Flight 77 maneuver

[beachnut]

Beachnut would know. However one has to factor in a possible LOSS of power to one engine when it ingested a street lamp while still a bit higher.
Just spit-balling but had that not occurred its possible that Hanjour would have impacted higher up or even overshot the outer wall with the sudden loss of power to one engine combating that pitch up. He was also slightly port wing low, suggesting he was compensating for asymmetric power (greater power on the port side tends to yaw right, he banks left to compensate)

The engines were pushed up 20 to 30 seconds out to 100 percent, something I only used if there was a big mistake.

Both engines accelerated to 100 percent, one engine was approaching the temperature limit.

In a KC-135, there was a pitch up due to the engines location, not sure if the engines on a 757 give a pitch up, or were neutrally placed.

I will look at the pitch and see if I have the engine graph

About 35 seconds out, he pushed up the throttles to 100 percent, it took four seconds for the engines to go from 61 percent rpm to 100 percent (N1). 77 was at full throttle for the last 30 seconds, engines reached 800 and 820 C in the right one. Both engines N1 fell back two percent.

 

[JayUtah]

The engines were pushed up 20 to 30 seconds out to 100 percent...

Thanks, that's exactly the information I was looking for.

In a KC-135, there was a pitch up due to the engines location, not sure if the engines on a 757 give a pitch up, or were neutrally placed.

The B-757 is notorious for thrust-pitch coupling. I imagine Hanjour had his hands full trying to keep the nose down.

 

[beachnut]

Thanks, that's exactly the information I was looking for.



The B-757 is notorious for thrust-pitch coupling. I imagine Hanjour had his hands full trying to keep the nose down.

There was a push down on the control column, and overall pitch down to the Pentagon, and up to 2.4gs, up and down.

If you have a pitch up, you usually hold it down. Some planes automatically trim for you, at least I have flown aero-models with pitch pointing...

Final g force to avoid hitting ground

 

[Jango]

Here's an extensive investigation of those claims: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_trained_by_US_military?

Meaning it does not reach any real conclusions and leaves many ?'s.

 

[beachnut]

Meaning it does not reach any real conclusions and leaves many ?'s.

You are debunked, caught quote mining a false report, and then claim it is still in question. Triple fail.

It means it is a lie about hijackers being trained by the military; those stories were mistakes, same names, not the hijackers. Thus fooled by false reports, and fail to retract lies. Failure to check the BS posted about 911.

 

[Jango]

You are debunked, caught quote mining a false report, and then claim it is still in question. Triple fail.

It means it is a lie about hijackers being trained by the military; those stories were mistakes, same names, not the hijackers. Thus fooled by false reports, and fail to retract lies. Failure to check the BS posted about 911.

No, because you cannot disprove what Newsweek reported. Did the author of the article or the editor of the paper retract the story in full and admit that they had made it all up, that all of the anonymous leakers and whistleblowers throughout the government they cited were just the creations of their creative mind? Unless you have that, you haven't debunked a God damned thing. All you've done is subscribe to the coincidence theory and try and convert me to it as well. No thanks, I'll pass on that Kool Aid.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Meaning it does not reach any real conclusions and leaves many ?'s.

It reaches the conclusion that those allegations cannot be substantiated, which raises the question of why anyone should continue to believe them. So far, you haven't even indicated what you're trying to infer from the allegations, which raises the question of why the answers to your "many ?'s" have anything whatsoever to do with 9/11.

 

[beachnut]

No, because you cannot disprove what Newsweek reported. Did the author of the article or the editor of the paper retract the story in full and admit that they had made it all up, that all of the anonymous leakers and whistleblowers throughout the government they cited were just the creations of their creative mind? Unless you have that, you haven't debunked a God damned thing. All you've done is subscribe to the coincidence theory and try and convert me to it as well. No thanks, I'll pass on that Kool Aid.

Oh you are debunked, before you posted the BS.

There were no anonymous leakers and whistleblowers throughout the government cited in the story; read your source, it was the military working with the FBI tracking down leads. The hijackers made up addresses, etc, do you read? You are debunking yourself by making up the BS of anonymous leakers and whistle-blowers. Why do you BS about BS you fail to comprehend.

It is as if you failed to read Newsweek.

But there are slight discrepancies between the military training records and the official FBI list of suspected hijackers-either in the spellings of their names or with their birthdates. One military source said it is possible that the hijackers may have stolen the identities of the foreign nationals who studied at the U.S. installations.

Oh, darn, in the same "may have" news BS, they debunk you.

You failed to prove they did, as Newsweek clearly says "may have". LOL, you use lies to make up BS, and you never check the data. What do you think "may have" means? It means Newsweek never has to retract it, they did not say anything happened. You use BS, now your defend BS, without thinking. This is what you do with all your claims from JFK to aliens - BS.

Like the smoke BS, another failed claim, which you add extra BS, debunking yourself.

Go ahead prove one of he hijackers "may have". ..., by never reading sources for understanding, skimming the BS to post BS, just like the smoke BS you failed to retract. "may have", and you missed it, It was in the title, a trick so Newsweek did not say it happened, they quote mine others who found people with the same name.

LOL, then you failed to check the time lines, and our 19 hijackers, were some where else when the same named people attend schools which people from around the world attend.

Fooled by Newsweek's very strong "may have". And you stand by, "may have", thus debunking yourself.

Why do you make up anonymous leakers stuff, it proves you did not understand or read your source.

lol, a story a few days after 911 about the investigation, and you make up BS. You debunk yourself.

Do you understand a terrorist did fly 77 into the Pentagon? Do you understand you quote-mined the Hani stuff, and debunk yourself?

... the hijackers, some of whom that lived openly, trained on U.S. military bases ...

You failed to prove this is true. You are debunked, again. BTW, using preliminary days after reports on the early stages of the investigation, is not a good idea; and failing to understand this, and failure to read the source, leads to you posting lies.
Prove your lie is true, use some evidence, and BTW, "may have", and the Newsweek source have evidence which debunks your claim.
Post your evidence for your claim; so far it remains BS, debunked BS.

 

[funk de fino]

As someone who lives in the Middle East. The village near my workplace is spelled 4 different ways on the road signs. It is not unsurprising that similar names and misspellings are frequent when looking at Middle East people.

That fact that someone is still posting pieces from 14th September 2001 as proof of inside job would be laughable if it wasnt so utterly sad.

If there is a dumber group of people that the 911 truthers, I've yet to find them.

 

[Jango]

As someone who lives in the Middle East. The village near my workplace is spelled 4 different ways on the road signs. It is not unsurprising that similar names and misspellings are frequent when looking at Middle East people.

That fact that someone is still posting pieces from 14th September 2001 as proof of inside job would be laughable if it wasnt so utterly sad.

If there is a dumber group of people that the 911 truthers, I've yet to find them.

<SNIP> if not then, when did the truth telling begin? The 15th? September 21st? October 1st? Which day?

Edited by jsfisher: 

Rule 0 breach removed.

 

[beachnut]

... when did the truth telling begin? The 15th? September 21st? October 1st? Which day?

You posted a lie, truth has not begun on this topic for you - 2015...

You posted a lie, you made up from a story, the "5x may have" story, which does not support the lie. A story from September 14, well before the FBI finished investigating the terrorists. The Newsweek article has no evidence to support the lie you made up. The article does not have to be retracted, it is a story about the investigation, and did not say the terrorists were trained on US bases, or lived on bases.

They were not the same people, Newsweek did not say they were. You did.

The exposed, then more made up nonsense about leakers, and whistle-blowers.

... the hijackers, some of whom that lived openly, trained on U.S. military bases ...

A lie not supported by the source cited. Most people would figure out the mistake and retract the lie. Not make up more nonsense.

Have you figured out Hani could fly, and remote control was a fantasy.

 

[Dave Rogers]

<SNIP> if not then, when did the truth telling begin? The 15th? September 21st? October 1st? Which day?

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content removed.

Nicely concealed false dilemma. The attacks were investigated, and as the investigation proceeded, better information emerged. A lot of speculation was made in the first few days that was later corrected, or in some cases just quietly forgotten because reporters couldn't find any corroboration and found more important things to do. So there are a lot of newspaper stories from the first few days after the attacks that have sketchy, poorly-researched and inaccurate information in them, as anyone might expect.

In the case of the Newsweek article, nobody can prove anything either way, so it simply has the status of yet another claim lacking evidence.

Dave

 

[Jango]

Nicely concealed false dilemma. The attacks were investigated, and as the investigation proceeded, better information emerged. A lot of speculation was made in the first few days that was later corrected, or in some cases just quietly forgotten because reporters couldn't find any corroboration and found more important things to do. So there are a lot of newspaper stories from the first few days after the attacks that have sketchy, poorly-researched and inaccurate information in them, as anyone might expect.

In the case of the Newsweek article, nobody can prove anything either way, so it simply has the status of yet another claim lacking evidence.

Dave

So the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th? Does the 16th begin good journalism and eye witness accounts and leakers/whistleblowers? What day?

 

[Dave Rogers]

So the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th? Does the 16th begin good journalism and eye witness accounts and leakers/whistleblowers? What day?

Sorry, but for grown-ups there isn't a simple rule you can follow; you just have to assess your sources intelligently. If nothing corroborates them, they're of very little value. If subsequent information does corroborate them, their value goes up. You're always going on about how people should think for themselves instead of blindly accepting the information presented to them; what's wrong with doing that with this particular piece?

Dave

 

[GlennB]

So the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th? Does the 16th begin good journalism and eye witness accounts and leakers/whistleblowers? What day?

There are echoes of your poll here. If someone suggested a plausible date (or period even) then you'd track down a discredited report subsequent to that and cry "Ha!".

Your entire history in this section has been little more than a tedious attempt to create a "gotcha" that's meaningless in terms of the bigger picture - there is no evidence for a CT.

 

[jaydeehess]

As someone who lives in the Middle East. The village near my workplace is spelled 4 different ways on the road signs. It is not unsurprising that similar names and misspellings are frequent when looking at Middle East people.

That fact that someone is still posting pieces from 14th September 2001 as proof of inside job would be laughable if it wasnt so utterly sad.

Has anyone posted the SNL skit from ~20 years ago which dealt with the ways to spell the name of Libya's dictator (my spelling, Kaddafi)

<SNIP> if not then, when did the truth telling begin? The 15th? September 21st? October 1st? Which day?

Edited by jsfisher: 

Rule 0 breach removed.

False dilemma and false dichotomy.

The point is that the discovery of mistakes in reporting of the events took time. There are ALWAYS mistakes in reporting of complex events. Not every mistake was corrected at the same time.
Your post also has the connotation of characterizing mistakes as lies, a common meme in truther postings. If you don't want to be considered truther don't post like one.

 

[beachnut]

So the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th? Does the 16th begin good journalism and eyewitness accounts and leakers/whistleblowers? What day?

Why do you Gish Gallop with a tangential non-point, not even tangential, it is BS.

You have no eyewitness accounts, no leakers, no whistleblowers to support the fantasy lie you made up from a source you did not understand.

... the hijackers, some of whom that lived openly, trained on U.S. military bases ....

This is the lie, not supported with evidence.


When is the stew done? The report was not good journalism, it was BS about the investigation. You took dots not related to 911 and made up a claim not supported by the article. You took BS and leaped to a conclusion, with no evidence. The "11th, 12th" etc question is illogical.

When are the cookies ready? If you keep eating the dough, you will not have cookies. You are eating the dough so fast we have no idea what the cookie was going to be. Have you figured out the smoke yet?

Do you stand by the quote mine "Hani can't fly"? Could Hani of flown the terrible flying at the Pentagon? OR was the reality of terrible flying still some super maneuver good pilots have a problem duplicating.

 

[Pinch]

So the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th? Does the 16th begin good journalism and eye witness accounts and leakers/whistleblowers? What day?

That really is one of the more absurd and childish responses to a comment here I have ever seen. By virtue of Jango's hanging around so long, I more or less felt he created for himself at least a faint tint of legitimacy. Whatever he had just went out the window with this comment.

Informed questions, informed debate, informed skepticism, critical thinking and critical analysis - that is what impresses me. Not this grade-school prattle ..."What day do smart questions begin? 11th? 12th? 13th?"

 

[LSSBB]

When are the cookies ready? If you keep eating the dough, you will not have cookies. You are eating the dough so fast we have no idea what the cookie was going to be.

Excellent analogy beachnut.

 

[Axxman300]

The September 14, 2001 Time Magazine special edition had the most comprehensive write up of the incident. They covered a lot of lead, talked to a lot of people, and answered a lot of questions long before the Commission did.