Pages: (4) « First ... 2 3 [4]  ( Go to first unread post )

 Why They Didn't Use A 757 To Hit The Pentagon, Reasons and motives.
barnem1
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 03:31 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 6,293
Joined: 13-October 06



It was coming from an IFR rated pilot.
Top
UnderTow
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 04:08 PM


Below the Waves
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 415
Member No.: 3,743
Joined: 2-August 06



*UnderTow confused

QUOTE (MrSpooky)
My Microsoft Flight simulator


Are you saying MrSpooky is a IFR rated pilot, or that MrSpooky was pasting what an IFR pilot has said and you somehow know this how? Or are you mrSpooky and an IFR rated pilot?

Besides the fact aht MSFS is a plastic toy when it actually comes to real life hands on aircraft control. Yes it can teach procedures and control layout, but that's about it.
And you don't even need MSFS or any simulator for that, plenty of books and documents to study.
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 06:05 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



QUOTE (barnem1 @ Oct 13 2006, 11:31 AM)
It was coming from an IFR rated pilot.

You better tell MrSpooky that his Uncle is either lying or seeing things because his eyewitness account of AA77 coming in from the east over downtown DC and over DCA is completely inaccurate and in direct conflict with official reports.


Perhaps your IFR rated pilot may want to at the very least read the 9/11 Commission Report to get his story somewhat credible..

cheers.gif

(Maybe MrSpooky was reading Russ Pickerings site.. lol)

user posted image
http://pentagonresearch.com/017.html

(disclaimer: The above flight path image is completely inaccurate and wrong).

Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 06:08 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



The correct flight path according to official reports, AA77 Flight Data Recorder and the NTSB.

user posted image
Top
barnem1
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 07:12 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 6,293
Joined: 13-October 06



yes to one of those

The standing argument that the terrorists probably used MSFS to 'learn' the aircraft with only basic knowledge of 'hands on' training to do what they did. Advanced upgraded software for MSFS includes full cockpit layouts familiarizing one with the location and basic of radio equipment, transponders, gps keypads, a realistic autopilot panel, the MFD's, and even intercom toggle switches. If you spend a few thousand, you can get replacement replica switchgear and radio stacks, throttle quadrants, control yokes and pedals, and multiple monitors. Actual FAA certified training simulators that you can buy yourself are avery expensive and much more simplified then the most sophisticated FS add-ons(of course the lack of ‘entertainment’ value itself has nothing to do with the price). The true training simulators can teach you to fly much more accurately, but there is no highly detailed relief maps of the DC/NYC area with buildings and all, its not ment to be pretty.

All of the flight information on radar concurs with this type of basic skill level. As this does not teach the 'real' procedures and skills such as energy management, coordinated turns, dead reckonings skills, and of course both proper radio operation and ATC flight following procedures which were all obviously lacking. (i.e)‘knowing’ how to do it, but never actually doing so. It also spurns a lot of this ‘how could they operate the radios/aircraft with no experience yet hit the towers, etc’ disbelief. It’s hard enough to try to hit the numbers at normal landing speeds in a properly trimmed aircraft, it’s incredibly difficult to target and collide with a point on the ground. At those high speeds, by the time you visually determine exactly where you would like to be, its by far too late to get there, of course unless you circled around again and picked the biggest target you saw. Its much harder to loose altitude in an aircraft then most think.

The towers make much easier targets, as they are obviously tall and visible for miles, where DC is highly landscaped and blends into the surrounding area quite well making it much harder to find a target. DCA is probably the most prominent landmark visible from +10 miles out at altitude. The mall’s layout comes into clear view only as you come in much closer. The landscaping around the monuments is more prominent then the buildings themselves, especially with full foliage. The relatively small and thin Washington monument is the tallest landmark in the city.(not to mention the sun is slightly from the E-SE so nothing is the stark bright white coming from the west as it is in the afternoon) At the point where you have overflown the city, are in a panic, and reaching terminal speeds at lower altitudes, you pretty much just look for the easiest target of opportunity very quickly.


This is all so stupid as I am trying to prove reality to people who dont want to see it. Even the kid running the website gets angry and edits/deletes others posts of arguments, and removes other points of view very quickly, his website based on perceived censorship no less. How quaint. I tried to find arguments here on a few threads and there are none. I like the locked threads in particular. How hypocritical and closed minded can one possibly be. Probably only one or two people read this anyway before it's re-editied so why bother. Talk about wasting a lunch break.
Top
barnem1
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 07:16 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 6,293
Joined: 13-October 06



I just dicussed this in a pm. ok NOW THE NTSB IS 100% PERFECTLY ACCURATE END ALL BE ALL EVIDENCE. Make up your mind. Or just keep editing the forum posts. The flight recorder information from the plane that never existed, from the government thats lying to us.... brilliant!

This post has been edited by barnem1 on Oct 13 2006, 07:18 PM
Top
barnem1
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 07:20 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 6,293
Joined: 13-October 06



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Oct 13 2006, 06:05 PM)
QUOTE (barnem1 @ Oct 13 2006, 11:31 AM)
It was coming from an IFR rated pilot.

You better tell MrSpooky that his Uncle is either lying or seeing things because his eyewitness account of AA77 coming in from the east over downtown DC and over DCA is completely inaccurate and in direct conflict with official reports.


Perhaps your IFR rated pilot may want to at the very least read the 9/11 Commission Report to get his story somewhat credible..

cheers.gif

(Maybe MrSpooky was reading Russ Pickerings site.. lol)

user posted image
http://pentagonresearch.com/017.html

(disclaimer: The above flight path image is completely inaccurate and wrong).

But the eyewitnesses were wrong or lying somewhere else.....How can there be eyewitness accounts of flight 77 because we know it never hit the pentagon. dunno.gif My uncle is lying because the actual eyewitness saw the plane do exactly as the NTSB said it did. So what really hit the pentagon? Please explain...

This post has been edited by barnem1 on Oct 13 2006, 07:21 PM
Top
UnderTow
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 07:21 PM


Below the Waves
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 415
Member No.: 3,743
Joined: 2-August 06



Hilarious....
Your fine, dont' worry about anything. We are all just wasting our time here. So go away.

BTW, what/where/how did you study the "flight information on radar"?

And you are greatly mistaken if you think the FDR does NOT show extreme "energy management, coordinated turns, dead reckonings skills".

The FDR shows a plane under Expert (near computer level) control.

Why are you here again?

Top
barnem1
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 07:27 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 6,293
Joined: 13-October 06



Let me get this straight. so an American Airlines 757, with expert control, was tracked by the very accurate NTSB information to be flown into the side of the pentagon exactly as eye witnesses have stated in the official version(who identified it as such) since I am wrong about everything. And this site had me actually disregard all this information and believe there was a conspiracy, particulary in a threat titled 'why they didn't use a 757 to hit the pentagon'. Now I am really confused. Maybe it actually hapened exactly the way 'they' told us it did....
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 07:29 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



There was a plane. Not many eyewitnesses actually saw the impact. Very few saw a 757 (i think it was 3).

The testimony on the previous page of the aircraft coming in over DCA is completely wrong and inaccurate according to the NTSB and the 9/11 Commission Report.


Also, no where in any official report does it say the so called hijackers used a video game to learn how to control a 757 or 767.

I understand that many wannabe pilots who do fly a video game think they can control an airliner and probably have the fantasy that they will once be called upon to fly the aircraft because the pilots are "incapacitated". But im sorry to tell you, Microsoft Flight Sim (read, video game) pilots are more dangerous than one with no knowledge of flying.

To give you an idea of the control used during this flight, please see this video. It is a video produced by the NTSB and has the CORRECT flight path as reported.

Final Maneuver of American 77

Bottom line... you are in WAY over your head and you havent a clue as to what you're talking about. You are making a fool out of yourself and your lies are apparent.
Top
UnderTow
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 07:36 PM


Below the Waves
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 415
Member No.: 3,743
Joined: 2-August 06



Barnem1,
Maybe you should learn to read tongue.gif

There is a progression to most threads on a forum. You have to look at the date it was started, who started it, and what transpired elsewhere during the course of a threads lifes. There was much less information available when this thread was created. Heck I wasn't even here when it was. And I'm not going to agree or disagree with the main premise of this thread. Because so far, there is not enough evidence to determine exactly what did happen. There are several theories and possibilites. Some are more likely then others, but nothing has been proven yet. Not even the Official Story.

You think you know alot, but you don't.
Top
barnem1
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 07:39 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 6,293
Joined: 13-October 06



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Oct 13 2006, 07:29 PM)
There was a plane. Not many eyewitnesses actually saw the impact. Very few saw a 757 (i think it was 3).


I think thats off by several hundred accounts. Last time I posted links to eyewitness testimony I was swatted quickly.

Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 07:47 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



QUOTE (barnem1 @ Oct 13 2006, 03:39 PM)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Oct 13 2006, 07:29 PM)
There was a plane. Not many eyewitnesses actually saw the impact. Very few saw a 757 (i think it was 3).


I think thats off by several hundred accounts. Last time I posted links to eyewitness testimony I was swatted quickly.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/witnesses.html

Let me know how many you count that saw a 757.
Top
barnem1
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 08:34 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 6,293
Joined: 13-October 06



try another list:

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

I used to have another one saved in my favorites from years ago with even more, I will have to see when I get home if the site is still up. Had thousands of witness accounts including all of the WTC ones all on one site.
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 08:38 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



QUOTE (barnem1 @ Oct 13 2006, 04:34 PM)
try another list:

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

I used to have another one saved in my favorites from years ago with even more, I will have to see when I get home if the site is still up. Had thousands of witness accounts including all of the WTC ones all on one site.

Its practically the same list. I read through that one too...

Let us know how many say "757" in their testimony.


Thanks...
Top
UnderTow
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 08:46 PM


Below the Waves
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 415
Member No.: 3,743
Joined: 2-August 06



Maybe you should start your own witness thread.
After reading some of those "witnesses" I just have to laugh...

Some of those "statments" are just spectacular.

Which is why I discount all witnesses.

nonono.gif
Top
barnem1
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 08:59 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 6,293
Joined: 13-October 06



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Oct 13 2006, 08:38 PM)
QUOTE (barnem1 @ Oct 13 2006, 04:34 PM)
try another list:

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

I used to have another one saved in my favorites from years ago with even more, I will have to see when I get home if the site is still up.  Had thousands of witness accounts including all of the WTC ones all on one site.

Its practically the same list. I read through that one too...

Let us know how many say "757" in their testimony.


Thanks...

Read them side by side. There are a lot more entries and some of the same witness testimonies are a little more elaborate. How many said it was a missile, or something other then an airliner? Any witness testimony that see 'civillian jet', 'shiny plane' red/white blue stripes, the AA logo, two engine jet, windows, the aicraft type or one with simillar layout of engines and tail, etc would most likely be concluded to be flight 77 with common sense. Most people do not recognize the model differences between any of the two wing mounted engine airliners. If it were a single engine prop, a rocket, or a turboprop they would all have the same rough description. At 500 mph the descriptions are incredibly clear. From a distance it is also going to get mistaked for different colors because of the finish. We see AA planes on tarmac with a vast open area or in the sky they are always going to be the shiny metallic/bluish hue, put it between treetops and buidlings and some reports are going to be off. Its obvious what was seen on an emotional morning. Is there anyone on any site claiming it was anything other then a jet airliner that was actually an eyewitness to the event?

Often one eyewitness statement is enough to give an NTSB report closure and establish probable cause. This is like bizzaro-flight 800. Flight 800 has hundreds of witnesses that the government discredits entirely, yet the CT crowd covet, here, there are hundreds that the CT crowd completely discredit.

The two airliners that just about anyone can identify by name are the 747 and Concorde. There are quite a few two engine airliners that are quite difficult to tell the differences of. You also have to have the perspective that if you are on the road, how short the viewable time was. At a Blue Angels airshow, the solos fly past the crowd at about 400mph. You watch them from one end to the other. If you did not know they were flying, and put your hands up to close the viewable distance equivelent of the view offered by a normal highway you are trying not creep into in traffic, would you be able to spot it as an F18? How about with subtle markings at 500+mph.



This post has been edited by barnem1 on Oct 13 2006, 09:06 PM
Top
barnem1
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 09:08 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 6,293
Joined: 13-October 06



QUOTE (UnderTow @ Oct 13 2006, 08:46 PM)
Maybe you should start your own witness thread.
After reading some of those "witnesses" I just have to laugh...

Some of those "statments" are just spectacular.

Which is why I discount all witnesses.

nonono.gif

So if you are listening to the football game on the radio, its not really happening?
Top
UnderTow
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 09:14 PM


Below the Waves
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 415
Member No.: 3,743
Joined: 2-August 06



Hilarious
"The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately."

"The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon. The windows were dark on American Airlines Flight 77 as it streaked toward its target, only 50 yards away. The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball."

"perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed. The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon, perhaps at the third-floor level. The impact was deafening. The fuselage hit the ground and blew up."
(same person one year later)
"the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall"

"about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground,...appeared to hold about eight to 12 people"

"All I could tell it was a mid-sized plane"

"it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward,"

Christ.... why bother..... bs_flag.gif
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 09:41 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



This all coming from the same "IFR Rated pilot" that bypassed the ban system and has an Uncle that saw AA77 fly over downtown DC and DCA to strike the pentagon...


laughing1.gif

whatever...
Top
« Next Oldest | The Pentagon | Next Newest »

Topic OptionsPages: (4) « First ... 2 3 [4] 



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.4260 seconds | Archive