9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph?

[George B]

When you knock a hole in a building, like that, everything falls away until a self supporting arch forms, exactly like you see in the photo.

So if a 6 by 3 foot rectangle hits a wall the hole made will assume an arch or circle in appearance . . . got some data or evidence of that???

 

[RolandD]

It will if it is brick or block. Look at the photo, the interior appears to be poured, reinforced concrete and it's not rounded. As for evidence, about 6000 years of construction.

 

[RolandD]

Here's a better photo.

 

[George B]

It will if it is brick or block. Look at the photo, the interior appears to be poured, reinforced concrete and it's not rounded. As for evidence, about 6000 years of construction.

Hmmmmm . . . I would like to have Lee respond to this one (doing demolition of buildings) . . my experience seeing hurricane and tornado damage is not necessarily in support of that observation . . .

 

[RolandD]

Think of it like a rock hitting your windshield, that rock could be a cube, a sphere, oblong, whatever, but they always leave a round chip.

What made that hole had a leading edge, and the force of impact radiated out from that central point cracking the mortar joints in the brick and the loose bricks fell away leave the arch shape. Look at the bottom of the photo on the left and you can see that the bricks just fell there rather that being blasted outwards.

 

[Rico]

With a little bit of common logic, what would dictate the shape of a hole will depend on how an object strikes the wall and how a wall is built. Maybe the parts of the tire/wheel hit first, or maybe the strut hit first, or maybe it wasn't the landing gear assembly at all--for I'm sure what ultimately dictates this is what they pick up on the other side that is laying on the ground. Parts of what I see in the above photo do look like chunks of aircraft though, even if not the landing gear. But a hole is just a hole, unless you have an idea of something else going on, in which case, it would be easier if you state your suspicions.

 

[Jazzy]

__________________________________________ here's your "hole" ^^^

It would be a good idea to check of the key to the damage, shown to the left. There's another similar diagram showing the position of corpses and body parts. It is drawn the other way up, and passengers are blue, officials yellow.



None of this is evidence for missile entry.

Evidence against the use of a missile are the lamp posts, which could only have been struck down by a 125' wingspan, and a large kerosine explosion captured on the guard post camera, which the missile couldn't have carried, the bodies of 50+ people who weren't originally in the building, the identified engines and undercarriage of a Boeing 757.

 

[RolandD]

 

[George B]

With a little bit of common logic, what would dictate the shape of a hole will depend on how an object strikes the wall and how a wall is built. Maybe the parts of the tire/wheel hit first, or maybe the strut hit first, or maybe it wasn't the landing gear assembly at all--for I'm sure what ultimately dictates this is what they pick up on the other side that is laying on the ground. Parts of what I see in the above photo do look like chunks of aircraft though, even if not the landing gear. But a hole is just a hole, unless you have an idea of something else going on, in which case, it would be easier if you state your suspicions.

I have to run . . . I will explain later . . .

 

[Jazzy]

I have to run

That must be an occupational hazard.

I will explain later . . .

I would love an explanation for your behavior.

 

[George B]

With a little bit of common logic, what would dictate the shape of a hole will depend on how an object strikes the wall and how a wall is built. Maybe the parts of the tire/wheel hit first, or maybe the strut hit first, or maybe it wasn't the landing gear assembly at all--for I'm sure what ultimately dictates this is what they pick up on the other side that is laying on the ground. Parts of what I see in the above photo do look like chunks of aircraft though, even if not the landing gear. But a hole is just a hole, unless you have an idea of something else going on, in which case, it would be easier if you state your suspicions.

Well I am trying to make sense out of the following . . . this leads one to believe Flight 77's flight recorder was not accurate or was not in the THING that hit the Pentagon . . .

Flight Data Recorder Analysis - Last Second of Data - 09:37:44
08/20/06 We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles. We have ananimation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. The animation covers the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to the impact at the Pentagon in realtime. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 in Hg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forth coming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment. For further details, please see our Technical Paper here and Press Release here outlining our findings. For detailed presentation and analysis, please see Pandora's Black Box - ChapterTwo - Flight Of American 77. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html​

Content from External Source

http://youtu.be/i-Q8nSEeUec
[video=youtube_share;i-Q8nSEeUec]http://youtu.be/i-Q8nSEeUec[/video]​

 

[George B]

That must be an occupational hazard.


I would love an explanation for your behavior.

I have a life and a family to take care of . . . they come first . . . seems simple to me . . .

 

[George B]

POLL: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the sp
7) No 27.0% (66)
6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do 14.3% (35)
11) I don't know 10.7% (26)
2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward 10.2% (25)
1) Yes 9.8% (24)
8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed 9.8% (24)
9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed 5.3% (13)
10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed. 4.9% (12)
4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult 3.7% (9)
3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration 2.9% (7)
5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky 1.2% (3)
Blank (View Results) (60)


Non-Blank Votes: 244

Content from External Source

 

[Cairenn]

Where was that poll taken?

 

[TWCobra]

Well I am trying to make sense out of the following . . . this leads one to believe Flight 77's flight recorder was not accurate or was not in the THING that hit the Pentagon . . .

Flight Data Recorder Analysis - Last Second of Data - 09:37:44
08/20/06 We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles. We have ananimation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. The animation covers the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to the impact at the Pentagon in realtime. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 in Hg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations).

​

Content from External Source

My guess, without seeing the data, is that the altitude readouts used to put together the re-creation would have come from the radio-altimeters, not the altimeters which in all probability were still set on standard pressure. 29.92 mb.

Content from External Source

 

[George B]

Where was that poll taken?

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2141354/pg1

 

[George B]

My guess, without seeing the data, is that the altitude readouts used to put together the re-creation would have come from the radio-altimeters, not the altimeters which in all probability were still set on standard pressure. 29.92 mb.

I think they explain that in their analysis . . . and the course of the aircraft is different as well . . . how do you explain that . . . ?

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?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
​

Content from External Source

​

 

[TWCobra]

I'd have to see the data used to put this together George. Rad alt data is absolute altitude and would have been the source used by the NTSB due to its accuracy. As far as the course goes maybe whoever put this together forgot to allow for magnetic variation etc etc..

 

[George B]

I'd have to see the data used to put this together George. Rad alt data is absolute altitude and would have been the source used by the NTSB due to its accuracy. As far as the course goes maybe whoever put this together forgot to allow for magnetic variation etc etc..

The animation was done by NTSB is my understanding. . . .how could NTSB allow something of this importance be contradictory to NIST without an explanation?

 

[Rico]

TWCobra is correct about the radio altimeter part. I actually found a very concise explanation that brings the information found on the flight data recorders, as well as the actual flight path into context. I'm not going to paraphrase it until I read it over at least a few more times, but George, you can have a read over it here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration of altimeter_92.pdf. If you have any questions, let us know.

 

[Cairenn]

Doing a poll about a conspiracy theory on Godlike is like doing a poll on which do prefer "Dogs or cats' at the Westminister Kennel Club show. NOT UNBIASED. How many of the respondents there were pilots? Useless in my opinion

 

[Rico]

Ok, so from the document I posted above, I have quoted the following paragraphs to explain some of the discrepancies between the FDR simulation and the official report. Of course, you need to read the document to really understand this, and to some extent, you also need to appreciate a little bit of statistics and to recognize what kind of errors the instruments on the aircraft can produce, but here is what I have noted:

1) Regarding the altimeter discrepancies and the claims that the aircraft was too high:

It is true that the altimeter indicated that the plane was too high but the radio height system did not.

2) Regarding the flight path discrepancies.

The errors in the data file position reports were corrected by creating a file consisting of
every fifth position report and applying the positions to Google Earth maps. In the case of
the 11 landings prior to flight 77, each plot was inspected to identify the position where the
plane turned off the runway onto a taxiway. The differences in latitude and longitude
between the plotted position where the plane turned and the junction with the taxiway were
used to adjust the data file values. Only landings in which the turn off position could be
clearly established were used in this work. The average latitude error was 329 feet and the
maximum error was 1197 feet. The average longitude error was 663 feet, maximum error
1410 feet. It is clear from this study that the position reports produced by this aircraft were
prone to error, producing recorded tracks which were parallel with, but offset from, their
real tracks. It is therefore not surprising that this was also found to be the case with the final
flight.

 

[Jazzy]

Doing a poll about a conspiracy theory on Godlike is like doing a poll on which do prefer "Dogs or cats' at the Westminister Kennel Club show. NOT UNBIASED. How many of the respondents there were pilots? Useless in my opinion

Yes. As an engineer who worked on aircraft and their engines at Britain's top aircraft establishment I'm bound to be interested in what Joe Public has to say on aviation matters.

Sorry, not Joe Public, but Paranoid Joe... ...it's all about as interesting as a tabloid, and certainly less interesting than page three. But George thinks otherwise.

 

[TWCobra]

George, I was once accused by my company of doing an approach where I had a pitch angle of -4 degrees at 800 feet (equivalent to around a 4000fpm rate of descent) and then scraping the tail on by landing at 10 degrees nose up.. This was based on a computer recreation taken from the Quick Access Recorder, another flight recorder that airlines use to monitor flying trends.

The recreation was incorrect. Be guided accordingly.

 

[George B]

Doing a poll about a conspiracy theory on Godlike is like doing a poll on which do prefer "Dogs or cats' at the Westminister Kennel Club show. NOT UNBIASED. How many of the respondents there were pilots? Useless in my opinion

It was a test . . . it would also be a good comparison to a pilot forum . . .

Shake down cruise . . .Post #290 this Thread

 

[George B]

George, I was once accused by my company of doing an approach where I had a pitch angle of -4 degrees at 800 feet (equivalent to around a 4000fpm rate of descent) and then scraping the tail on by landing at 10 degrees nose up.. This was based on a computer recreation taken from the Quick Access Recorder, another flight recorder that airlines use to monitor flying trends.

The recreation was incorrect. Be guided accordingly.

Cobra, I don't disbelieve you a bit . . . seems such misunderstandings could occur . . . I worked many, many years trying to resolve machine human disconnects . . . but, what I just don't understand is why NTSB would release such data without trying to resolve the disparities . . . that IMO is nuts . . .

 

[TWCobra]

If the NTSB did indeed do that, I agree.

 

[Cairenn]

Really what would it tell us, other than folks that are not pilots don't know a lot.

I could post a poll here and ask folks to ID various breeds of dogs, not by the entire picture, but of parts of the dog, just the ears or the nose, or part in the hair. All it would show is that folks here don't know dogs. They are doing that on the Westminster page and there are a lot more correct answers than incorrect ones.
And yes, I can tell a Siberian Husky from an Alaskan Malamute by just the top half of the ears or the difference in a Brittany and a Clumber Spaniel by just their nose.

 

[George B]

Ok, so from the document I posted above, I have quoted the following paragraphs to explain some of the discrepancies between the FDR simulation and the official report. Of course, you need to read the document to really understand this, and to some extent, you also need to appreciate a little bit of statistics and to recognize what kind of errors the instruments on the aircraft can produce, but here is what I have noted:

1) Regarding the altimeter discrepancies and the claims that the aircraft was too high:


2) Regarding the flight path discrepancies.

Statistically speaking . . . I could accept the variance at the point of contact with the Pentagon, but as one backs away from the building further and further I think this becomes more and more difficult to accept the two possible flight vectors are the same . . . they seem to intersect not to be parallel . . .

 

[TWCobra]

I have downloaded the FDR report and will have a look at it later. Busy today. If anyone else wants to check it you would be looking for the LRRA data. It stands for Low Range Radio Altimeter and there are 3, L R and C on a 767. They are used for terrain avoidance and used by the autopilot for the AutoLand function.

 

[George B]

Really what would it tell us, other than folks that are not pilots don't know a lot.

I could post a poll here and ask folks to ID various breeds of dogs, not by the entire picture, but of parts of the dog, just the ears or the nose, or part in the hair. All it would show is that folks here don't know dogs. They are doing that on the Westminster page and there are a lot more correct answers than incorrect ones.
And yes, I can tell a Siberian Husky from an Alaskan Malamute by just the top half of the ears or the difference in a Brittany and a Clumber Spaniel by just their nose.

Please . . . we are talking about everyone's understanding of the events not just the pilots . . . that is maybe why some have a disconnect because no one has tried to properly address the questions and answer them so they can understand . . . so trying to understand where people are is never a bad idea . . . unless you think conspiracy people are not worth your time or effort? Not everyone can be an expert on everything . . . we don't ask people if they can even read to vote . . . do you want to restrict people from voting because they are not experts on government or political science . . . under those conditions most of congress wouldn't be able to vote . . . LOL!!!

 

[Rico]

Statistically speaking . . . I could accept the variance at the point of contact with the Pentagon, but as one backs away from the building further and further I think this becomes more and more difficult to accept the two possible flight vectors are the same . . . they seem to intersect not to be parallel . . .

Read the entire article too.

 

[George B]

Read the entire article too.

I will when I have time . . . I will reserve further comments until I do . . .

 

[Cairenn]

George, let me ask you this, if your doctor was to recommend heart surgery, would you ask the opinion of your plumber?, your butcher? , your mechanic? and then allow THEIR opinions to make your decision for you? Or would you read up on the surgery, and see what the experts say? You might ask a friend that had had the same surgery for more input, but I would think that depending on those that are experts would be smart.

If you are not wanting to KNOW what experts think, then why are you bothering with a poll?

I don't mind folks asking questions about things they don't know about, but when they are given the answer, over and over, by experts and they keep asking the same question, seemingly in hope of getting a different answer, I do discount them. Ever here the definition of insanity? "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result'.

I have a lot of things that interest me and I prefer to spend my time learning more about them.

 

[George B]

George, let me ask you this, if your doctor was to recommend heart surgery, would you ask the opinion of your plumber?, your butcher? , your mechanic? and then allow THEIR opinions to make your decision for you? Or would you read up on the surgery, and see what the experts say? You might ask a friend that had had the same surgery for more input, but I would think that depending on those that are experts would be smart.

If you are not wanting to KNOW what experts think, then why are you bothering with a poll?

I don't mind folks asking questions about things they don't know about, but when they are given the answer, over and over, by experts and they keep asking the same question, seemingly in hope of getting a different answer, I do discount them. Ever here the definition of insanity? "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result'.

I have a lot of things that interest me and I prefer to spend my time learning more about them.

I would sure ask for a second opinion from a different heart surgeon and ask surviving patients how their experience was . . . have you not been reviewing some of the factual differences of opinion between experienced pilots . . . ??? And no Metabunk pilots are no more believable to me than other experienced pilots . . .

 

[Cairenn]

I have reading it all, and I see a handful of pilots that you BELIEVE fully and that you are ignoring all the others. You are not consulting another specialist, you are asking everyone that you can find, until someone gives you the opinion you WANT.

 

[George B]

Here is a comment from the person who did the NTSB analysis . . . I think it lays out an interesting question . . .

My conclusion is, the manever 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...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

Content from External Source

 

[George B]

I have reading it all, and I see a handful of pilots that you BELIEVE fully and that you are ignoring all the others. You are not consulting another specialist, you are asking everyone that you can find, until someone gives you the opinion you WANT.

Believe what you wish of me . . . I am a big boy and have been around for a while . . . I have been rather successful in investigating, finding and correcting problems when others could not . . . if you don't mind I will rely on my own evaluation of the facts . . . and the experts to listen too . . . and by-the-way . . . why do you think I am wasting my time here . . . if I thought I knew everything and what happened ?? . . . challenging the status quo and asking questions is not a sign of stupidity . . . it is a desire to learn even when it is painful and uncomfortable . . .

 

[Unregistered]

Well here is the NTSB website: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/reports_aviation.html

Please show me where any of these alleged crashes are.

 

[JRBids]

Believe what you wish of me . . . I am a big boy and have been around for a while . . . I have been rather successful in investigating, finding and correcting problems when others could not . . . if you don't mind I will rely on my own evaluation of the facts . . . and the experts to listen too . . . and by-the-way . . . why do you think I am wasting my time here . . . if I thought I knew everything and what happened ?? . . . challenging the status quo and asking questions is not a sign of stupidity . . . it is a desire to learn even when it is painful and uncomfortable . . .

What happened to flight 77 and where is it?