his boys.

[seatnineb]

147. The same jet wake that Probst was immune to?

For the record,Ron.....

This is the third time that i'm asking you........

That exit sign was clipped by the tail of Flight 77.

So says Vin Narayanan....

"The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon."

So where is the damage to the exit sign?



P.S Don't say Narayanan got confused with the mast.

That little black scorch mark towards the top of the mast wont save you.

[RH]

148. Confused with the mast

seems to me to be a good explanation.

The mark you point out is at the right sort of height.

I dont understand this "immune" thing. If Probst was immune, why did
he dive?

[RH]

123. That's right by my reckoning,

but the effective trajectory height would be similar. The photo from the Navy Annex roof does thus give a good idea of the descent angle. With a straight line trajectory the plane would have skimmed over the top of the lamp poles. According to the best eye witnesses accounts the plane passed just to the south of the Annex with the port wing slipping precariously just over the top of the building.

At an ordinary landing speed the inexplicable dip down to the lamp poles would not be so remarkable but at 500 mph it must have required a considerable auronautical effort. Seems to me that it was more likely out of control, not deliberately flown in such a fashion.

[k-robjoe]

126. The plane

being out of control, and doing that kind of manouvers. And passing just inbetween the two traffic signs.

I cant help that I have to envisage Woody Allen in the role as Hani Hanjour when I hear this.

" Oh my God, that was some turn... Oh my God, where are we...
Oh my God... Isn´t that the Pentagon over there? Oh my God, I´ll never make it..."

[Abe Linkman]

129. Now, there's a novel explanation if there ever was one.

"It was all just a bad accident, folks. These things happen...especially with a relatively inexperienced 'pilot' at the controls".

[RH]

132. Not novel.

I was saying the same more than two whole years ago.

In terms of a precisely planned operation the actual trajectory makes no sense.

Does Abe Linkman disagree or does Abe Linkman prefer to subscribe to the official version?

[Abe Linkman]

135. Abe Linkman agrees that the Official Conspiracy Theory is a lie.

The attack on the Pentagon was carefully planned. Even seemingly minor details were addressed in advance (need to plant downed light poles e.g.). Abe Linkman thinks your novel theory is fiction and you should update your theories to reflect current knowledge and THINKING by those who are more informed and able to reason more carefully.

[Abe Linkman]

151. I thought you were more familiar with the questions about all that.

You must not be familiar with the research and questions that raise serious doubts about whether the light poles were planted evidence.

Those light poles are sort of like the alleged calls from Barbara to Ted: crucial "evidence" for the Official Conspiracy Theory. Very few 9/11 researchers believe Ted's cell phone calls from Babara story, and more and more people are becoming convinced that the light poles evidence is also false evidence that was crucial to other aspects of the
Official Pentagon story. I say "Official", because the Gov't has never
actually given a an Official account of what happened in NYC, at the Pentagon, Pennsylvania, or anywhere else. If the Gov't knew that FL 77 crashed into the Pentagon, it would have long ago released video proof of the crash.

Good luck getting up to speed in your 9/11 research. There are plenty of web sites devoted to it. There are plenty of Disinformation agents doing their job, so you really need to read as much as you can, and then your opinions and conclusions will at least be more informed than those of people who don't have a clue, and you won't be as likely to be fooled by the disingenuous arguments of people who "admit" that while it's true the Gov't has lied about any number of things, they're telling the truth about 9/11! I don't think so. I doubt you will either...once you become a little more knowledgeable about the facts
of 9/11...that the Gov't doesn't want you to know or think about.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

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

[Sweet Pea]

163. Ok...I'll bite

"...raise serious doubts about whether the light poles were planted evidence."

Who "planted" the light poles? Not trying to be argumentative here, but those roads (intersection of I-395, Washington Blvd, Rotary Road, etc) have at least 2,000-3,000 vehicles on them at that time of day - do you think someone may have noticed someone tossing 20 or 30 foot aluminum light poles onto the street from a truck? Not to mention having to either tow a taxi cab with a shattered windshield and leave it in the middle of a busy highway or make sure one of your "light-pole tosses" smashes a windshield. Might you may claim, perhaps, that the actual impact/explosion distracted everyone? The destruction acted like a magnet to thousands of people all around the Pentagon - eyes were everywhere (I was an hour and a half later, but still slowed down to a stop as I drove past the scene on I-395 - and didn't see any 20-30 foot aluminum-poles being tossed out of any trucks), and I doubt very seriously that even YOU would claim a CT so large as to ensure anyone who was around the intersection of Washington Blvd and the Pentagon South Parking access was forced to keep thei rmouth shut.

You are always asking for "evidence" an airliner crashed there - what is your evidence that the light poles in question were planted?

[seatnineb]

175. What about the helicopter?

It is more a question of what the eye-witnesses missed or are unwilling to talk about.....like the helicopter....

This is the only reference to it......

"He said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He said it appeared to be a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is - excuse me -and he then saw fireball go into the sky"
CNN.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.03.html.

Then there is this interesting observation regarding the traffic....or rather the lack of it ......at least in one direction.

"Cars were going over the median on Route 27 because there wasn't any traffic coming southbound toward the Pentagon."
Terry Terronez.

Maybe.....being familiar with the road geography of the area you can clarify Terronez's testimony.....

[Abe Linkman]

178. Too much traffic might interfere with evidence planting

Maybe the perps were a little nervous about planting evidence or shaking evidence out of a truck on a busy road.

[seatnineb]

184. Indeed Abe.....

I can see Hani thinking to himself just before he commited his dastardly deed........

Damn!.....I gotta knock down a few lampoles with my wings otherwise nobody is gonna believe that I did this!"

The fact that the tail of Flight 77 may have clipped the exit sign or the mast just before exit sign alters everything as far as the trajectory is concerned.....

It means Ron's lampoles could not have been downed the way we have been told......

[tngledwebb]

93. Amazing - you work for a flight simulator company,

on and off as it may be. Looks like you ARE one of the most well-informed on these boards. One question I have is how long do pilots have to train on simulators to fly Boeing passenger airliners? How long do you imagine it would take?

[AZCat]

96. Yes and no

I work for a flight simulator company but not as an instructor. There are some who are far more knowledgeable about aircraft and flight than me (DemoTex comes to mind). I do wonky stuff with records mostly (when they need me). They do let me in the sim every now and then.

As I said in a post above, Boeing simulators are run by the big companies themselves. Their activities are actually governed under a different section of the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) - Part 121. Our center deals with Part 91, Part 135, and JAA pilots. I can tell you how long it would take for someone to be certified to fly one of the aircraft at our center (Bombardier aircraft only).

The company I work for is Flight Safety International. Someone coming in to do an initial course takes about three weeks to complete all the coursework. Some aircraft are shorter, some are longer, and some of it depends on how much experience the pilot has prior to coming in for training. I can't imagine it would take LESS time for someone to train in a Boeing 7X7.

But I refer you to my post above regarding flying an aircraft versus being certified to be a Pilot-In-Command. It took me about fifteen minutes to get the hang of a LR-60 (I even flew under the Golden Gate Bridge) but I can't handle a flight director to save my life. We used to monkey around in the sim at night, and it's not any different from a big video game (albeit one that costs millions of dollars). But the time spent in class or the simulator isn't focused on flying, it's spent on all these other things that go along with flying. Learning abnormal procedures, practicing techniques to get out of unusual attitudes, practicing various types of landings (or missed landings).

Does any of this help?

[Sweet Pea]

145. Again, out of curiosity

Have you ever flown a jet, Abe Linkman? Do you have first hand knowledge of how difficult, or conversely how easy it may be to fly a jet with computer-assisted flight controls?

Again, just curious.

[RH]

76. I do not know

and I doubt that anybody knows for sure what should happen when an airliner flies at 500 mph at a very low altitude. It is not tested too often simply because it is not thought to be safe to do so.

[RH]

20. Read the questions.

What in the Commission Report alludes to any difficulty?

What is difficult about a 330 degree turn?

You're always complaining righteously that people dont answer questions. How about, just for once, answering one or two?

Long before the Commission comments appeared on web pages to the effect that the said turn was difficult. Some even proposed a calculation, but never once did I see a reference to the source of any data to justify the science.

I have not yet seen anything at all to prove the supposed difficulty. Maybe the plane was pulling a few G. So what? What is so difficult about that? It helps perhaps to have some stregth to hang on the the joystick, but I cant see that it has anything much to do with training. One may just as well suppose that a well trained pilot would avoid the performance of a sharp turn and there is no particular reason why an unusually sharp turn was required.

The notion is blatant sophistry.

I know something about the radius of an airliner's turning circle. I live beneath a flight path. Boeings taking off into an easterly wind are already pointed on their way westwards to the USA when they pass, just a few miles south east of the airport.

[John Doe II]

24. I admit

I admit I didn't read careflly your post! My fault and sorry about that!
And I agree that we need to know the radius i order to know how difficult the turn was.

The only thing I wanted to point out is that Hani didn't have to bother if he hits the first or the second floor but certainly he had to bother not to hit the ground. This wouldn't have been the end of 911 he had hoped for ...


How about, just for once, answering one or two?

I'm a bit surprised by your statement. May I inquire which question (besides the one above) I haven't answered yet?
And just btw I think there still a couple of questions I asked repeatedly at the DNA thread.
And as I wrote twice already I would wish to know what you think of the Bukhari thread (which is directly linked to the DNA).

[RH]

10. "plus/minus 1 or 2 meters?"

Where the hell does that idea come from?

I have not yet seen anything to prove that the Pentagon was an intended target let alone any supposition of a need to hit anything with an accuracy of one or two meters.

On the contrary the trajectory as a matter of fact somewhow dippped down to hit five lamp poles, seriously risking a collision with the Navy Annex or anything else in the immediate vicinity, before it hit the supposed target. To my mind that betrays an obvious lack of any intention or attention, not a carefully planned operation.

[Old and In the Way]

13. That's her words.

I assume she's asking if the pilot could maintain level flight within a +/- 1 or 2 meter window.

Seems to me that hitting the Pentagon at the angle of attack was a huge risk for an inexperienced pilot. A minor miscalculation and we have a Shanksville ending on the Pentalawn. Driving the plane in at a 45 degree angle would have been a mush easier window to assure success.

Maybe Hans was a risk taker, though....

[RH]

16. See post #2

i.e. "That´s not my point..."

[RH]

3. If anybody

with the wherewithall wants to guide a flying object to a pin point target the sure way is to plant a transponder for the system to home into. Simply hitting a building should be easy enough anyway. Landing is the notoriously tricky bit.

Maybe a radio signal from the Pentagon Heliport was involved.

I want to know more about the background to the possibility of a home run system implementation, the technical and political issues, the reliability, the cost. If a home run system was not used on 9/11 to rescue a hijacked aircraft then why not? And why is so little heard at all about home run remote control since 9/11?

Before implementing a remote control aircraft rescue system I'd guess there would have to be some kind of realistic dress rehearsal to test for weaknesses. With that in mind my thoughts are then along the lines of Mercutio's assesment. I have not yet seen anything to convince me that such a rehearsal was not exactly what was afoot. I see no big hole to rule it out.

The talk about air defense is one huge red herring, to deflect attention. They watch too many movies. How many really serious decisions is it possible to make in the space of half an hour? In the real World shit happens all the time. People do things for the sheer hell of it, for the curiosity, more often than they do anything to serve a grand strategic ideal.

[demodewd]

4. power elite

People do things for the sheer hell of it, for the curiosity, more often than they do anything to serve a grand strategic ideal.

Does this statement apply to the very powerful power elite that go to great lengths to insure that things come out their way?

[RH]

9. I am not aware

of any "great lengths". In my experience it is more a case of candy from babies. It is too easy for them, not too difficult.

Once a certain degree of power and wealth is aquired the motive is mostly to do with seeing what they can get away with because that's the only game they know. Governments dont control themselves. They survive because of the force of habit, the kinetic energy of the zeitgeist. In an evil environment evil is normal.

[demodewd]

14. re:great lengths

The only game they know is the only game in town and sometimes it is necessary to go to great lengths to insure that it stays that way. There are forces that impinge upon the elite's domain that they can't completely control. Currency valuations,depletion of resources(oil) etc.

[FannySS]

29. What is NO "red herring"?

The talk about air defense is one huge red herring, to deflect attention.

RH, what is NO red herring, in your oppinion?

And just to ask straight: WHO DID IT, in your opinion??

Fanny

[RH]

46. I dont know who did it.

If you want a theory to play with, maybe it was a huge practical joke that went wrong. Somebody involved with Vigilant Guardian reprogrammed GPS system coordinates mistakenly thinking that the joke would soon enough be discovered.

Truth is always stranger than fiction, and twice as grim. While fiction has to make sense to entertain, the truth is not so subject to market forces.

The Atta Gang was probably connected to the Secret Services. If they were not drug trafficking, and we've not yet heard of any hard evidence to that effect, what else was there to support the lifestyle? Not Bin Laden. If there was any proof of practical support from that direction we'd have heard all about it by now.

[FannySS]

47. What do you think of the Bin Laden tapes? (nt)

[RH]

52. Which of the tapes?

One power crazed Arab bragging casually to congenial company proves nothing in any case. In the instance that the FBI were to read Bin Laden his rights, I'd still be taking it with a pinch of salt, on a par with the ex Iraqi Information Minister, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf. Remember him?

If the wind happens to blow his way Bin Laden may like to think he had something to do with it but is his memory that good? They live in a fantasy World, Bush and Bin Laden, two of a kind.

[TO Kid]

54. I doubt OBL knew any details

He probably just bankrolled it. Anyone involved in covert ops is well aware of the "need to know" principle.

[MercutioATC]

5. Answers (as best I can provide them).

1) The U.S. military has access to undegraded GPS signals (the rest of us have to make do with degraded signals because an undegraded signal is considered to be a national security risk). An undegraded GPS signal is accurate to within less than a meter.

2) The scenario most compatible with Occam's Razor is the one I personally subscribe to. It's based on two basic truths:

a) The ATC system relies almost completely on pilot compliance. It's designed as a service, not a defense system.

b) Until 9/11, any hijackings were less an ATC problem than a ground security problem. Hijacked planes were simply allowed to fly where they wished and ground security dealt with them once they landed. They hadn't been used as weapons before 9/11.

That said, the ATC system (and, perhaps the ENTIRE system) was unprepared for the events of 9/11 simply because we didn't have a historic scenario to tie it to. Until that date, hijackers typically remained in communication with ATC and the flights acted as normal flights for our purposes (the transponders remained turned on). We simply got other traffic out of their way and allowed them to fly where the wished.

On 9/11, the ATC system encountered a threat that we didn't initially view as a threat. Aircraft occasionally lose communications and/or fly off course. Because 1) this happens often enough that we've all seen it scores of times and 2) we expected hijacked planes to act as hijacked planes had in the past and 3) we're not really designed to act as a defense measure, the flights were handled as the scores of other similar flights had been handled in the past...we kept an eye on them and expected mechanical failure, not hijack.

The simplest explanation is that on 9/11 we encountered a threat that not only didn't represent anything we'd seen in the past...it actually "masqueraded" as a set of routine low-threat problems we'd seen multiple times before. That's my assessment. The air defense system failed to bring the planes down before they hit their targets because we didn't see the threat for what it was.

Hope this clarifies things. I'm always willing to explain things further if you feel it would be helpful.

[demodewd]

6. what about NORAD?

b) Until 9/11, any hijackings were less an ATC problem than a ground security problem. Hijacked planes were simply allowed to fly where they wished and ground security dealt with them once they landed. They hadn't been used as weapons before 9/11.
According to AP planes were escorted by interceptors 67 times from July 2000 through June 2001.Yet interceptors failed 3 times to catch the deviant planes when there was ample time to respond. How much could this be attributed to the fact that the Pentagon war games were sending up drone flyers and inserting false blips into NEADS airspace?

On 9/11, the ATC system encountered a threat that we didn't initially view as a threat. Aircraft occasionally lose communications and/or fly off course. Because 1) this happens often enough that we've all seen it scores of times and 2) we expected hijacked planes to act as hijacked planes had in the past and 3) we're not really designed to act as a defense measure, the flights were handled as the scores of other similar flights had been handled in the past...we kept an eye on them and expected mechanical failure, not hijack.

Really? Once a plane deviates significantly off its flight path it is referred to the FFA and NORAD. That is standard procedure...right? This is irregardless of establishing communication with the cockpit or not. That is SOP.

The threat was clearly established. NORAD failed to respond in time? Why?

[MercutioATC]

7. More answers:

1) I don't have the data, but I'd bet that the majority of the 67 "intercepts" cited happened when a civilian aircraft entered airspace that was being used for military exercises (jets already in the air, seconds away). That's a far cry from scrambling jsts off of the ground.

2) I've explained the time delay before. A plane had to be SERIOUSLY off course before it was considered a problem and then it had to go through 4 or 5 levels of scrutiny before NORAD was alerted.

As far as NORAD's response, I have no Idea...I'm a civilian ATC.

[demodewd]

17. intercepts

1.Intercepts occur routinely when planes deviate 15 degrees or two miles off course from their fixed flight coordinates.
Normal FAA procedures for responding to even minor deviations from air traffic protocols were followed routinely and without complication 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001 before a new convoluted order was released by the Pentagon on June 1 2001. That order inserted the Secretary of Defense into the decision making protocol ,normally the domain of senior military commanders. Why?(excerpt from Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert,p309)

Be the Fighter Jets scrambled from the ground or be they already in the air this is normal SOP for deviant craft.

You assume that you are correct without ANY data and then assume that I understand all interceptions to be achieved by scrambling jets from the ground. No doubt many intercepts are achieved by those jets already airborn.


2.No doubt the level of "scrutiny" would have been exceedingly intense in the Northeast sector once the first hijacking was detected.Flight deviations from the alleged WTC planes was extremely radical. Not a typical off course scenario. Your four or five levels of scrutiny would have been accounted for in very short order under these circumstances.

[MercutioATC]

48. Laypersons often don't understand this...

1) The "15 degrees or two miles" thing is complete and utter BS. We've had exceptionally strong winds at lower altitudes for the past few days and planes get "pushed" off course 15 degrees on a regular basis. I know there's a quote floating around out there that makes this claim, but it's simply not true. I've dealt with literally hundreds of aircraft that were more than 15 degrees or two miles off course and have never sought to have them intercepted.

2) I've explained this before in this forum. Information doesn't travel that quickly. We're talking about transfering information between multiple facilities, all with an internal chain of command to follow. It simply takes time...more than most people think. I agree that the hijacked planes on 9/11 were far from a typical off-course scenario, but the still didn't represent anything that would normally have been a threat (at least not of that magnitude).

Again, the system is based on compliance. We're a service, not a defense system.

[Sweet Pea]

22. Good sumarization, Mercutio n/t

[FannySS]

23. my reason to ask:

My reason to ask you, if a remote-control 757 could direct on the facade at plus/minus 1 or 2 meters has one background.

Let´s look at a typical discussion I had with CTs:

Fanny: So lets assume, Bush did it: why in hell should he use a missile and afterwards claim, it was a boeing? Take a "ex ante" view: it makes a lot of problem to use a missile, you have to fear that thousends of witnesses see that missiles ...!

CT: All wittnesses are brainwashed.

Fanny: You have to plant a 757-fake-debris piece!

CT: No problem for CIA.

Fanny: You have to fear that the DNA-testing team will reveal that secret!

CT: They are all brainwashed.

Fanny: But again: why in hell they just shouldn´t use a boeing for that?? What´s with Occams Razor???

CT: You know, there are a lot of important documents and people in the Pentagon. If they use a plane, they could only hit the Pentagon very unprecise. That´s a problem, because then they have to clear up big parts of the building to save documents and people... A missile could hit the building much more precise, so that is the reason they didn´t use the 757...

This all sounds absurd, I know, but that´s the reason why I would like to know how precise a remote-control 757 could be.

Fanny

[RH]

26. Predictability

would be the issue, rather than precision.

How much experience does anybody have of flying a B757 at 500 mph just a few yards off the ground? Maybe it is easy enough. Maybe the ground effect is large. Maybe the plane tears itself apart because of the stress.

I have always doubted that at the Pentagon anybody did it. Put yourself in the position of a perpetrator. If the whole thing is done for effect the one thing you'll want to make sure of is to get a camera crew to the vicinity. On 9/11 the first TV shots of the smoke came from rooftops in DC, across the river.

[John Doe II]

28. Interesting!

On technical issue is still how the Boeing reacts to 530 mph just above the ground? Is this too much stress? I don't know. I just read somewhere that it is created for much less speed in this height.

A simple question: You write
I have always doubted that at the Pentagon anybody did it.

What do you think happened at the Pentagon?

[John Doe II]

57. Stress

Does anybody know how the Boeing reacts to fly with 530 mph just above the ground? For what maximum speed (below let's say 5000 feet) is it constructed? Would there be a danger of breaking up? Would the stress make the control for the pilot more difficult?

[tngledwebb]

60. I'm not a professional, and I don't play one on DU,

but can extrapolate- how does it feel to you when a jet plane is coming down or landing? Compare that to how it feels when flying very high, minus turbulence of course. Now, planes are designed to put up with stress in any event, but pilot control must be much more difficult when taking off or landing, in order to balance the wings and engines, and keep them from hitting the ground. At 500 feet this would not be as critical, but must come into consideration. And if one is planning ahead, ie needs to land, or hit a building, or even knock over lamposts, the angle of ascent or descent has to be considered.

[RH]

66. There is a ground effect,

a lower layer of denser air. It gives extra lift, and that would especially be likely to happen with the wind blowing from the north towards the Arlington heights.

Coming in (as a passenger) on a light plane once I felt it palpably bounce off the layer of air about 30 or 40 feet off the ground. It almost stalled and then had to quickly force itself down to land in good time.

[FannySS]

30. I don´t understand you

I have always doubted that at the Pentagon anybody did it

Sorry, RH, I don´t get you... What do you mean??

Fanny

[RH]

34. Heed the evidence.

Five broken lamp poles.

What does that mean?

Surely not a carefully chosen outcome!

[tngledwebb]

36. Well,

if they were broken accidentally, no, but if 'hit' on purpose, perhaps there WAS some pre-planning- for the Vigilant Guardian photo yearbook.

Either way, five broken lamp poles doesn't = Flt 77 hit the P-gon, unless you are wearing a very shiny OCT :tinfoilhat:!

[RH]

43. Your failure

to appreciate the evidence was already abundantly clear.

[tngledwebb]

50. You mean some fallen lamp posts

= Flt 77 hit the P-gon. Yes, I do fail to appreciate that as evidence. But I am not alone.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[tngledwebb]

53. But since what you say so often fits your personal attack, so be it.

Even your fellow OCT'ers have trouble understanding your posts, as I'm not sure you haven't noticed.
Maybe something organic in origin?

[RH]

55. I mean what I say.

Misrepresention proves nothing but ignorance.

[tngledwebb]

58. Sorry, but you have written here many times that fallen lamp posts

are evidence that Flt 77 hit the Pentagon. You may now wish to dispute this, but others here are aware of your remarks, and newbies can search the DU archives for the content of your posts. Your career here as an Official Conspiracy Theory supporter is based on a three year old internet site which you helped put together that supports this theory. ( The type and number of photographs omitted from that site are revelatory.)

Where is the mis-representation?

And the only ignorance that is at all obvious on this forum is the chronic inability of the OCT side to admit the smallest flaws regarding the officially sanctioned and 'proven' US Government version of the events of 9/11.

Certainly whatever rationale is behind such willful but unblessed ignorance will soon come to light.

[RH]

59. That evidence

supports the fact, it is consistent with the fact.

It does not equate to the fact.

[MercutioATC]

61. How don't the five lampposts fit the idea that AAL77 hit the Pentagon?

No, it alone isn't proof, but it's sure a great piece of the puzzle. It pretty much rules out placed explosives or a smaller plane/missile.

I'd say the lampposts meant quite a lot.

[FannySS]

62. OK, but RHs website isn´t online anymore, that´s a pitty ... (nt)

[MercutioATC]

63. I don't think I ever saw his website. n/t

[RH]

64. Give not that

which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

If anybody wants to host it I can forward the pages, at their own risk and expense.

Apart from one person who had originally accused me of disseminating disinformation, no light poles were hit, I was never aware that it made the slightest difference to anything. Meyssan never retracted and the rest of them are yet more stubbornly stupid than ever before.

[Abe Linkman]

68. Eyewitnesses didn't report seeing anything hitting light poles

Pentagon parking lot video images do not show even ONE light pole being hit.

Have you seen the videotape taken from the Sheraton Hotel, or the service station, or from any of the Pentagon Building cameras? If so, do THEY show a plane hitting any light poles?

It's time to retract the stubbornly stupid notion that downed light poles were put out of their miserable misery by a ghost 757, visible only to blind eyewitnesses. Just because the light went out forever, that isn't proof a ghost 757 is responsible.

[RH]

69. Witnesses certainly did report seeing light poles hit.

The poles are not visible from the Sheraton; the Navy Annex is in the way, and I have no idea of why in any case a camera at the Sheraton would have needed to point that way.

Here is a selection of quotes I put online with 'Spot the Lamp Poles' in 2002.

I do have the time now to see if all the links still work. Some may be defunct.

D. S. Khavkin, from the eigtth floor of a high-rise building:
"... knocked down a number of street lamp poles"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1540000/1540586.stm

Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co. was on the exit of Interstate 395.
"... saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles."
http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/5m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html
Afework Hagos, 26, of Arlington, stuck in a traffic jam on Columbia Pike,

"It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts .."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,550486,00.html
Kat Gaines, a Fairfax County Fire & Rescue technician was heading south on Route 110, by the parking lots to the south when she saw a "low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles." She "then heard the plane power up" and plunge into the Pentagon.
http://www.fccc.org/News/valor.htm
Vin Narayanan, a reporter for USA TODAY was driving near the Pentagon
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/washscene.htm

"The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/17/first-person.htm
Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in the traffic a few hundred yards away:

"... knocking over light poles "
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0912/After_assault_on_Pentagon_orderly_response+.shtml

Steve Riskus took pictures less then 1 minute after the impact
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html

"It knocked over a few light poles on its way..."

Father Stephen McGraw was waiting on the northbound side of Washington Boulevard. driving to a graveside service at Arlington

"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6_39/local_news/10772-1.html
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Pentagon_crash_eyewitness_comforted_victims.html

Jim R. Cissell, a former photojournalist, drives past the Pentagon every day on his way to work at the Newseum in Arlington, Va.
http://enquirer.com/editions/2001/09/14/loc_tristate_residents.html
.".. taking out telephone and power lines on its way in, hit the building."
http://www.cincypost.com/attack/cissel091201.html

Noel Sepulveda, a Master Sgt. was walking back to his motorcycle in the Pentagon South Car Park
It "The plane’s right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle.".", he said.

The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle. "You could hear the engines being revved up even higher,"
http://www.af.mil/news/Apr2002/n20020415_0585.shtml
Colonel Bruce Elliott, a World War II and Korean War Chemical Mortar Battalion veteran and a former commander of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant wasalso in the Parking Lot

"... the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire, which may have slowed it down a bit"
http://www.thehawkeye.com/features/911/IdxThur.html
Air Force Honor Guard members were at the end of the cemetery directly across the highway from the Pentagon.
" They had heard, some had seen a plane coming in skimming trees and light poles."
http://www.bgcworld.org/events/snyder.htm

Mark Bright, 32, a traffic patrol officer was the first to arrive at the scene after seeing the plane from his guard booth by the Mall Entrance.
"-- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down."

He also said he heard the plane "power-up"
http://www.dcmilitary.com/marines/hendersonhall/6_39/local_news/10797-1.html
http://206.181.245.163/ebird/e20011108vivid.htm
Wanda Ramey, a DPS master patrol office watched from the Mall plaza booth.
"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant. Then the engine revved up."
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Pentagon_policeman.html
Michael Anthony K (aka 'Mimi Angelica') a 42-year-old firefighter-paramedic saw
"...poles lying on the ground that had apparently been knocked over by the plane as it headed for the building."
http://www.angelfire.com/grrl/mimiangelica/advocate.html
Mike Walter, 46, a USA Today reporter, said
"...It turned and then it went around ..it clipped one of these light poles."
Recorded interview - quick load Recorded interview - best quality
Richard Benedetto, another USA TODAY reporter said,
The only thing we saw on the ground outside there was a piece of a ... the tail of a lamp post.
Recorded interview - quick load / May 2002. Recorded interview - best quality / May 2002.

A Pentagon Navy Admiral said,
"It was a good size jet aircraft. I saw it clip a light pole but keep coming ..."
Houston Chronicle, 9/11/01 - Michael Hedges
(mirror) http://www2.hawaii.edu/~julianr/lexisnexis/clark.txt
Don Fortunato, a plainclothes detective with the Arlington (Va.) Police Department, was walking into his office when he heard a muffled explosion. He dashed to the scene.
“Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think.”

LaVern L Schueller, a Military Chaplain surveyed the scene after the event.
"The top of a light pole was knocked off on an overpass. The FBI had marked it as evidence. The top of a light pole had been knocked off on the street that goes by the Pentagon. It too was marked as evidence. And finally, it took out the entire light pole near the sidewalk.
http://www.aapc.org/prayer.htm
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/archive/bill_campbell/010923col1.html

Frank Probst, dove to the ground to avoid a passing jet engine.
"On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner's wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away."
http://www.militarycity.com/sept11/fortress1.html

[Abe Linkman]

71. Seeing light poles that had been hit isn't the same as seeing them GET hit

If the light poles you are talking about WERE NOT planted, then the only
eyewitness worth paying attention to...would be brought to the world's attention. "The camera never blinks".

Eyewitness testimony is about as credible as some of the obtusely-worded postings of some of the OCT defenders right here in River City.

[DulceDecorum]

97. Lime green problem, eh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=20583

Let me start by agreeing with you
in that
your website NEVER MADE THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF DIFFERENCE TO ANYTHING.

RH says:
Meyssan never retracted and the rest of them are yet more stubbornly stupid than ever before.

RH,
why do always add in the superfluous insult?
Why do you constantly do this?
It is not all that difficult to disagree without being disagreeable.

[RH]

101. I do not disagree.

Stupidity disagrees.

[DulceDecorum]

161. I rest my case.

Truth Suppression Technique Number 5

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

[RH]

65. It was meaningful enough

when Thierry Meyssan was blindly saying that an airliner could not possibly have hit the Pentagon because it would then have hit the lamp poles.

Funny, isn't it, that we've not heard so much about it from him since then?

:toast:

[tngledwebb]

67. How do you figure?

9/11 skeptics, even OCT'ers agree that 9/11 was well thought out in advance and there may have been a low flying jet, or two, in the vicinity, and/or pulling or knocking over lampposts is not impossible, not to difficult to imagine, and this may have been planned precisely to 'prove' evidence of a flight path. Thus, the lampposts are merely circumstantial evidence, for any number of possibilities, but in no way disprove use of explosives or missiles.

[RH]

70. Of course.

It is not logically possible to disprove something for which there is absolutely no proof to begin with.

Next joke?

[MercutioATC]

72. I wish I could :eyes: in the subject line of a post.

:eyes:

The poles were pulled over? By what? When?

Eyewitnesses saw the plane cross the highway at low altitude. The poles were along its observed flight path. The poles were no longer upright later and had obviously sustained damage. Yeah, they fell out of a truck....

I guess it IS time to buy stock in R.J. Reynolds...

[tngledwebb]

162. Wish I could too.

See post 140. RH contradicts himself, ie contains multitudes, and proves he is only human.:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[John Doe II]

37. Still a bit cryptic for me

So, what do you think happened at the Pentagon at 9:37 on 911?

[RH]

44. I think that the outcome

was not carefully chosen.

Apart from that who knows?

[FannySS]

42. remote control: accuracy of one to two meters is possible

Now I came over this:

(..) Preliminary performance data of these
flight tests showed that the Honeywell
DGPS landing system achieved the
predicted system accuracy of one to
two meters.
http://www.bluecoat.org/reports/Lewison_96_DGPS.pdf
(page 2, center)

[MercutioATC]

49. Yes, but that's a civilian unit. The government would have access to

military units which don't degrade the signal. You'd be looking at accuracy within a foot or so.

Again, I'm saying that I haven't seen anything that would make a remote-control scenario impossible. I don't personally believe in it.