Interesting,

I didn't see anything the first time since it blends in with the cars traveling in the same direction. Switched computers to big screen. Laptop let me down even with 17 " monitor.

Reassessing.

So, what happened here? Oops?

I'm looking for better resolution videos and breaking them down frame by frame. The long list of experienced veterans know more than you or I do about their fields of expertise. Saying a list is too long and not impressive is pretty silly for a layman in avionics and industrial engineering.

:D


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I'm looking for better resolution videos and breaking them down frame by frame.

You really don't need to. You can see the plane that crosses behind the expressway and slams into the building. You can tell it is big because it is larger than that bus or semi that passes on the highway, even though that vehicle is less than 1/4 of the distance away from the Pentagon.

That would make the "missile" approximately the size of an American Airlines jetliner. Which lots of people said they saw slam into the building.

Oh, wait...

The long list of experienced veterans know more than you or I do about their fields of expertise.

Of course they do. Just as I know more than they about my field of experience. In neither case is that necessarily relevant. Neither is posting that thing here.

Saying a list is too long and not impressive is pretty silly for a layman in avionics and industrial engineering.

Dear god. What exactly did that list prove? That some people agree with you? Would you change your mind if I posted some insanely long list of experts that agree with me?

If not, then you can understand why that list was just a waste of bandwidth.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You really don't need to. You can see the plane that crosses behind the expressway and slams into the building. You can tell it is big because it is larger than that bus or semi that passes on the highway, even though that vehicle is less than 1/4 of the distance away from the Pentagon.

That would make the "missile" approximately the size of an American Airlines jetliner. Which lots of people said they saw slam into the building.

Oh, wait...

I see what looks to possible be the top tip of a horizontal stabilizer moving towards a building, obscured by an overpass and vehicles moving in the same direction.

Of course they do. Just as I know more than they about my field of experience. In neither case is that necessarily relevant. Neither is posting that thing here.

Of course they do.

Dear god. What exactly did that list prove? That some people agree with you? Would you change your mind if I posted some insanely long list of experts that agree with me?

If not, then you can understand why that list was just a waste of bandwidth.

The list shows people with experience questioning the official story. What did you think it proved?


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

You really don't need to. You can see the plane that crosses behind the expressway and slams into the building. You can tell it is big because it is larger than that bus or semi that passes on the highway, even though that vehicle is less than 1/4 of the distance away from the Pentagon.

That would make the "missile" approximately the size of an American Airlines jetliner. Which lots of people said they saw slam into the building.

Oh, wait...

I see what looks to possible be the top tip of a horizontal stabilizer moving towards a building, obscured by an overpass and vehicles moving in the same direction.

Then that must be what, the Super-Secret, Extra Huge, American Airlines-sized Ultra Massive Cruise Missile?

"Kept hidden at Area 51, the SSEHAASUMCM-JDAM is a fearful weapon. Well, it would be, if anyone knew about it."

For those of you that have trouble understanding fictional quotes, do not read the preceding paragraph.

Of course they do. Just as I know more than they about my field of experience. In neither case is that necessarily relevant. Neither is posting that thing here.

Of course they do.

Of course they do, what?

Dear god. What exactly did that list prove? That some people agree with you? Would you change your mind if I posted some insanely long list of experts that agree with me?

If not, then you can understand why that list was just a waste of bandwidth.

The list shows people with experience questioning the official story. What did you think it proved?

Seriously? You felt it necessary to show that "people with experience" question the official story?

Duh.

Before you post a list of millions of names, you know, the List of Complete Idiots Who Question the Official Story and Sometimes Eat Bugs, how about if you just assume that we'll all grant you the point that there are x number of people who question the official story?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Your missing the point,

But that's ok.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Your missing the point,

But that's ok.

I'm not sure I understand what your point is either. Perhaps you could clarify.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Back to the original question: ok, so maybe the plane was being flown lower for longer than I thought. Is there information on this? For example, is there info stating how long before striking that they'd pulled out of the dive? We're they skimming just above the highways for a few minutes?

Also, how many of you have been in auto accident? Did that involve hitting concrete on the side of the road (for example, concrete guards in areas where there's a steep drop to the side of the road)? In 1994, on my way back from an interview, I was on an interstate, doing plus or minus 1 or 2 mph the speed limit (65 or 70?). It was 1-2 a.m. A drunk 19 y.o. passed two semis doing 80-100 m.p.h. He pulled back in to the right lane and realized too late I was there and how quickly he was coming up on me. As he pulled back out to try to pass, he clipped the left rear end of my car. I was sent spinning, hitting the concrete on the side of the road many times. Guess which thing suffered damage? The car or the concrete. All reports indicate the concrete (as well as myself) were shaken and stunned but undamaged. The car was totaled. Now imagine a plane at 300-500 m.p.h. slamming directly into really really strong concrete. I can see much of the plane being pulverized in this action.

What originally did not make sense to me was the path. So, now I am asking for info about that path, if it exists. (Height, over what, etc. ... .)

There's the NTSB animation from the flight recorder here, you can read the altitude from the instrument panel on the right. A link I pasted earlier shows an aerial photo of the last part of the flight (giving an idea of what was overflown).

Regarding the plane vs concrete, compared with car vs concrete comments. A car will suffer a lot more damage than a concrete wall, even cars going at nearly 200 mph suffer a lot more damage than the concrete they hit (as witnessed in last year's Canada F1 race when Robert Kubica hit a concrete barrier at that kind of speed). A significant difference between a car and a plane is mass. Momentum = mass x velocity, and it is momentum that is conserved. Kinetic energy is also related to mass, energy = 1/2 x mass x (velocity ^ 2).

Maximum mass of the smaller of the two 757 models is 115 tonnes

velocity of Flight 77 prior to impact is estimated at around 460 knots (from the plitos for truth site), that's about 530 mph or 852 kph (236.6 m/s).

Let's say the actual weight was substantially less than the maximum, 75,000 kilos.

Momentum = 75 tonnes x 236.6 = 17.7 MNewtons

In terms of kinetic energy we have

Energy = 1/2 x 75 x 236.6 = 56 MJ

A 1 ton car at 100 mph (about 160 kph, or 44.4 m/s)

Momentum = 1 x 44.4 = 44.4 KNewtons

Energy = 1/2 x 1 x 44.4 ^2 = 319 KJ

So we're at least two orders of magnitude off in terms of both force and energy, is it any wonder the results are somewhat different?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I see what looks to possible be the top tip of a horizontal stabilizer moving towards a building, obscured by an overpass and vehicles moving in the same direction.

Then that must be what, the Super-Secret, Extra Huge, American Airlines-sized Ultra Massive Cruise Missile?

"Kept hidden at Area 51, the SSEHAASUMCM-JDAM is a fearful weapon. Well, it would be, if anyone knew about it."

I think I got the missile designator wrong.

It should have been the Super-Secret, Extra Huge, American Airlines-sized Ultra Massive Cruise Missile with the Horizontal Stabilizer that is the Size of a House.

That would be the SSEHAASUMCMHSSH-JDAM.

It's very similar to the Boeing 757 that has a tail which, at 44ft high, is the size of a house.

Oh, wait...

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You guys are whipping yourselves into a frenzy.

Oh... lunch time!


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

You guys are whipping yourselves into a frenzy.

Oh... lunch time!

Oh yeah. You should have seen me screaming and running around pulling my hair out as I researched the SSEHAASUMCMHSSH-JDAM.

There was a lot of jumping up and down too.

Sheesh.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You guys are whipping yourselves into a frenzy.

Oh... lunch time!

Oh yeah. You should have seen me screaming and running around pulling my hair out as I researched the SSEHAASUMCMHSSH-JDAM.

There was a lot of jumping up and down too.

Sheesh.

Me too, a bit of simple arithmetic drives me craaaazy.

On the energy equations earlier, I did not include chemical energy from fuel, chances are that more would be added to the plane than a car, as the fuel tanks occupy proportionately more of the volume of a plane than a car... I'm sure there are sites that list the chemical energy/kilo of gasoline and kerosene and the carrying capacity of a typical car and a 757, maybe it's because I'm not in enough of a frenzy that I haven't looked these up yet.

Anything on the "point" Rush and I were missing earlier, regarding posting a long list of names that we're given to believe support an alternative hypothesis?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Bobby, I'm not sure you got my point about bringing about the auto accident.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Bobby, I'm not sure you got my point about bringing about the auto accident.

I think I got it, you were saying a car is wrecked at something less that 100 mph, what would we expect to happen to a plane at over 500 mph? I was talking to the other side of the equation, a concrete barrier is hardly damaged by a car, what should we expect if a plane were to hit one?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Bobby, I'm not sure you got my point about bringing about the auto accident.

I think I got it, you were saying a car is wrecked at something less that 100 mph, what would we expect to happen to a plane at over 500 mph? I was talking to the other side of the equation, a concrete barrier is hardly damaged by a car, what should we expect if a plane were to hit one?

OK, you got it. (My mention of "the other side" was the jokingly said part "The concrete, by all reports, walked away dazed and confused, shaken not stirred, but undamaged/alright.")

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

As for footage of the collision, there's some out there, including this. Not the best of angles, but it is a running camera (as opposed to stop motion).

Doesn't show the airplane? It certainly shows something following a path that ends in an explosion.

Interesting,

I didn't see anything the first time since it blends in with the cars traveling in the same direction. Switched computers to big screen. Laptop let me down even with 17 " monitor.

Reassessing.

Does this mean that you're also reassessing your original criticism that the direction of the object was wrong?

"The angle of that hotel video should show an object flying in from right to left."

I'd say plane, instead of object, but I'm concerned that you might think being that definitive is contentious.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

what would we expect to happen to a plane at over 500 mph?

Dunno, planes don't go 500 mph... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

what would we expect to happen to a plane at over 500 mph?

Dunno, planes don't go 500 mph... ;)

As a heckler, Jeffrey, you're slipping.
Dry sarcastic humor like that is supposed to be a Sarge forte.
Come on. Just how fast do planes go, then, eh?
(Hopefully you do not think as slow as some of the answers to d = rt problems I've seen some students submit.)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html


Questions For NTSB/FBI Regarding Flight Data Recorder Information

1. The current FDR shows 480' MSL True Altitude, too high to hit the light poles. What are your findings of True Altitude at end of data recording 09:37:44. Why did you provide a Flight Data Recorder that shows the aircraft too high without a side letter of explanation? How did you come to your conclusion.
2. What is the vertical speed at end of data recording :44. How did you come to your conclusion.
3. What is the Absolute Altitude and end of data recording? How did you come to your conclusion.
4. Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set?(This is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it).
5. Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?
6. Do you have any video showing a clear impact and/or of the plane on its approach to impact?
7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?
8. Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44?
9. Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator?
10. How did you come to the conclusion of 09:37:45 as the official impact time?
11. What is the exact chain of custody of the FDR? What date/time was it found? Where exactly was it found? Please provide documentation and names.
12. Why does the hijack timeline show a 3 min interval for hijacking to take place? Why was Capt. Burlingame reported to have not followed protocol for the Common Strategy prior to 9/11?


So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And traveled 33 miles in 5 minutes. That's 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed.

So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we don't know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...

Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didn't touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. I'm sure we all would agree.

So, who pulled off this stunt?

Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two separate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches.

Later, a week after Sept 11. Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, "although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon." What?? Bernard, who didn't even fly with Hani, doesn't know the maneuver involved, where the plane hit, the speeds, etc etc.. says he has no doubts that he could hit the pentagon? Sure, my grandma could hit the pentagon. How about looking into the maneuver before making that statement? He made that statement while the pentagon was still smoking for pete's sake. A bit of monday morning quarterbacking if you ask me. A common theme among inexperienced pilots. This also can be verified via google searches.

So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree spiraling dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldn't land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.

My conclusion is, the maneuver looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C'mon...


For anyone wanting to do further research on the subject. Almost all the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have similar scenarios. Hell, they didn't even match up the parts found at each site to their airframes via maintenance logs. There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why... so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You don't give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with.

NTSB report

FBI Reports


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
My conclusion is, the maneuver looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane.

Wow. His whole post summed up in a few words. He doesn't think it likely that some guy he's never met and knows nothing about could fly that plane the way he did. Yet, he notes, it's possible--hell, he even says the guy could get lucky.

And yet, people win the lotto every day. Others, like Sarge himself managed to do the other day, actually got a specific set of individual serial numbers on the paper money in his wallet. My conclusion is, that little maneuver looks possible, for guys like Bill Gates. But for Sarge? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or Bill Gates put those particular bills in Sarge's wallet.

For anyone wanting to do further research on the subject. Almst all the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have similar scenarios. Hell, they didn't even match up the parts found at each site to their airframes via maintenance logs. There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why... so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You don't give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with.

For anyone who actually wants to do more research, a good place to start without all the breathless hysteria and damn hell ass paranoia is Le Wiki.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

My conclusion is, the maneuver looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane.

Wow. His whole post summed up in a few words. He doesn't think it likely that some guy he's never met and knows nothing about could fly that plane the way he did. Yet, he notes, it's possible--hell, he even says the guy could get lucky.

And yet, people win the lotto every day. Others, like Sarge himself managed to do the other day, actually got a specific set of individual serial numbers on the paper money in his wallet. My conclusion is, that little maneuver looks possible, for guys like Bill Gates. But for Sarge? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or Bill Gates put those particular bills in Sarge's wallet.

The part you skipped?:

So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And traveled 33 miles in 5 minutes. That's 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed.

So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we don't know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...

Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didn't touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. I'm sure we all would agree.

So, who pulled off this stunt?

Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two separate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches.

Later, a week after Sept 11. Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, "although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon." What?? Bernard, who didn't even fly with Hani, doesn't know the maneuver involved, where the plane hit, the speeds, etc etc.. says he has no doubts that he could hit the pentagon? Sure, my grandma could hit the pentagon. How about looking into the maneuver before making that statement? He made that statement while the pentagon was still smoking for pete's sake. A bit of monday morning quarterbacking if you ask me. A common theme among inexperienced pilots. This also can be verified via google searches.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss