Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[ElMondoHummus]

If Hanjour maneuvered around to hit the North or East side, I'd concede your point, but he didn't. He hit the same side he had been heading towards for miles.

This testimony, refutes your above statement, concisely.


Danielle O' Brien


"The Speed, the maneuverability,the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You dont fly a 757 in that manner.Its Unsafe."

The above quote of course doent even consider clipping light poles and being just barely off the deck prior to impact.

No, i think hitting the roof would have been way easier, a much bigger target, and caused way, way more damage and loss of life.

I am way passed being convinced otherwise. In short, hardest target , with least damage, and involved most dangerous path to hitting building

No, it doesn't. O'Brien's statement was astonishment at the fact that Hanjour banked sharply and was flying the jet at a higher speed closer to ground than what is the normally accepted best practice in heavily trafficked areas. That statement doesn't refute the fact that he hit the west side, and that he was inbound from the west. Again, pilots I've seen who've discussed the turn believe it was made to lose altitude, not to select a certain side. Besides, if he was inbound from the west to begin with, why would he make the maneuver in the first place only to end up hitting the same side he had been heading towards for miles? Look at the map again.

(Taken from http://911myths.com/html/flight_path.html; Mike, I hope that's sufficient attribution for my "fair use" of this image )

If the assertion is made that Hanjour deliberately targeted a certain section of the Pentagon, then why the turn? He was already coming from that direction. Stating that the turn was "quite a maneuver" to line up the wall may be accurate in that he needed to lose altitude, but to imply that it was also a deliberate maneuver to single out one section of the Pentagon is absurd. Hanjour hit the west side because he was coming in from the west.

And, as far as it being "quite a maneuver": Again, how so? The turn was well within the plane's capacity; the fact that it exceeded safe practices is no more astonishing than a car exceeding 55 MPH on the highway. The safe practice is set well below a particular vehicle's ability.

 

[R.Mackey]

I have come to the conclusion you are out of your mind, no matter your credentials or education.

Flying a plane that clips light poles, right on the deck, and impacts a building right above ground level is easier than simply flying in through the ceiling of the building. You are friggin crazy.

It's been quite amusing to me just how many people enter this thread, in which I promised to be completely respectful -- even chiding other JREF Forum members I happen to agree with for their treatment of conspiracy theorists, no matter how well deserved -- and resort to such blatant personal attacks. I will be reporting the next one. Thank you for your attention.

It is easier. As I already told you, it is much easier to control an aircraft in nearly level flight than in a dive. Jetliners routinely hold their altitude to within +/- 50 feet even without precision sensing, or anyone even paying attention. Compare this to typical deviations from glideslope on final approach, even with professional pilots and sophisticated navigation systems in play. The diving crash you postulate is "easier" would be far more difficult, as there are no autoland navigation systems for the AA 77 case, and the speeds are about three times higher.

Mind you, I think they probably could have also successfully dived into the Pentagon, but it certainly wasn't easier. The approach they took was reasonable given their skills and their mission.

Its a wonder clipping five poles didnt take the plane down .Its also almost impossible to beleive a guy with at most extremely limited skills could fly a large jet into a wall with his engines 8-10 feet off the ground.

I also know of at least one example where a plane hit a lightpole or similar object and came down immediately because of it.

In this case it hit 5 poles without seeming effect. As the plane had a quite level attitude at impact, only several feet off the deck.

Common sense would dictate that even a few hundred yards away, those poles would have a major impact on the attitude of that plane.

This is completely false. The poles weigh so much less than the aircraft that they cannot impart any meaningful impulse to the aircraft.

In another thread, I worked out how much impulse a ten ton electrical generator imparted when the aircraft hit that just before impact. It works out to about one meter per second. The light poles will be a tiny, tiny correction by comparison, because they weigh only a hundred kilograms or so.

So with every light pole that you hit, you would feel a jolt, hear an awful noise, and potentially suffer some leading edge damage to the wings or inlets -- but that is all. The light poles would have almost no discernible effect on the aircraft's attitude or velocity. It's simple high-school physics.

Btw, we are talking about a guy who wasnt allowed to even rent a Cessna because he sucked at flying even that . In particular if that was who was at the controls

And I know people who drive tanker trucks and buses, but can barely operate a sedan. This comparison is irrelevant.

I also remind you, complete amateurs have demonstrated the ability to carry out these maneuvers in flight simulators. Not people who actually had pilot's licenses like Hani, people who have never flown anything larger than a kite.

It really isn't that hard to do.

 

[roundhead]

It's been quite amusing to me just how many people enter this thread, in which I promised to be completely respectful -- even chiding other JREF Forum members I happen to agree with for their treatment of conspiracy theorists, no matter how well deserved -- and resort to such blatant personal attacks. I will be reporting the next one. Thank you for your attention.

It is easier. As I already told you, it is much easier to control an aircraft in nearly level flight than in a dive. Jetliners routinely hold their altitude to within +/- 50 feet even without precision sensing, or anyone even paying attention. Compare this to typical deviations from glideslope on final approach, even with professional pilots and sophisticated navigation systems in play. The diving crash you postulate is "easier" would be far more difficult, as there are no autoland navigation systems for the AA 77 case, and the speeds are about three times higher.

Mind you, I think they probably could have also successfully dived into the Pentagon, but it certainly wasn't easier. The approach they took was reasonable given their skills and their mission.





This is completely false. The poles weigh so much less than the aircraft that they cannot impart any meaningful impulse to the aircraft.

In another thread, I worked out how much impulse a ten ton electrical generator imparted when the aircraft hit that just before impact. It works out to about one meter per second. The light poles will be a tiny, tiny correction by comparison, because they weigh only a hundred kilograms or so.

So with every light pole that you hit, you would feel a jolt, hear an awful noise, and potentially suffer some leading edge damage to the wings or inlets -- but that is all. The light poles would have almost no discernible effect on the aircraft's attitude or velocity. It's simple high-school physics.



And I know people who drive tanker trucks and buses, but can barely operate a sedan. This comparison is irrelevant.

I also remind you, complete amateurs have demonstrated the ability to carry out these maneuvers in flight simulators. Not people who actually had pilot's licenses like Hani, people who have never flown anything larger than a kite.

It really isn't that hard to do.

A twin engine Beachcraft hit ONE pole and it came straight down. So your above opinion is meaningless, and offers zero historical precedent. Mine does.

Saying 5 poles would have insignificant ability to severely damage or flat bring down that plane is mere conjecture.
I cited an actual example where 1 pole DID bring a plane down. Can you cite an example to buttress your opinion.

 

[Slayhamlet]

I have come to the conclusion you are out of your mind, no matter your credentials or education.


Flying a plane that clips light poles, right on the deck, and impacts a building right above ground level is easier than simply flying in through the ceiling of the building. You are friggin crazy.

Its a wonder clipping five poles didnt take the plane down .Its also almost impossible to beleive a guy with at most extremely limited skills could fly a large jet into a wall with his engines 8-10 feet off the ground.

The pilot performed quite a manuever just to line up on that wall.

That's funny. All the rest of us have come to the conclusion that you're just really, really dumb.

 

[Myriad]

A twin engine Beachcraft hit ONE pole and it came straight down. So your above opinion is meaningless, and offers zero historical precedent. Mine does.

Saying 5 poles would have insignificant ability to severely damage or flat bring down that plane is mere conjecture.
I cited an actual example where 1 pole DID bring a plane down. Can you cite an example to buttress your opinion.

Is this the incident you're referring to?

The plane careened off at least three cars before hitting a telephone pole, witnesses said.

The article didn't reveal what altitude the cars were flying, but I would strongly consider the possibility that the Beachcraft was already about as "down" as it could get before it hit the pole. In which case, hitting the pole definitely did not "bring [the] plane down" as you claim.

But, is the ability of Flight 77 to crash into the Pentagon a fraction of a second after hitting some light poles really the key issue for you in concluding that there was a 9/11 conspiracy? If not, this is off topic.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[AZCat]

A twin engine Beachcraft hit ONE pole and it came straight down. So your above opinion is meaningless, and offers zero historical precedent. Mine does.

Saying 5 poles would have insignificant ability to severely damage or flat bring down that plane is mere conjecture.
I cited an actual example where 1 pole DID bring a plane down. Can you cite an example to buttress your opinion.

Of course your example becomes irrelevant when one considers the effect of mass on the results of the impact.

 

[R.Mackey]

A twin engine Beachcraft hit ONE pole and it came straight down. So your above opinion is meaningless, and offers zero historical precedent. Mine does.

Saying 5 poles would have insignificant ability to severely damage or flat bring down that plane is mere conjecture.
I cited an actual example where 1 pole DID bring a plane down. Can you cite an example to buttress your opinion.

A twin-engine Beechcraft weighs about 4,000 kg maximum (I'm assuming a King Air, you didn't specify). AA 77 weighed about 90,000 kg at impact. The two events are not remotely comparable.

Again, it's elementary physics. The light poles cannot impart a significant change in attitude or velocity. They simply don't have enough inertia.

 

[Slayhamlet]

A twin engine Beachcraft hit ONE pole and it came straight down. So your above opinion is meaningless, and offers zero historical precedent. Mine does.

Saying 5 poles would have insignificant ability to severely damage or flat bring down that plane is mere conjecture.
I cited an actual example where 1 pole DID bring a plane down. Can you cite an example to buttress your opinion.

5 break-away light poles are going to stop a massive airliner going at 400mph. Right. How old are you again?

You do realize that unsupported "citations" aren't particularly impressive in the way of evidence, don't you? You're going to have to do much better if you want to be taken seriously by rational adults.

 

[roundhead]

That's funny. All the rest of us have come to the conclusion that you're just really, really dumb.

ALL??

That doesnt sound like a statement anyone over 7 years old would make to somebody they dont know.

 

[roundhead]

A twin-engine Beechcraft weighs about 4,000 kg maximum (I'm assuming a King Air, you didn't specify). AA 77 weighed about 90,000 kg at impact. The two events are not remotely comparable.

Again, it's elementary physics. The light poles cannot impart a significant change in attitude or velocity. They simply don't have enough inertia.

A wing is a wing. We have 5 not one on 9/11.

 

[roundhead]

Is this the incident you're referring to?




The article didn't reveal what altitude the cars were flying, but I would strongly consider the possibility that the Beachcraft was already about as "down" as it could get before it hit the pole. In which case, hitting the pole definitely did not "bring [the] plane down" as you claim.

But, is the ability of Flight 77 to crash into the Pentagon a fraction of a second after hitting some light poles really the key issue for you in concluding that there was a 9/11 conspiracy? If not, this is off topic.

Respectfully,
Myriad

No, the incident i refer to hit a light pole in Texas and crashed

 

[R.Mackey]

The wing of a Boeing 757-233 is remarkably different from the wing of a Beechcraft King Air. It is approximately forty times as massive. Again, the impact of light poles with AA 77 would adjust its velocity by approximately one centimeter per second, for a total of perhaps 25 centimeters displacement counting all the poles over the few remaining seconds of its flight. You cannot even detect this.

Your question has been answered. I also warn all parties (as it seems I must do periodically), both roundhead and his new fans, to stop raising the level of rancor in my thread. If you can't keep it respectful, do not post here.

 

[Tbone]

A wing is a wing.

So the wing of a goose is equal to the wing of a glider is equal to the wing of a Cessna is equal to the wing of modern day airliner?

 

[AZCat]

A wing is a wing. We have 5 not one on 9/11.

Hmmm. No.

Maybe you should read up on aircraft wing design. Wings for aircraft such as the Boeing 757 are significantly different than they are for smaller aircraft, because the forces involved are significantly larger.

 

[roundhead]

AP) A private jet that was enroute to Houston to pick up former President Bush clipped a light pole and crashed Monday as it approached Hobby Airport in thick fog, killing all three people aboard.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139248,00.html

Please do not quote articles in their entirety. This is a violation of Rule 4. Thank you!

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[R.Mackey]

You need to trim that article, otherwise you will be flagged for a Rule 4 violation.

It appears that colliding with the light pole was a symptom, and not the cause, of the crash. I fail to see any relevance whatsoever to this story.

 

[roundhead]

69, 700 pound load weight rated. Not a dinky plane by any stretch of the imigination.

Holds 21 passengers

 

[roundhead]

It lost part of its wing by clipping that pole, sounds like flight over at that instant to me


So 77 can hit 5 and no wing damage, doesnt wash with me.


Defend away

 

[R.Mackey]

Having now followed up, I can confirm that your anecdote is totally useless. Here is the NTSB report. It discusses the wreckage as follows:

WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION

The airplane impacted the top of a light pole about 198 feet above the ground. Pieces of the right wing inboard leading edge were found embedded in the joint that attaches the light fixture to the pole. Numerous pieces of the right wing inboard leading edge, upper and lower right wing skin, and the right main landing gear door were found between the light pole and the initial ground impact mark, which was about 790 feet northeast of the light pole.

The initial portion of the ground impact mark extended about 110 feet along a magnetic heading of 035°. Numerous pieces of the left wing outboard leading edge were found embedded in the ground along the gouge mark. The left wing tip was found near the gouge mark about 50 feet from the initial ground impact mark. The airplane’s main wreckage, which contained the majority of the airplane’s forward fuselage and cockpit, was found beyond the ground impact mark. All of the airplane structure, including the fuselage, wings, and empennage, were found along the wreckage path.

This proves that the damage caused by the pole was superficial -- leading edge, skin, gear door, but no structure and no gross breakup of the wing. No spar, no control surfaces, no hydraulics.

The crash was judged a Controlled Flight Into Terrain, or CFIT, and the lightpole made virtually no change to the aircraft's terminal trajectory. Basically identical to AA 77.

 

[TexasJack]

It lost part of its wing by clipping that pole, sounds like flight over at that instant to me


So 77 can hit 5 and no wing damage, doesnt wash with me.


Defend away

Again, if 77 didn't hit the poles, what did?