Ground Effect

[pomeroo]

Yup, no need to be in a hurry. Why worry about intercepts. It's just the pentagon, and the whitehouse he's headed towards, i'm sure no one was paying attention anyways.

I hope you realize how insane you sound.


But, the key to this thread is that you are utterly clueless about how insane you sound. As a conspiracy liar, you simply can't comprehend the plan devised by the jihadists: They had identified a weakness in America's defenses and were exploiting that weakness. They were not worried about intercepts because THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WOULD BE NONE.

And, no, you don't get it. You never will.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yup, no need to be in a hurry. Why worry about intercepts. It's just the pentagon, and the whitehouse he's headed towards, i'm sure no one was paying attention anyways.

I hope you realize how insane you sound.


Yes, lets pretend they knew the exact plans and target at the time. And you do realize that they did scramble fighters do you not? And you do realize that before AND after 9/11 restricted airspace has been violated many times (the pentagon was not restricted air space though). I guess the guy who flew his plane into the White House was some kind of conspiracy too eh?

I don't think you should be the one calling others insane. A good education could change that view.

[BenBurch]

But, the key to this thread is that you are utterly clueless about how insane you sound. As a conspiracy liar, you simply can't comprehend the plan devised by the jihadists: They had identified a weakness in America's defenses and were exploiting that weakness. They were not worried about intercepts because THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WOULD BE NONE.

And, no, you don't get it. You never will.

Exactly, and said much better.

[Zlaya]

But, the key to this thread is that you are utterly clueless about how insane you sound. As a conspiracy liar, you simply can't comprehend the plan devised by the jihadists: They had identified a weakness in America's defenses and were exploiting that weakness. They were not worried about intercepts because THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WOULD BE NONE.

And, no, you don't get it. You never will.

Hmm, can you tell me, the silly nut, how did the terrorists know there would be no intercepts, o mighty dude?

[Zlaya]

Please provide your source for this claim. Do you understand even basic aerodynamics? Or is your source "Loose Change"?

The source is this thread. You should read it. The source of that claim are the 'experts' on this forum.

They claim that the 757 would have problems descending 8000 feet.

It would fall apart.

It would not be controllable.

[A W Smith]

Hmm, can you tell me, the silly nut, how did the terrorists know there would be no intercepts, o mighty dude?
Payne Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payne_Stewart)

( seventy minutes to intercept)

[Zlaya]

I'd say Hani Hanjour did a turn instead of a dive because he had pilot training. Every pilot here has said that's the more reasonable course of action if you want to be certain of completing your mission.

You've shown absolutely no evidence that a real aircraft would have been controllable during a dive, and unfortunately, he wasn't flying a PC game.

But fine. Just for the sake of argument, assume no structual or control problems would occur during such a dive. I disagree that this is the case, but what the heck.
Further, assume that the pilot had some way of knowing that, even though it is well outside the documented VN diagram. I also disagree that this would be the case, but let's get on.

We have now reached a point where the pilot has two alternatives, and had to choose one.

He can choose the descending turn, a maneuver so common and easy to do that it is used as a landing approach pattern.

Or he can choose a steep dive, common only in aerobatics, and considered risky enough that federal regulations mandate parachutes be worn when they are done intentionally.

The flight recorder shows he chose to make a descending turn within the published envelope, only exceeding the published limits a few tens of seconds before impact.

Even if I go further, and agree (even though I don't) that Hani Hanjour made a bad decision, that the straight dive would have been a better way to go, what then?

If we allow as possible every debunked fact in your scenario: what exactly do you hope to prove? What is it evidence for?

it shows that the Hijacker (who was NOT in the hurry, remember?) did his best to do the least damage to the pentagon Possible.

He carefully lined up to that particular, recently renovated, recently reinforced for just such events, and almost empty section of the pentagon, instead of just diving and almost destroying the entire structure, killing top brass and really making some destruction happen.

[BenBurch]

Payne Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payne_Stewart)

Exactly!

Were it not for a test pilot checking out a bird (unarmed) there would have been no interception.

In fact, I wonder if that is what gave them the idea?

[Zlaya]

Payne Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payne_Stewart)

Wait, did Payne Stewart hijack a 757 (without being in a hurry, of course, remember?), and fly circles above pentagon?

What's the rule of intercept, if the radio communication goes down, if the transponder is turned off, and if the plane gets off course? Were any of those true on 9/11?

How many of those did each of the 4 planes on 911 display?

[beachnut]

Hmm, can you tell me, the silly nut, how did the terrorists know there would be no intercepts?
The terrorist knew because they can do something you lack, research and comprehension! Stand by for class

Terrorist planning started 20 years ago, UBL even says he will kill Americans when and where he wants~! You do not listen. So the terrorist knew this from September 1994! Guess what! CRASH AT THE WHITE HOUSE: THE OVERVIEW; Unimpeded, Intruder Crashes Plane Into White House See, they learned in 1994, in our country we do not shoot down planes, because we do not have combat air patrols over our cities, our civilian controlled military is not allowed to mess around the civil airways armed and dangerous! We are were not prepared for 9/11. source - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9903E1D6173BF930A2575AC0A962958260
Shortly before 2 A.M. today, a small red-and-white plane flew low over 17th Street in the heart of the capital's downtown, banked left in a U-turn near the Washington Monument, and headed straight toward the President's bedroom in the White House.
No one tried to stop it.
Administration officials, who pieced together the flight path, said that the Secret Service agents stationed outside the South Portico had only seconds to scramble out of the way as the two-seat, propeller-driven Cessna 150, its power apparently shut off and only its wing lights on, came straight at them.
Gliding over the treetops, the Cessna passed the fountain and the red cannas blooming on the South Lawn, bounced off the grass just short of the White House, crashed through the branches of a magnolia tree planted by Andrew Jackson and came to rest in a crumpled heap two stories below the Clintons' unoccupied bedroom.
President Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, were sleeping across Pennsylvania Avenue at Blair House, the guest house for visiting dignitaries, while repairs were being made to the ventilation system in the White House residence. The Clintons moved back into the White House today.
See, the terrorist read, and the terrorist comprehend; something you lack! Darn, why is that?

Class is out. Are you really this challenged on research?

[Redtail]

it shows that the Hijacker (who was NOT in the hurry, remember?) did his best to do the least damage to the pentagon Possible.

He carefully lined up to that particular, recently renovated, recently reinforced for just such events, and almost empty section of the pentagon, instead of just diving and almost destroying the entire structure, killing top brass and really making some destruction happen.

Do you have any idea how big the Pentagon is?

[BenBurch]

it shows that the Hijacker (who was NOT in the hurry, remember?) did his best to do the least damage to the pentagon Possible.

He carefully lined up to that particular, recently renovated, recently reinforced for just such events, and almost empty section of the pentagon, instead of just diving and almost destroying the entire structure, killing top brass and really making some destruction happen.

Are you high?

Any place he hit on the Pentagon would have been a major victory for his side.

You are committing a logical fallacy known as "The Texas Sharpshooter Argument" and its unsound and smart people learn to avoid it. Prove to us that you are smart by realizing this is an error, please?

[A W Smith]

Wait, did Payne Stewart hijack a 757 (without being in a hurry, of course, remember?), and fly circles above pentagon?

What's the rule of intercept, if the radio communication goes down, if the transponder is turned off, and if the plane gets off course? Were any of those true on 9/11?

How many of those did each of the 4 planes on 911 display?

Payne Stewart did the same thing four aircraft did on 9/11

Lost contact with ATC

[Zlaya]

The terrorist knew because they can do something you lack, research and comprehension! Stand by for class

Terrorist planning started 20 years ago, UBL even says he will kill Americans when and where he wants~! You do not listen. So the terrorist knew this from September 1994! Guess what! See, they learned in 1994, in our country we do not shoot down planes, because we do not have combat air patrols over our cities, our civilian controlled military is not allowed to mess around the civil airways armed and dangerous! We are were not prepared for 9/11. See, the terrorist read, and the terrorist comprehend; something you lack! Darn, why is that?

Class is out. Are you really this challenged on research?

Man what a waste of money your class was...Here i am, got all excited i was going to read something new, and relevant.

That's right, Osama knew that no one was going to hijack, because some drunk landed a Cessna on the WH lawn. No planes were ever intercepted since? Around that area?

[Zlaya]

Payne Stewart did the same thing four aircraft did on 9/11

Lost contact with ATC

Right, and Fighters were dispatched, and they shadowed his plane until it ran out of fuel.

On 9/11 4 planes showed all those signs. 2 already hit the towers. But somehow flight 77 just wasn't intercepted.

[BenBurch]

Right, and Fighters were dispatched, and they shadowed his plane until it ran out of fuel.

On 9/11 4 planes showed all those signs. 2 already hit the towers. But somehow flight 77 just wasn't intercepted.

Unarmed fighters were dispatched and the first took 73 minutes to intercept that aircraft.

[A W Smith]

Right, and Fighters were dispatched, and they shadowed his plane until it ran out of fuel.

On 9/11 4 planes showed all those signs. 2 already hit the towers. But somehow flight 77 just wasn't intercepted.

Payne Stewarts plane was not not intercepted and shadowed after it lost ATC contact for at least an hour and twenty mins. and it wasnt even flying at the speed flight 77 was.

[beachnut]

Right, and Fighters were dispatched, and they shadowed his plane until it ran out of fuel.

On 9/11 4 planes showed all those signs. 2 already hit the towers. But somehow flight 77 just wasn't intercepted.
Darn, over an hour to intercept. And the first intercept was not with an armed fighter, because we do not blast airliners from the sky before 9/11, etc. You are not very good an this yet, but you are getting to be real truthy.

OOPS, 9/11 was over before 93 was intercepted, and based on 9/11 and how things went, I was surprised we were ready to shoot down the next terrorist plane if we found it. Oops, 93 pax figured out 9/11 in minutes, you still are clueless after 6 years. Why?

[HL7442]

But somehow flight 77 just wasn't intercepted.





Oooooh feel the tension everyone.......Zlaya is hinting that something.....dare I say......nefarious.....nay........something wicked prevented AA77 from being intercepted.:rolleyes:

[Reheat]

What's the rule of intercept, if the radio communication goes down, if the transponder is turned off, and if the plane gets off course? Were any of those true on 9/11?

How many of those did each of the 4 planes on 911 display?

More troofer lies. You're quoting false information from Robin Hordon and DRG just to note two of your hero idiots.

Those protocols for Intercept are true ONLY FOR AIRCRAFT IN THE ADIZ. None of the aircraft hijacked on 9/11 were in the ADIZ. There is also another one you omitted. That is NO FLIGHT PLAN.

You've propagated another lie from your troofer leaders. The only aircraft intercepted in domestic airspace within the past 20 years (maybe even longer) was Payne Stewart's Lear.

Who's keeping score? Are we setting a record for the most lies in a thread yet?

[Zlaya]

Oooooh feel the tension everyone.......Zlaya is hinting that something.....dare I say......nefarious.....nay........something wicked prevented AA77 from being intercepted.:rolleyes:

Yes, we're at that dreaded points where you chose to ignore the discrepancy between Norman Mineta's testimony of when exacly Cheney was in the bunker.

http://www.truthring.org/?p=2062
http://www.truthring.org/?p=4403

Naturally, you ignore this, and claim that he's talking about flight 93, and / or that Mineta was confused, and / or Cheney is not a blood sucking leech on your back, lying to you EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

[TjW]

it shows that the Hijacker (who was NOT in the hurry, remember?) did his best to do the least damage to the pentagon Possible.

He carefully lined up to that particular, recently renovated, recently reinforced for just such events, and almost empty section of the pentagon, instead of just diving and almost destroying the entire structure, killing top brass and really making some destruction happen.

Even if the dive were a viable option, it proves nothing about intent. The facts are he flew a descending turn. If the intent had been to do the least damage possible, a steep dive, narrowly missing onto the grass or the parking lot -- or even impacting the wall -- would have resulted in less damage than there was. Missing from a steep dive would not be surprising to most pilots.

I think the steep dive option simply never occurred to him. I think he got behind the airplane, and he had one of those "oh, crap!" moments that pilots try like hell not to have, but have all experienced anyway. A descending turn was just the easiest solution to his immediate problem.

[Zlaya]

Who's keeping score? Are we setting a record for the most lies in a thread yet?

Yup you debunkers are sure sounding more and more ignorant, your lying is becoming more and more desperate, and your useless nitpicking and spin are getting more and more prominent in this thread...

Flying "Expert" who says that 757 would just fall apart if a dive was attempted.

Hahah!:D

[beachnut]

Yes, we're at that dreaded points where you chose to ignore the discrepancy between Norman Mineta's testimony of when exacly Cheney was in the bunker.

http://www.truthring.org/?p=2062
http://www.truthring.org/?p=4403

Naturally, you ignore this, and claim that he's talking about flight 93, and / or that Mineta was confused, and / or Cheney is not a blood sucking leech on your back, lying to you EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.
You are on the bunker in the ground effect thread; you are reported!

Darn, you can not even get flying right, in a flying thread, which you never answer the question; what is wrong with the ground effect article! Too bad you are not very good at flying stuff, now you bring up the dumb bunker junk! Ground effect, start another thread for you bunker junk!

[Zlaya]

Even if the dive were a viable option, it proves nothing about intent. The facts are he flew a descending turn. If the intent had been to do the least damage possible, a steep dive, narrowly missing onto the grass or the parking lot -- or even impacting the wall -- would have resulted in less damage than there was. Missing from a steep dive would not be surprising to most pilots.

I think the steep dive option simply never occurred to him. I think he got behind the airplane, and he had one of those "oh, crap!" moments that pilots try like hell not to have, but have all experienced anyway. A descending turn was just the easiest solution to his immediate problem.

I like how you just turn everything i say around, and consider me debunked.

Do i have to argue with you now that slamming into the roof of the pentagon is more damaging than slamming into a recently renovated, almost empty, and recently reinforced section?

[beachnut]

I like how you just turn everything i say around, and consider me debunked.

Do i have to argue with you now that slamming into the roof of the pentagon is more damaging than slamming into a recently renovated, almost empty, and recently reinforced section?
Was not empty. And you are too easy to debunk, you have zero flying experience.

[Zlaya]

You are on the bunker in the ground effect thread; you are reported!

Darn, you can not even get flying right, in a flying thread, which you never answer the question; what is wrong with the ground effect article! Too bad you are not very good at flying stuff, now you bring up the dumb bunker junk! Ground effect, start another thread for you bunker junk!

Obviously, i'll get a warning, perhaps even a ban for that, but let it be clear that i was simply replying to a direct question/retarded debunking incinuation. I'm not trying to change the subject.

The subject is still that you're obviously a horrible pilot who has no common sense.

[Zlaya]

Was not empty. And you are too easy to debunk, you have zero flying experience.

Ok, where did i say that it was empty? I like you, i think you're very good at what you do here.

You are, however a crappy pilot who thinks that a 757 would fall apart after descending 8000 feet.

[Redtail]

Ok, where did i say that it was empty? I like you, i think you're very good at what you do here.

You are, however a crappy pilot who thinks that a 757 would fall apart after descending 8000 feet.

Where did he say that?

[beachnut]

Obviously, i'll get a warning, perhaps even a ban for that, but let it be clear that i was simply replying to a direct question/retarded debunking incinuation. I'm not trying to change the subject.

The subject is still that you're obviously a horrible pilot who has no common sense.
125 people in the Pentagon died from the attack. your disrespect is noted saying that area was empty; you are disrespectful due to your lack of facts and poor research to quibble over something and you can not even say what you think happen; Pathetic

I am a very good pilot, you are not. You say stuff not backed up by experience or knowledge on flying. I doubt you understand much about 9/11, you can not even explain what happen. You make up the dive is easy as most pilots agree on a first flight in an airliner diving would be the last choice to loose altitude! You have never flown, you have no clue on anything flying.

[Reheat]

Yup you debunkers are sure sounding more and more ignorant, your lying is becoming more and more desperate, and your useless nitpicking and spin are getting more and more prominent in this thread...

Flying "Expert" who says that 757 would just fall apart if a dive was attempted.

Hahah!:D

To correct you for stating FALSE information is not nitpicking and not spin.

This is spin: Also see above....

"Flying "Expert" who says that 757 would just fall apart if a dive was attempted."

No one has ever made that statement in this thread. Only you have. Statements have been made in reference to probable damage from a 7000-8000' 20 to 30 degree dive while attempting to hit a target on the ground. The context was a relatively inexperienced pilot, in particular and probably for even an experienced pilot.

If there has been a statement by anyone besides you that support your contention, post the link, otherwise you are not just mistaken you are lying, AGAIN.

[beachnut]

Ok, where did i say that it was empty? I like you, i think you're very good at what you do here.

You are, however a crappy pilot who thinks that a 757 would fall apart after descending 8000 feet.
Zlaya

almost empty area
Truth

housed the Naval Command Center and other Pentagon offices, as well as some unoccupied offices.


125 people in the Pentagon died from the attack. your disrespect is noted saying that area was "almost" empty; you are disrespectful due to your lack of facts and poor research to quibble over something and you can not even say what you think happen; Pathetic

[beachnut]

Ok, where did i say that it was empty? I like you, i think you're very good at what you do here.

You are, however a crappy pilot who thinks that a 757 would fall apart after descending 8000 feet. OOPS, I wanted to post this! Did I?

me - (not sure, did I post this, I may not, I started thinking about his kids) -
When you point a plane at the ground at angles greater than 10 or 20 degree, and in the case of 93 over 30 degree; the plane will exceed MACH 1 and could fall apart in the air with the parts coming down at speeds ranging from slow to over MACH 1. My friend was in plane which was in a dive and fell apart, killing him and others, after the plane exceeded MACH1 and faster.

My fellow aviator was on a flight with his crew, and their wives. It is suspected a wife accidentally actuated the stab trim, and the aircraft was in a dive, no electrics due to generator drive in zero g, and the crew had 6 seconds to recover! The stab trim in tanker aircraft is fast. The plane quickly accelerated past MACH 1, the plane fell apart! My point, planes can and have fallen apart in steep dives. Talking about big planes.

In small jets, I have gone MACH 1.25 pointed at 90 degree nose low, and we pulled 7.33 gs to recover before getting into the thick air out of our area! Guess where are MODE 3 was? I have also gone 0.00 mph straight up, 90 degrees nose up!, for a micro second we stopped, guess where our MODE 3 was as we scanned for airliners!!!? (reheat, if you were in atc and t-38s, this was my first vertical recover in the 38, I think I was doing 719 degrees roll for a few seconds, then the deer in the headlights stop roll, then the zero airspeed stop, then the nose low; wonder if IPs had a bet who would do both prohibited manuvers at the same time on the first vertical recover? yep, doing the old jet control input in the new jet)

But big jets have things that could fall off at real high speeds and high Q (look it up flying expert).

[BenBurch]

Wow, I am getting sorry that I started this thread.

Um, two points;

1. The Payne Stewart aircraft was not under continuous observation. There was a period of time between when the one aircraft had to drop out to refuel and the time ANG re-acquired. So our intercept capability was not even able to be continuous.

2. The Payne Stewart aircraft had a transponder on, lights on, and was traveling in a straight line at a predictable speed. This is the easiest sort of intercept possible. None of the aircraft on 9/11 were playing nice.

3. I really do not believe we would shoot now. I don't think shooting was a good idea. I did once, but then I remembered Lockerbie. A transport aircraft hit by a missile does not vaporize. What is left are huge unpiloted bits that in the Lockerbie case wiped out a whole row of homes like they were never there.

[Gravy]

125 people in the Pentagon died from the attack. your disrespect is noted saying that area was empty;beachnut, you're forgetting to consult your Truther-English dictionary before posting. In Truther, an area that's "almost empty" is 80% occupied. An area that's "completely empty" is fully occupied.

Contradicting truthers about such things will only cause them to call the Waaambulance, and no one needs that.

[Pardalis]

According to twoofers, people who work for the government aren't really people, it seems.

[AZCat]

I'd like to remind everyone involved that every time you post in this thread you make Gravy cry.

[Pardalis]

I'd like to remind everyone involved that every time you post in this thread you make Gravy cry.

What's wrong with that? ;)

[BenBurch]

I'd like to remind everyone involved that every time you post in this thread you make Gravy cry.

Which washes all the NYC soot out of them.

[Redtail]

I'd like to remind everyone involved that every time you post in this thread you make Gravy cry.

... So Gravy's a masochist? :D

beachnut, you're forgetting to consult your Truther-English dictionary before posting. In Truther, an area that's "almost empty" is 80% occupied. An area that's "completely empty" is fully occupied.

Contradicting truthers about such things will only cause them to call the Waaambulance, and no one needs that.

[beachnut]

I'd like to remind everyone involved that every time you post in this thread you make Gravy cry.
it is the only thing I can post, boring flying topic junk; sorry for putting people to sleep and make gravy cry; (was the Pentagon area at 80 percent, I can't find that?)

[Corsair 115]

He carefully lined up to that particular, recently renovated, recently reinforced for just such events, and almost empty section of the pentagon...Question: how did he identify this section of the Pentagon from the air? Was there a big arrow painted on the lawn pointing to the newly renovated section?

it is the only thing I can post, boring flying topic junk...Well, I don't find it boring. I think much of it is quite interesting. I can same the same thing of the details posted by a few other folks here too.

[TjW]

I like how you just turn everything i say around, and consider me debunked.

Do i have to argue with you now that slamming into the roof of the pentagon is more damaging than slamming into a recently renovated, almost empty, and recently reinforced section?

Oh, no, Zlaya. I've never considered you debunked. You have what appears to be an infinite supply of bunk. I doubt you'll ever run out. What you lack are facts. I don't try to debunk you. I merely supply reasonable alternatives to your histrionics. I'm confident that those who haven't already made up their minds can easily see the difference between reason and paranoid speculation.

What you would have to do is show some evidence of the pilot's intent. Not your speculation about his intent based on your experience with video games, but actual evidence.

Now, there is some evidence in the form of videotape that Hani Hanjour intended to perform a suicidal act of terrorism against the United States. Flying an airliner into the Pentagon qualifies as that sort of act. I am not aware of any evidence that he wanted to minimize the damage he did. In fact, this is inconsistent with the video evidence that he intended to be a martyr.
If you have some evidence that is pertinent to his intent, by all means produce it and educate me.

[Zlaya]

Question: how did he identify this section of the Pentagon from the air? Was there a big arrow painted on the lawn pointing to the newly renovated section?

Well, I don't find it boring. I think much of it is quite interesting. I can same the same thing of the details posted by a few other folks here too.

Newsflash, he didn't remember, according to you guys, he was an idiot who could only turn and descend, and he was just lucky to accidentally ram into the building.

And yes, he was not in a hurry at all.

He just got lucky, that whole day, everything was just lucky for the evil AlCIADuh

[Zlaya]

If the intent had been to do the least damage possible, a steep dive, narrowly missing onto the grass or the parking lot -- or even impacting the wall -- would have resulted in less damage than there was.

You, of course are wrong, and are just shooting blanks here.

Do you want to show me how he would miss this giant building from 7000 feet up? If anything, there's a greater chance of missing it by not turning enough, or turning too little during that ridiculous bank / descent, and flying in the wrong direction altogether. You see you can't have it both ways. Hanjour can't be a horrible pilot, bad enough not to be able to simply dive into the building, but smart enough to perform a perfect bank / descent and continuing his approach without skipping a beat.

If you have a target in sight, and you have height advantage, and you're looking to cause most damage, WHY would you purposefully turn all the way around, and fly into the reinforced area?

Do we have any statisticians in the house?

What are the chances of this hijacker accidentally hitting this specific reinforced wall, in a recently renovated -MOSTLY EMPTY - area?

[Corsair 115]

Newsflash, he didn't remember, according to you guys, he was an idiot who could only turn and descend, and he was just lucky to accidentally ram into the building. You've implied that he hit the renovated section on purpose. So how did he identify this section from the air? Simple question, and you really ought to have an answer for it considering what you're implying.

He just got lucky, that whole day, everything was just lucky for the evil AlCIADuhYou should read some military history. Luck has played a decisive role in numerous battles. I direct you again to the Battle of Midway.

If you have a target in sight, and you have height advantage, and you're looking to cause most damage, WHY would you purposefully turn all the way around... Once more: because diving an aircraft successfully onto a target is hard. I again direct you to the difference between dive bombing and glide bombing as a useful illustration between the piloting skill required for different types of maneuvers.

...and fly into the reinforced area?Once more: how did he identify which section was the reinforced area?

[TjW]

Newsflash, he didn't remember, according to you guys, he was an idiot who could only turn and descend, and he was just lucky to accidentally ram into the building.

And yes, he was not in a hurry at all.

He just got lucky, that whole day, everything was just lucky for the evil AlCIADuh

You seem to be building a bunk of straw.

[Jonnyclueless]

so if Hani didn't sly the plane and it was remote controlled or whatever nonsense, why didn't it do a nosedive since that's so much easier (yes I know it's not easier, but let's humor zlaya).

[Zlaya]

so if Hani didn't sly the plane and it was remote controlled or whatever nonsense, why didn't it do a nosedive since that's so much easier (yes I know it's not easier, but let's humor zlaya).

Its difficult hitting that perticular reinforced, renovated and almost empty area by diving from 8000 feet. The plane HAD to spend time, and align with that area - which it did.

Any serious hijacker, with little or no flying skills would pick what's easier - push stick foward, and dive into the top brass.

Instead, this evil terrorist, who could barely fly that plane, decided to execute that bank / descent (comparatively more difficult maneuver - requires careful monitoring of many instruments) - as if he was trying to cause as little damage as possible to the Pentagon.

Of course, this particular evil terrorist was NOT in a hurry to finish the job - he was NOT worried about intercepts - because Osama indeed saw the newspaper article from 1994 where that dude crash landed into the WH lawn. Right?

Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity?

[beachnut]

You, of course are wrong, and are just shooting blanks here.

Do you want to show me how he would miss this giant building from 7000 feet up? If anything, there's a greater chance of missing it by not turning enough, or turning too little during that ridiculous bank / descent, and flying in the wrong direction altogether. You see you can't have it both ways. Hanjour can't be a horrible pilot, bad enough not to be able to simply dive into the building, but smart enough to perform a perfect bank / descent and continuing his approach without skipping a beat.

If you have a target in sight, and you have height advantage, and you're looking to cause most damage, WHY would you purposefully turn all the way around, and fly into the reinforced area?

Do we have any statisticians in the house?

What are the chances of this hijacker accidentally hitting this specific reinforced wall, in a recently renovated -MOSTLY EMPTY - area?
You called me a bad pilot, but you do not understand a 360 degree turn. Why? You have failed to understand flying. Do you understand a 360 degree turn? Are you able to read a compass card? I doubt you understand how to visualize flying, you are not even as good as a terrorist. Sad, not very good at flying, not as good as terrorist. What are you good at? You can not even point out what is wrong with the ground effect article which you said was bogus, but you offered zero, ZERO, reasons why. Why? Why are avoiding the answer?

[Zlaya]

You called me a bad pilot, but you do not understand a 360 degree turn. Why? You have failed to understand flying. Do you understand a 360 degree turn? Are you able to read a compass card? I doubt you understand how to visualize flying, you are not even as good as a terrorist. Sad, not very good at flying, not as good as terrorist. What are you good at? You can not even point out what is wrong with the ground effect article which you said was bogus, but you offered zero, ZERO, reasons why. Why? Why are avoiding the answer?

Because you're nothing but a troll, and it's fun watching you squirm when faced with facts.

The plane did not turn 360 degrees. So there. I'm not the one who claims that this plane would have falled apart if a dive from the amazing height of 8000 feet was attempted. I had to spend several pages showing how this makes you a horrible pilot.

[beachnut]

Because you're nothing but a troll, and it's fun watching you squirm when faced with facts.

The plane did not turn 360 degrees. So there. I'm not the one who claims that this plane would have falled apart if a dive from the amazing height of 8000 feet was attempted. I had to spend several pages showing how this makes you a horrible pilot.
Oh, his flight path crossed. You do not understand a 360 degree turn, but then I am a horrible pilot, you are not a pilot. You failed, and the horrible pilot won this one. Fact less still as you push the p4t junk, and FSX false flying. Gee most FSX flyers are able to gain real pilot skills, why are you not able to learn basic flying knowledge like most who use FSX? Why?

[Redtail]

Its difficult hitting that perticular reinforced, renovated and almost empty area by diving from 8000 feet. The plane HAD to spend time, and align with that area - which it did.

Any serious hijacker, with little or no flying skills would pick what's easier - push stick foward, and dive into the top brass.

Instead, this evil terrorist, who could barely fly that plane, decided to execute that bank / descent (comparatively more difficult maneuver - requires careful monitoring of many instruments) - as if he was trying to cause as little damage as possible to the Pentagon.

Of course, this particular evil terrorist was NOT in a hurry to finish the job - he was NOT worried about intercepts - because Osama indeed saw the newspaper article from 1994 where that dude crash landed into the WH lawn. Right?

Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity?

1.) How did he know where the "top brass" was?

2.) If diving was easier, then dive bombers from WWII would have a much better record. I've talked about this to a "Jolly Roger". Much harder than you think and yes I'm accounting for ack-ack.

3.) Who said he could barely fly the plane?

[Dr Adequate]

it shows that the Hijacker (who was NOT in the hurry, remember?) did his best to do the least damage to the pentagon Possible.

He carefully lined up to that particular, recently renovated, recently reinforced for just such events, and almost empty section of the pentagon, instead of just diving and almost destroying the entire structure, killing top brass and really making some destruction happen. Perhaps he was trying to do that and missed.

You know, on account of it being difficult to crash a plane accurately?

This is your cake, Zlaya.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:9GKt7tB3qGUgnM:http://www.ebrides.ca/images/wedding_cake.jpg

Two options lie before you.

[Dr Adequate]

What are the chances of this hijacker accidentally hitting this specific reinforced wall, in a recently renovated -MOSTLY EMPTY - area? Let me explain something to you about yourself, and conspiracy theorists in general, which you may not understand.

If the plane had hit an area full of the top brass, you would conclude that this is because they stood in the way of PNAC's plans, and had to die. And you'd be right here asking us to calculate the chances of a terrorist hitting that exact spot, and how he could have known which part of the Pentagon they'd be in.

If it had hit rooms full of nothing but filing cabinets, then you'd decide that this was the NWO trying to destroy their secret files, and you'd be asking us the odds that a terrorist should so conveniently crash into that part of the Pentagon, while sparing the top brass.

If it had hit the part of the building with the most people in it, causing the maximum loss of life, then you would think that the Evi Freemasonly Joos or whoever were trying to cause as much shock and awe as possible, and you'd be amazed, once again, at the precision of the man's piloting. And how could an outsider know where everyone was going to be assembled inside the Pentagon on 9/11? It just screams inside job, doesn't it?

If it had hit an area which was not recently renovated, but rather next on the schedule for renovation, then how convenient that is for BushCo. After all, they were just about to tear that bit down and rebuild it anyway. What are the odds, huh? What are the odds?

And if he'd missed the Pentagon entirely, then you'd be asking how he could possibly miss a building that size. Well, obviously the military industrial complex aren't going to sacrifice their own. INSIDE JOB!

And if that plane had been shot down --- well, that again would be most convenient for the warmongers in the Pentagon. Highly suspicious that they should be saved when the people in the Twin Towers should die by their thousands.

In your particular case, you imagine that the conspirators wanted to do some damage to the Pentagon, but not very much, and to kill some people, but not very many. Then you declare it very convenient for the conspirators that this is what actually happened. But the only reason you think that this is what they wanted is that that's what happened. If something else had happened, you'd just have decided that that was what the conspirators wanted, and found it equally suspicious.

[Pardalis]

Good post, that's a heck of summary of the CT mindset.

[HL7442]

Yes, we're at that dreaded points where you chose to ignore the discrepancy between Norman Mineta's testimony of when exacly Cheney was in the bunker.

http://www.truthring.org/?p=2062
http://www.truthring.org/?p=4403

Naturally, you ignore this, and claim that he's talking about flight 93, and / or that Mineta was confused, and / or Cheney is not a blood sucking leech on your back, lying to you EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.





You sound so familiar Zlaya as if I know you from another forum. Pravda forum possibly but either way you're quite funny. Now back to your continuing fictional story concerning AA77.....what happens next?:boxedin:

[Jonnyclueless]

Its difficult hitting that perticular reinforced, renovated and almost empty area by diving from 8000 feet. The plane HAD to spend time, and align with that area - which it did.

Any serious hijacker, with little or no flying skills would pick what's easier - push stick foward, and dive into the top brass.

Instead, this evil terrorist, who could barely fly that plane, decided to execute that bank / descent (comparatively more difficult maneuver - requires careful monitoring of many instruments) - as if he was trying to cause as little damage as possible to the Pentagon.

Of course, this particular evil terrorist was NOT in a hurry to finish the job - he was NOT worried about intercepts - because Osama indeed saw the newspaper article from 1994 where that dude crash landed into the WH lawn. Right?

Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity?

No it was not difficult at all. It was the only wall that was in the direction the plane was originally flying. One could argue it's a 1 in 5 chance, but that isn't even accurate. Had that part been on any other section it wouldn't have been hit. But once again, your argument is 100% pure conjecture. It's an inside job because the plane hit a renovated side? WTF?!?!

And again, you clearly have little flying experience. No, a hijacker would not simply press down. For one, you assume the hijackers knew what they were doing. They didn't. You assume that the hijacker intended to hit the Pentagon, he didn't. It just happened to be easier to find than the Capitol building. To claim that the reaction should have been to dive is absolutely absurd and WRONG. wrong wrong wrong. LOL!!! As if the hijackers knew who was where in the building. Clunkity clunk it more than right!

No the maneuver was NOT more difficult than the one you propose. That's absolutely absurd and idiotic. Almost as absurd as your bogus claim that it takes carful monitoring of instruments.

Could your arguments be any more absurd? I mean forget that it's conjecture, it's just simply bad conjecture. But man would I love to see you argue that in a court of law just to hear the laughs.

Yet some how your super secret magical remote controlled planes couldn't do a dive either. Somehow it's odd to you that an actual pilot would make an easy turn, but a computer controlled plane can't make a dive that you pretend is easier to do.

[X]

Zlaya:

1) Why do you continue to insist that a turn is a more difficult manouver than a dive? You have been shown repeatedly that this is not the case. I'd say you have ignored the posts showing this, but you replied to and quoted them, so it follows you read them.

2) Going back to your first post in this thread, what exactly is your problem with the link explaining ground effect that was provided? I've copied the link here (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml) for convenience.
Now, you seem very confused about this whole thing. As I mentioned before, I am studying Aerospace Engineering. Among the many courses I've taken, Aircraft Performance and Dynamics was one of the more stimulating and enjoyable courses. Thus, because I enjoy it, and want to see you understand what you're arguing so you don't embarras yourself anymore, I am willing to dig out my textbooks and help you understand the material in the link. For the record, the link is quite accurate.

So post your reasons for point 1, and your problems with the link, and I will do my best to explain the principles behind it to you.

N.B. I can't promise not to delve into mathematics you may not have seen before, so I hope you have some understanding of calculus.

ETA: I would apologize for making Gravy cry, but, like Redtail says, it seems he enjoys it. :p


ETA 2: Nevemind. It seems I should have offered earlier.

[beachnut]

Because you're nothing but a troll, and it's fun watching you squirm when faced with facts.

The plane did not turn 360 degrees. So there. I'm not the one who claims that this plane would have falled apart if a dive from the amazing height of 8000 feet was attempted. I had to spend several pages showing how this makes you a horrible pilot.
A troll with an ATP, 707/720 type rating, and I was not squirming. 50 percent is not bad.

Data at 09;31:28 at 6634 feet heading 59.4 degrees, the plane turns right and passes 59.4 degree next at 09:37:06 at 2287 feet PA completing 360 degree of sloppy turn passing as I said the same heading 59.4 degrees. The plane was going one way, did a turn and it went that way again. Kind of like a 360. You know, you are heading towards the Pentagon and you turn around and you are stilling heading toward the Pentagon, poor terrorist did a sloppy 360. What do you call a 360?

[Corsair 115]

Instead, this evil terrorist, who could barely fly that plane, decided to execute that bank / descent (comparatively more difficult maneuver - requires careful monitoring of many instruments)... Roffle! A descending turn is difficult, now that's funny.

Once more: to turn an aircraft, just bank the wings. That's it. A side benefit of this is that you will lose altitude since the lift vector produced by the wings is no longer directly opposing gravity. If you want a co-ordinated turn, use some rudder while banking. If you want to avoid losing altitude while turning, use a little back pressure on the controls. If you want a tight turn, bank steeply and pull back hard on the stick.


I'll ask yet again: how did he identify from the air which area of the Pentagon was the renovated area?

[Firestone]

I'll ask yet again: how did he identify from the air which area of the Pentagon was the renovated area?Killtown solved that one! :D
What are the odds that the crash happened in the very spot that was being renovated? Notice the mysterious line mark in the lawn before 9/11 that is just to right of the actual trajectory of the aircraft in question that hit the Pentagon. Was this line mark in the lawn put there on purpose to help "guide" the aircraft in question to crash into the building?

Source (http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/claim.html)Of course, we know Killtown is wrong, because the "actual trajectory" he assumes goes south of Citgo. :boxedin:

[BenBurch]

Citgo. Hmmm... So really this proves that Hugo Chavez was the true mastermind of 911?

:D

[Magenta]

Somewhat tangential to this thread, but when I read this (possibly apocryphal) story (http://blog.flightwisdom.com/2007/11/20/iphone-equipped-passenger-takes-on-flight-crew-over-weather-delay/)it reminded me of someone with a PC flight simulator trying to tell actual pilots how to fly a plane…

iPhone-equipped Passenger Takes on Flight Crew over Weather Delay

When we saw a recent commercial for the iPhone where a member of the flight crew uses his iPhone to find out the weather was not what he was told, and, breaking the news to the apparently clueless rest of the airline, air traffic control, and others involved and thus leaving early.

Planebuzz has a story on a passenger who was influenced by this…

“Some guy with an IPhone says the weather is good, and wants to know what the real reason is for the delay. Is something wrong with the plane?”

So, the pilot gets on the PA and responds…

"If the passenger with the IPhone would be kind enough to use it to check the weather at our alternate, calculate our fuel burn due to being rerouted around the storms, call the dispatcher to arrange our release, and then make a phone call to the nearest Air Traffic Control center to arrange our timely departure amongst the other aircraft carrying passengers with IPhones, then we will be more than happy to depart. Please ring your call button to advise the Flight Attendant and your fellow passengers when you deem it ready and responsible for this multi-million dollar aircraft and its passengers to safely leave.”