View Single Post
Old 3rd June 2007, 03:04 AM   #58
Government Loyalist
apathoid's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Virgo Supercluster
Posts: 2,769
Hi Chris, welcome to the forum.

Originally Posted by chriswgood71 View Post
1) They tried to interpret the "raw" data the NTSB provided as best they could...the point is; Why did the NTSB not do a real investigation and try to piece together every single scrap of metal to figure out why things happened the way they did in all 4 incidents on 9/11? They claim on their site (NTSB) that the investigation was officially turned over to the FBI...Where is their NTSB equivalent investigation? Still ongoing? No. the FBI Pentbomm team has apparently been disbanded. Where is their report? Anyone with a link or more enlightenment on this would be greatly appreciated.
It's not necessary to piece together an airplane when the cause of the crash(es) is blindingly obvious, especially when the cause(aircraft deliberately rammed into buildings) is not an airworthiness/safety issue. In the case of TWA 800, they almost had no choice but to start piecing it together because investigators didn't have the foggiest idea of why it blew up in mid-air shortly after takeoff.

It's also not the norm to rebuild every airplane that crashes because the cause can be determined through other, less-costly methods. I'd even go as far as to say that TWA 800 style reconstructions are quite rare.

The investigation was turned over to the FBI, because the FBI has jurisdiction over criminal investigations. If a wing fell off AA77 just prior to hitting, then I'd assume the NTSB would've investigated that.

2) Aside from any official NTSB investigation or interpretation of data they "certify" as authentic, PFT has some questions about their attempts to interpret the data the NTSB should have investigated and interpreted in the first place...e.g: A. The flight path, magnetic north/true north bearing should have been more clear. Depending on which is used the flight path does not line up in one and may in the other...the point is where is the official interpretation of the data?

As was posted farther up, PFT was given a working copy of the animation which wasn't used in any official capacity. As far as the NTSBs official interperetation of the animation - I don't think it's normal for them to do that. Pick a crash, any crash - and see if you can find the animation AND an "official interpretation" of it. Good luck.

Why didn't the NTSB release one of their 500 page accident reports? Answered above.

B. The altitude; There was apparently a barometric pressure adjustment during the flight ascent (when the change from local pressure to atmospheric pressure is made) which was not made again during descent of the plane in the "raw" data. The adjusted altitude would have placed the plane approximately 400 ft. higher than last shown. Again, where is the official report on this - subject to public scrutiny and defense?

"They" also adjusted it 260 ft high on takeoff. PA for Dulles was about 40' - but sure enough the animations starts at 300' which is the actual elevation of the airfield.

And are you talking about the animation or what actually happened? Hani did adjust the BARO knob on the way down. But pressure altitude is pressure altitude. It's always referenced to 29.92 regardless of the BARO setting. Also, if you look at the the CSV file, you'll see where Hani adjusted the knob and you'll also see how that had no effect on the pressure altitude. The CSV also shows the proper PA at Dulles, around 40'.

Why did the NTSB make several adjustments to the animation? I have no idea, but it wasn't to make AA77 look lower than it actually was(480' MSL). Look at it this way - if they did adjust it down - wouldn't they, you know, want to make it support the "Official story" instead of having it fly over at 500 feet?(Is PFT saying that it was actually at 1,000 feet? Thats lunacy.)

C. The rate of descent. As I understand the contention of PFT - it is that rate of descent was too great to allow that big airplane to be in descent and then find itself in a low altitude flight path parallel to the ground as would seem to be indicated by the felled light poles and smoke trail in the pentagon video. It's like saying plane could rapidly descend at 10,000 ft/sec and then in a matter of a few seconds find itself low and parallel to the ground.

The official story does not suggest that the plane hit the Pentagon at a high rate of descent. If you are talking about the data at the end of the animation/CSV, its been covered here in-depth. Do a forum search for "FDR" or "Pressure altitude". Long story short, the data ends 2-5 seconds away from the Pentagon wall. The RoD cannot possibly be ascertained at impact.

1. Why did Hani and crew not just fly straight down into the Pentagon when they first saw it...why go out of their way to fly a big circle over the nations the most powerful nation on earth's protected airspace and risk being shot down?

The aircraft was still at 7,000 ft as it approached the Pentagon(to put this altitude in perspective, 7000' is typically reached 20 miles from the airfield on descent). I don't know about you, but I think it'd be pretty stupid to do anything other than turn around and descend.

Please define "protected airspace". Are you saying that Hanjour flew AA77 through airspace which was off limits?
He didn't. The airspace directly above and around the Pentagon isn't restricted, other than it being Class B which means it's congested, that is, too many airplanes are operating in it - quite opposite of restricted!

See here:

2. Why did all of the commercial pilots that had their planes taken over on 9/11 by these hijackers all give up their planes to some loudmouthed arab hijackers with box cutters? So they threaten there is a bomb on board...shouldn't at least one of the pilots not yielded their plane without notifying FAA of the hijacking? Or done more to not relinquish their plane so seemingly quickly and easily? Couldn't at least one or more of these (mostly military trained) pilots have put up more of a fight...or done a quick maneuver to cause them to lose their footing (seeing as they were buckled in and all, and the hijackers were not) and take back control of the situation? Shouldn't common sense dictate at least a little of what happened on 9/11? And not this incredible coincendence sense that seems to dominate "official" lines of explanation for things?

I'm quite offended by both the logic and what you're inferring here.

How do you know the pilots didn't fight?
How do you know that the hijackers were not well-trained in hand to hand combat and knife fighting?
How do you know they didn't rehearse their attacks ?
How much could the pilots have done from their seats to ward off the hijackers?

Have you ever sat in the cockpit of a 767 or 757? You can't stand up from your seat. You actually have to physically move the seat back and to the outboard side. It's still isn't the easiest thing in the world to get out of that seat. You have to swivel your body around to the inside, duck your head and standup, stepping back's not the best place to be when someone is trying to kill you.

As far as notifying the FAA of the hijack. I'd say setting the ATC panel to 7500 would be impossible to do in less than 3 seconds. Probably impossible in any time frame, when someone is hell bent on slitting your throat.

Chris, I don't know if you're new to the whole AA77/FDR thing or if you just trust PFTs analysys. But there is an alternative viewpoint. Every one of PFTs claims has been addressed and re-addressed to the point of exhaustion. Please peruse some of these threads .
Nature abhors a moron. -H.L. Mencken

Last edited by apathoid; 3rd June 2007 at 03:13 AM. Reason: typo
apathoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top