To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Let"s not forget the BIG unmanned aircraft
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > News discussions > Electronic Devices News

bugmenot
http://www.physorg.com/news66197469.html

The one that hit the pentagon- let"s not forget that one- ever.
No human remains- hole much smaller than a jet.. etc. that was our first terrorist use of an unmanned drone- too bad the terrorist was our own president ultimately.
andrew
remove the annoying intellitxt
it is crap
a button is available to disable it on your web page if you still want the revenue
AnExpertLOL
What a load of scare tactic rubbish. Yes we're all scared of paragliders, OMFG their so leathal. most of the R/C planes spoken of are only just capable of carrying a small cmos camera, i'd like to see them take off with anything remotely as leathal as can be carried in a truck or car. You could do more damage with a brick. And can the US reports please stop refering to Bruce Simpson's 'dangerous contraption', cruise missile for every example of a low cost cruise missile, none of his work was even proven to fly, let alone navigate to anything useful. The only danger was to himself when he'd light his fuel to noise converter (pulse jet). Are you seriously trying to convince us that noone has developed a counter measure to a missile used by germany 70 years ago? v1? no takers? oh well lets just scare people into thinking that insects are going to bomb us then aye. beware the tactical fly nuke, or maybe its impregnated with super aids or bird flu...
joe
It's impossible to fly a 757 remotely and there are pictures of human remains. Stop the nonsense.

WARNING - DO NOT VIEW IF WEAK STOMACH - ***********************

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200048-1.jpg

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200045-1.jpg

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200047-1.jpg

********************************************************
Evidence http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php?sortby=datedesc




* numerous eyewitness accounts of an American Airlines passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon
* phone calls from passengers on American Airlines flight 77 reporting that it had been hijacked
* eyewitness accounts of airplane parts and the bodies of airline passengers still strapped in their seats found at the Pentagon crash site, as well as photographs of airplane parts
* the remains of bodies recovered at the Pentagon crash site positively identified as matching those of the passengers and crew on American Airlines flight 77
* acknowledgements by high-ranking al Qaeda members that they carried
out the September 11 attacks.

In light of these facts, there is no doubt that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-28-06/...ion.cgi.84.html



QUOTE
Following are some of the numerous eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon crash:

* Richard Benedetto: "It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly."
* Omar Campo, a Salvadorean" "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting grass and it came in screaming over my head."
* Joseph Candelario: "I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it."
* James Cissell: "I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ... Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board."
* Dennis Clem: "There was a commercial airliner that said American Airliners over the side of it flying at just above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon."
* Michael Dobbs: "It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle."
* Penny Elgas: "... the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car .... I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes."
* Cheryl Hammond: "We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running."
* Joe Harrington: "... one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd."
* Albert Hemphill: "The aircraft, look[ed] to be either a 757 or Airbus."
* Terrance Kean: "I saw this very, very large passenger jet. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon."
* William Lagasse: "It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. ... I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground."
* Robert Leonard: "I ... saw a large commercial aircraft aiming for the Pentagon."
* Lincoln Liebner: "I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low."
* Elaine McCusker: "I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating."
* Mitch Mitchell: "I ... saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it .... It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon."
* Terry Morin: "The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines."
* Christopher Munsey: "I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my right: a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon ...."
* Vin Narayanan: "I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet."
* John O'Keefe: "I don't know whether I saw or heard it first -- this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet ...."
* Steve Riskus: "I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the ‘American Airlines' logo on the tail as it headed towards the building .... I clearly saw the ‘AA' logo with the eagle in the middle."
* James Ryan: "I see an American Airlines plane, silver plane, I could see AA on the tail. ... The plane was low enough that I could see the windows of the plane. I could see every detail of the plane. In my head I have ingrained forever this image of every detail of that plane. It was a silver plane, American Airlines plane, and I recognized it immediately as a passenger plane."
* Joel Sucherman:
Suiting
Well all the FBI has to do to convince me that a plane hit the Pentagon is release the many surveillance tapes showing as such.

You must admit that their failure to provide these tapes shows they have something to hide!

Terrorists may have flown those other planes into the towers but who set off the controlled demolition of such.

deadbeat
oh excellent rebuttal, I will call the FBI to immediately address your concerns, but first, how about addressing the preceeding post hmmm?
joe
QUOTE (Suiting+May 9 2006, 05:51 AM)
Well all the FBI has to do to convince me that a plane hit the Pentagon is release the many surveillance tapes showing as such.

You must admit that their failure to provide these tapes shows they have something to hide!

Terrorists may have flown those other planes into the towers but who set off the controlled demolition of such.

Your statement is illogical. It discounts overwhelming tangible evidence in favor of completely unsupported theories:

Many eyewitnesses, whom see commercial jetliners everyday, saw an American Airlines 757 passenger jet fly over their heads and crash right into the pentagon - DNA match passengers - Black box found - oh wait, there is no video proof - so it must be a missile or remote controlled plane and all those people did not see what they saw.

Where is your proof? No video proof is proof?

Why would anyone want to release successful hit video for the terrorists to have as a trophy and recruitment video? Think about it. The WTC could not be helped, it was live as news crews had cameras running. I watched the second plane crash into the second tower live. Tell you what, it was a passenger jet. I see them every single day where I live. I live near an airport and trust me, there is no mistaking something that large

Have you ever seen a beer bottle blow out it's bottom by smacking the top with your palm? What you see blow out the windows below is compression blasts from the floors above collapsing - possibly igniting vaporized fuel as well.
flechet
QUOTE
You must admit that their failure to provide these tapes shows they have something to hide!


Indeed like what? hmmm possibly classified inner workings of the Pentagon? or operatives being prepped for deep cover missions that we don't want seen?naw nothing top-secret EVER happens there right?
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You must admit that their failure to provide these tapes shows they have something to hide!


Indeed like what? hmmm possibly classified inner workings of the Pentagon? or operatives being prepped for deep cover missions that we don't want seen?naw nothing top-secret EVER happens there right?
Terrorists may have flown those other planes into the towers but who set off the controlled demolition of such.

I didn't see much controlled demolition, you know i think that hundreds of gallons of burning jet fuel in a stone chimney + whatever else was in there might have done that(any finely powdered/vaporised flammable substance suspended in air is terribly explosive don't think so? ask a farmer why they don't smoke near grain processors/storage) also I've welded and i know steel can burn i wish the "secret plot in our government" nuts wold learn that.
joe
QUOTE (AnExpertLOL+May 9 2006, 04:42 AM)
What a load of scare tactic rubbish. Yes we're all scared of paragliders, OMFG their so leathal. most of the R/C planes spoken of are only just capable of carrying a small cmos camera, i'd like to see them take off with anything remotely as leathal as can be carried in a truck or car. You could do more damage with a brick. And can the US reports please stop refering to Bruce Simpson's 'dangerous contraption', cruise missile for every example of a low cost cruise missile, none of his work was even proven to fly, let alone navigate to anything useful. The only danger was to himself when he'd light his fuel to noise converter (pulse jet). Are you seriously trying to convince us that noone has developed a counter measure to a missile used by germany 70 years ago? v1? no takers? oh well lets just scare people into thinking that insects are going to bomb us then aye. beware the tactical fly nuke, or maybe its impregnated with super aids or bird flu...

that may be but that helicopter is far from being a typical R/C plane. A 256 cc engine is a big motor. I had a dirt bike that was 250cc, and it's a powerful motor. (and a 450cc)


QUOTE
Japanese company Yamaha, meanwhile, has produced 95-kilogram (209-pound) robot helicopter that is 3.6 metres (11.8 feet) long and has a 256 cc engine.
Guest_anon
whether flight 77 really hit the pentagon does not matter.
what matters is how ANY large air vehicle was allowed to cruise around some of the most heavily guarded airspace on the planet for over an hour. the very idea is preposterous.
Guest_anon
QUOTE (flechet+May 9 2006, 06:42 AM)
I didn't see much controlled demolition, you know i think that hundreds of gallons of burning jet fuel in a stone chimney + whatever else was in there might have done that(any finely powdered/vaporised flammable substance suspended in air is terribly explosive don't think so? ask a farmer why they don't smoke near grain processors/storage) also I've welded and i know steel can burn i wish the "secret plot in our government" nuts wold learn that.

silly rabbit .. nothing BUT controlled demolition can explain the free fall of the towers.
your fisher-price-branded welding 'experience' is irrelevant -- YOU ARE IN DENIAL.

these were MASSIVE structures, built from the steel rated to 2500ºC, and overengineered to withstand all sorts of disasters, including specifically the possibility of an airplane crash. look it up. kerosene (a.k.a. jet fuel) burns at around 1500ºC. and it burns instantly, producing a brief blaze that cannot really sustain any larger fire unless more fuel is furnished.

the three skyscrapers that collapsed on 9/11 remain the only skyscrapers in history ever to do so. EVER. controllled demolition is the only way to explain these events, once you have taken an honest look at the video evidence.
joe
QUOTE (Guest_anon+May 9 2006, 01:50 PM)


the three skyscrapers that collapsed on 9/11 remain the only skyscrapers in history ever to do so.  EVER.  controllled demolition is the only way to explain these events, once you have taken an honest look at the video evidence.

Name some other skyscrapers that have been impacted by 757 commercial airliner that remain standing.
deadbeat
QUOTE

these were MASSIVE structures, built from the steel rated to 2500ºC, and overengineered to withstand all sorts of disasters, including specifically the possibility of an airplane crash.  look it up.  kerosene (a.k.a. jet fuel) burns at around 1500ºC.  and it burns instantly, producing a brief blaze that cannot really sustain any larger fire unless more fuel is furnished. 

the three skyscrapers that collapsed on 9/11 remain the only skyscrapers in history ever to do so.  EVER.  controllled demolition is the only way to explain these events, once you have taken an honest look at the video evidence.


steel rated to 1500 c, and it was designed to handle the impact of a lightly fuel laden Boeing 707 traveling slowly at landing approach speed.

The only sky scraper I know of to actually survive a plane crash, is the Empire State building which was hit by a B-25 in heavy fog.

I wonder how, with your vast education and experience in this matter, you can conclude exactly the opposite of every notable engineer on the subject, and that just by viewing video. Your talents are nothing short of astounding.
adoucette
QUOTE (Guest_anon+May 9 2006, 09:50 AM)
QUOTE (flechet+May 9 2006, 06:42 AM)
I didn't see much controlled demolition, you know i think that hundreds of gallons of burning jet fuel in a stone chimney + whatever else was in there might have done that(any finely powdered/vaporised flammable substance suspended in air is terribly explosive don't think so? ask a farmer why they don't smoke near grain processors/storage) also I've welded and i know steel can burn i wish the "secret plot in our government" nuts wold learn that.

silly rabbit .. nothing BUT controlled demolition can explain the free fall of the towers.
your fisher-price-branded welding 'experience' is irrelevant -- YOU ARE IN DENIAL.

these were MASSIVE structures, built from the steel rated to 2500ºC, and overengineered to withstand all sorts of disasters, including specifically the possibility of an airplane crash. look it up. kerosene (a.k.a. jet fuel) burns at around 1500ºC. and it burns instantly, producing a brief blaze that cannot really sustain any larger fire unless more fuel is furnished.

the three skyscrapers that collapsed on 9/11 remain the only skyscrapers in history ever to do so. EVER. controllled demolition is the only way to explain these events, once you have taken an honest look at the video evidence.

MORON,

No one thinks the Fuel fire caused the collapse.
What it DID do was ignite the TONS of office material across many floors.
That and the damage done by the collision, including disloging the critical sprayed on steel insulation caused the collapse.

You can read ALL ABOUT it in the NIST report.

Or you can show up on forums like this and wave your hands around.

Arthur

ps there's an 800 page thread in General Physics that deals with ALL these issues, no reason to start another one.

Clarence Darrow
As early as World War I., this type of technology proved workable with the Kettering Bug. It was used to some effect against the Japanese in the Pacific during the Solomon Campaigns, when the Navy crashed twin engine drones laden with high explosives into the Japanese unloading cranes on those islands.

Yes we should be concerned, its very easy to do, and doesn't take a rocket scientist to achieve results.

adoucette
QUOTE (Clarence Darrow+May 9 2006, 11:43 PM)
Yes we should be concerned, its very easy to do, and doesn't take a rocket scientist to achieve results.

Its NOT very easy to do to a COMMERCIAL JET and not have it DETECTED by a WHOLE bunch of mechanics.

Arthur

Csbad
All You need is a MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) or just a 12.ga
shot gun with heavy loads to take this thing out. The heli is easy to take out, all you have to do is nick a blade and it becomes unstable and will likely crash on it own. RC Heil pilot will tell you the same.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm
Archer
QUOTE (Csbad+May 15 2006, 05:09 AM)
All You need is a MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) or just a 12.ga
shot gun with heavy loads to take this thing out. The heli is easy to take out, all you have to do is nick a blade and it becomes unstable and will likely crash on it own. RC Heil pilot will tell you the same.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm

A Helo is not as easy as to being down as you think.. nicking a main rotor, or even a tail rotor wont do it.. they can take a load of damage and still fly.. especially the older slick who's main rotors spun at a much slower then the new Blackhawks..

There have been more than a few times when several FEET of main rotor has been shot away, and it returned home.. the airframe was shaken to pieces by the time it arrived back on the tarmac.. but it flew back with grunts on board.. The pilot will put a full lift on the mains, and slow the speed on them as much as possible.. pray to keep flying, pray to be able to land, then pray he can quickly change his pants after landing.

Russia builds one Helo in their Mi series that is dubbed "the flying tank".. stingers wont even bring it down, unless it is stuck in the main rotor head..

There are more than a few Helos that can take far more abuse than you ever dreamed possible, ask any rotorhead.. RC is not real life.

adoucette
Archer,

I think he was referring to the robotic helo's mentioned in the initial post.

QUOTE
Japanese company Yamaha, meanwhile, has produced 95-kilogram (209-pound) robot helicopter that is 3.6 metres (11.8 feet) long and has a 256 cc engine.

It flies close to the ground at about 20 kilometres per hour (12 miles per hour), nothing but an incredible stroke of luck could stop it if it suddenly appeared in the sky above the White House -- and it is already on the market.



Arthur
DigitalMonk
A little tangent:

Normally, I'm very anti-conspiracy, but the question of where the wings are bugs me a little. If a plane was flying low and parallel with the ground, the wings would shear off and leave remnants outside the building. Even airliners that crash on take off still full of fuel still leave airframe pieces in large visible chunks

Anyways, it's neither proof or disproof, but it is provocative.

Pentagon 9-11 strike viditorial
adoucette
A jet Aircraft at takeoff (or landing) is going a little more than 100 mph. The jet that hit the pentagon was near 500 mph. This is many times the kinetic energy of your typical crash. The DIFFERENCE in the kinetic force is what caused the aircraft to both penetrate the building but also shatter into much smaller pieces.

Arthur

howtothinklikegod
Here comes Arthur again with his modern, very logical, science-based, open-minded views of what happened in the Pentagon.

Anyway, I agree with Digital monk.
amadaun
Conspiracy theorists, check this out...........

http://www.rense.com/general69/statee.htm
Bawb
Remote controlled vehicles are vulnerable to standard Electronic Counter-Measures. The real danger is in independent vehicles, like the big robot car contest in SoCal the last couple years. Once you have a vehicle that can guide itself, it becomes much more difficult to defend against.
amadaun

How about this then..........

Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits

The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC. There is only one way this can happen.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.

The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.

Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it.
adoucette
QUOTE (amadaun+May 29 2006, 05:05 PM)
How about this then..........

Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits

The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC. There is only one way this can happen.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.

The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.

Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it.

Don't you just LOVE people who post something like this without checking to see if ANY of it is TRUE?

QUOTE
They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.


FALSE - A PILOT can use the system to fly from point to point, but the plane can not taxi to a runway and take-off on its own, nor can it land on its own.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.


FALSE - A PILOT can use the system to fly from point to point, but the plane can not taxi to a runway and take-off on its own, nor can it land on its own.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury


FALSE - The flight controls are fully capable of bouncing passengers all over the cabin.

QUOTE
the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls


FALSE - The flight controls are fully capable of pullling high gs

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls


FALSE - The flight controls are fully capable of pullling high gs

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.


FALSE (there is NO FEATURE to override)

QUOTE
the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.


FALSE - There IS NO remote control feature.


Ok Amadamadun, you posted this, now why don't you back it up with some facts, you know like from the BOEING site?

Sheeesh.

Arthur



Barkley
QUOTE (adoucette+May 29 2006, 11:27 PM)

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.





QUOTE
the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.


FALSE - There IS NO remote control feature.


Ok Amadamadun, you posted this, now why don't you back it up with some facts, you know like from the BOEING site?

Sheeesh.

Arthur

I'll take that question, if you don't mind.

First of all, the technology to fly an unmanned commercial jet was already out there for some time. In 1984, NASA and the FAA rigged a fully fueled Boeing 727 with a remote control system in order to crash it to determine the effectiveness of a fire suppressant added to the the jet fuel. They called it a Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID). Here is the info (including movies) on that experiment. It was the first remote controlled flight of a commercial aircraft that I am aware of. Regardless of the freshmen attempt at controlled flight, this set the footwork for future remote controlled aircraft flights.


"The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway."

Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft



Further developments took place over the years, culminating in remote control flight experiments in a joint effort by Raytheon, Rockwell-Collins and the US military in 2001 - prior to 9/11. It was touted as a dual purpose sytem that could (and would) be implemented in civil aviation as a counterterrorism measure, in which the aircraft could be controlled from the ground and/or a portable airborne site such as a C-130 Hercules. In this manner, the onboard flight controls could be locked out to any terrorist or rogue pilot while the aircraft could be landed at a nearby airport or other desired location.



http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/jpals.html

Civil-Military Interoperability For GPS Assisted Aircraft Landings Demonstrated

Rockwell Collins Successfully Completes Flight Tests with Industry’s First Microwave Landing System Receiver in a Multi-Mode Receiver

Raytheon and USAF Demonstrate Civil-Military Interoperability for GPS-Based Landing System


Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727. Although it was announced on 9/6/01, the testing was completed over the three prior months at Holloman AFB. Interestingly enough, there were five Raytheon employees on 3 of the hijacked aircraft.




"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."


757-200 Background - Flight Deck



As we have seen, Boeing 757/767's can be programmed via GPS to fly to any point(s) within its fuel range immediately after takeoff and up to its landing. As evidenced from the above links, installing the Raytheon/Rockwell-Collins remote control equipment can facilitate a remote takeoff or landing. Who even said that the airline passengers were even on said aircraft? There are discrepancies in both boarding gate and times for the aircraft in question. In fact, Flight 77 wasn't even a scheduled run for 9/11 according to the BTS website. Furthermore, we KNOW that the US military had the same model year aircraft in their inventory. Where are these particular aircraft now and can they all be fully accounted for?

Air Force Selects Boeing 757 For Special Air Mission



So, will you say that this possibility is NOT possible after all of this information from credible sources stating otherwise? huh.gif




EDIT-


Amadaun,

I forgot this but wanted to post it so that we can see that in all fairness, I choose to refute things that aren't true whether they support a conspiracy or not as related to the events of 9/11. Although Airbus does not allow a piot override on its aircraft, Boeing does let a pilot override the computer navigation system on their aircraft. Incidentally, the 777 is the only aircraft they make that is a fly-by-wire system. While there is a fully programmable GPS-based navigation system as a standard on these aircraft to control in-flight navigational manuevers, there is no remote control feature standard on Boeing 757/767s YET. Anyway, here is the information to refute that erroneous claim:

Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology
Ed Wood
mad.gif All you 911 Conspiracy hacks are *** retards. You really PISS ME OFF. How many people have to die and suffer horrible agonizing deaths before you accept the fact that OSAMA BIN LADEN is responsible for these atrocities. No American military or Government could be responsible for this and you all ASSHOLES for suggesting such a thing.

Please STOP HELPING THE TERRORISTS by spreading their PROPAGANDA.


GROW UP AND WISE UP OR WE ARE ALL DOOMED including you conspiracy retards.




Barkley
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 31 2006, 03:29 PM)
mad.gif All you 911 Conspiracy hacks are *** retards. You really PISS ME OFF. How many people have to die and suffer horrible agonizing deaths before you accept the fact that OSAMA BIN LADEN is responsible for these atrocities. No American military or Government could be responsible for this and you all ASSHOLES for suggesting such a thing.

Please STOP HELPING THE TERRORISTS by spreading their PROPAGANDA.


GROW UP AND WISE UP OR WE ARE ALL DOOMED including you conspiracy retards.

Show me one shred of CONCLUSIVE PROOF that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks, please. Not even the FBI can claim that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. See for yourself:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm


Nowhere does it mention that OBL is wanted with regard to the 9/11 attacks. Prove otherwise. The federal government cannot do so and neither can you. You rely solely on unsubstantiated heresay that you hear, read and see in the mainstream media.


You should be upset about the death of nearly 3000 people here in the US as a result of the attacks. However, you should direct your anger at those who committed the atrocities and not rely on a propaganda campaign devised by the White House and promulgated by the mainstream media. There IS one way that can help to prove who committed the 9/11 attacks though- ask federal law enforcement to release all evidence pertaining to these events on 9/11.


Be upset. Be VERY upset. Be upset that the US government lied about the air quality at Ground Zero in the EPA air quality report in part to get the stock market back up and running at the expense of many more innocent lives. There are and will be many more deaths attributed to the WTC collapses in the form of lung cancers and resiratory diseases from airborne asbestos, heavy metals and other harmful inhaled particles. If the US government didn't commit the atrocities, they certainly added to the fatality rates by lying about the air quality there weeks after the attacks. THAT my friend, IS a government conspiracy. Don't shoot the messenger, Ed Wood.




While you're at it, why don't you show us conclusive proof that AIDS is caused by HIV? It's another common misconception that somehow gets accepted because we are innundated with such a false claim. You won't find any proof of HIV causing AIDS anywhere either. Do you know why? It's because it's an unsubstantiated claim that has no backing proof like Al Qaeda did 9/11. Research this for months and you still will not find a source of the claim, much less any actual proff of such a claim as credible. CDC, WHO, experts in the field, etc... No one has proof yet they just accept it at face value. This is the case with the 9/11 attacks too. The deeper you delve, the more inconsistancies and false attributes you will find in the official and accepted version of the story. Don't believe me. Check it out for yourself. You will learn a lot about heresay and facts.
Ed Wood
mad.gif
QUOTE

Show me one shred of PROOF that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks, please. Not even the FBI can claim that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. See for yourself:


You mean like in the last tape Osama Douchbag Bin Laden sent to AL Al Jazeera where he CLAIMS He Hand picked the 19 hijackers?

Osama Claims responsibility for the attacks on 911

Or how about this one?

Osama claims responsibility


Why do you hate my country so much?

The
PLAIN SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT Osama Bin Laden is a Manipulative PU$$Y *** that persuades simpleminded retards like the 19 hijackers that he Personally Selected for the 911 Mission and yourself Barkley to do his bidding.


Please stop spreading his propaganda.
Unless you really do hate My country the United States Of America then by all means feel free to be an Osama Bin Laden douchbag Lackey, but at least have the Balls ADMIT you HATE the United States Of America and that is why you are doing so.




adoucette
QUOTE (Barkley+May 31 2006, 10:21 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+May 29 2006, 11:27 PM)

QUOTE
the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.


FALSE - There IS NO remote control feature.

Ok Amadamadun, you posted this, now why don't you back it up with some facts, you know like from the BOEING site?

Sheeesh.

Arthur

I'll take that question, if you don't mind.

First of all, the technology to fly an unmanned commercial jet was already out there for some time. In 1984, NASA and the FAA rigged a fully fueled Boeing 727 with a remote control system in order to crash it to determine the effectiveness of a fire suppressant added to the the jet fuel. They called it a Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID).
Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft

Further developments took place over the years, culminating in remote control flight experiments in a joint effort by Raytheon, Rockwell-Collins and the US military in 2001 - prior to 9/11. It was touted as a dual purpose sytem that could (and would) be implemented in civil aviation as a counterterrorism measure, in which the aircraft could be controlled from the ground and/or a portable airborne site such as a C-130 Hercules. In this manner, the onboard flight controls could be locked out to any terrorist or rogue pilot while the aircraft could be landed at a nearby airport or other desired location.

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/jpals.html

Civil-Military Interoperability For GPS Assisted Aircraft Landings Demonstrated

Rockwell Collins Successfully Completes Flight Tests with Industry’s First Microwave Landing System Receiver in a Multi-Mode Receiver

Raytheon and USAF Demonstrate Civil-Military Interoperability for GPS-Based Landing System

Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727. Although it was announced on 9/6/01, the testing was completed over the three prior months at Holloman AFB. Interestingly enough, there were five Raytheon employees on 3 of the hijacked aircraft.

"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."


757-200 Background - Flight Deck

As we have seen, Boeing 757/767's can be programmed via GPS to fly to any point(s) within its fuel range immediately after takeoff and up to its landing. As evidenced from the above links, installing the Raytheon/Rockwell-Collins remote control equipment can facilitate a remote takeoff or landing. Who even said that the airline passengers were even on said aircraft? There are discrepancies in both boarding gate and times for the aircraft in question. In fact, Flight 77 wasn't even a scheduled run for 9/11 according to the BTS website. Furthermore, we KNOW that the US military had the same model year aircraft in their inventory. Where are these particular aircraft now and can they all be fully accounted for?

Air Force Selects Boeing 757 For Special Air Mission

So, will you say that this possibility is NOT possible after all of this information from credible sources stating otherwise? huh.gif

EDIT-

Amadaun,

I forgot this but wanted to post it so that we can see that in all fairness, I choose to refute things that aren't true whether they support a conspiracy or not as related to the events of 9/11. Although Airbus does not allow a piot override on its aircraft, Boeing does let a pilot override the computer navigation system on their aircraft. Incidentally, the 777 is the only aircraft they make that is a fly-by-wire system. While there is a fully programmable GPS-based navigation system as a standard on these aircraft to control in-flight navigational manuevers, there is no remote control feature standard on Boeing 757/767s YET. Anyway, here is the information to refute that erroneous claim:

Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology

Barkley is long winded but in that entire post he managed to AGREE with all of my previous points (though you would hardly know it).

But first he goes off on a tangent about the fact that jet planes CAN be flown by Remote Control.

Well Duh.

Since that's well known its hardly important, unless you can show that THOSE SPECIFIC planes had Remote Controls installed. Which of course NO ONE HAS.

Even the Raytheon system mentioned does not start until AFTER TAKEOFF and then only UNTIL you get ready to land.


The CLAIM that Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727 is only PARTIALLY true and not very relevant.


Note: Raytheon designed and developed the differential GPS ground station under an Air Force contract for the Joint Precision Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program. The JPALS system is being developed to meet the Defense Department's need for an anti-jam, secure, all weather Category II/III aircraft landing system that will be fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilising the same technology. Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force have been conducting extensive flight testing for JPALS at Holloman over the last three months.

The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using the JPALS ground station.



So it was NOT A TAKEOFF/LANDING SYSTEM as he claims. What they developed was the GROUND STATION for a LANDING SYSTEM.

For this to work on 9/11, the planes would have had to been equipped and the GROUND STATION would have had to be installed in the WTC towers and the Pentagon.

And as to all that BS about G limits:

The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits. "It's not a lack of trust in technology," said John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations for Boeing. "We certainly don't have the feeling that we do not want to rely on technology. But the pilot in control of the aircraft should have the ultimate authority."

Why the long winded answer, since he didn't DISPUTE one of my claims. Because AFTER he posts things which PROVE every one of my claims was in fact correct he joins the standard CT'er brigade:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.


FALSE - There IS NO remote control feature.

Ok Amadamadun, you posted this, now why don't you back it up with some facts, you know like from the BOEING site?

Sheeesh.

Arthur

I'll take that question, if you don't mind.

First of all, the technology to fly an unmanned commercial jet was already out there for some time. In 1984, NASA and the FAA rigged a fully fueled Boeing 727 with a remote control system in order to crash it to determine the effectiveness of a fire suppressant added to the the jet fuel. They called it a Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID).
Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft

Further developments took place over the years, culminating in remote control flight experiments in a joint effort by Raytheon, Rockwell-Collins and the US military in 2001 - prior to 9/11. It was touted as a dual purpose sytem that could (and would) be implemented in civil aviation as a counterterrorism measure, in which the aircraft could be controlled from the ground and/or a portable airborne site such as a C-130 Hercules. In this manner, the onboard flight controls could be locked out to any terrorist or rogue pilot while the aircraft could be landed at a nearby airport or other desired location.

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/jpals.html

Civil-Military Interoperability For GPS Assisted Aircraft Landings Demonstrated

Rockwell Collins Successfully Completes Flight Tests with Industry’s First Microwave Landing System Receiver in a Multi-Mode Receiver

Raytheon and USAF Demonstrate Civil-Military Interoperability for GPS-Based Landing System

Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727. Although it was announced on 9/6/01, the testing was completed over the three prior months at Holloman AFB. Interestingly enough, there were five Raytheon employees on 3 of the hijacked aircraft.

"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."


757-200 Background - Flight Deck

As we have seen, Boeing 757/767's can be programmed via GPS to fly to any point(s) within its fuel range immediately after takeoff and up to its landing. As evidenced from the above links, installing the Raytheon/Rockwell-Collins remote control equipment can facilitate a remote takeoff or landing. Who even said that the airline passengers were even on said aircraft? There are discrepancies in both boarding gate and times for the aircraft in question. In fact, Flight 77 wasn't even a scheduled run for 9/11 according to the BTS website. Furthermore, we KNOW that the US military had the same model year aircraft in their inventory. Where are these particular aircraft now and can they all be fully accounted for?

Air Force Selects Boeing 757 For Special Air Mission

So, will you say that this possibility is NOT possible after all of this information from credible sources stating otherwise? huh.gif

EDIT-

Amadaun,

I forgot this but wanted to post it so that we can see that in all fairness, I choose to refute things that aren't true whether they support a conspiracy or not as related to the events of 9/11. Although Airbus does not allow a piot override on its aircraft, Boeing does let a pilot override the computer navigation system on their aircraft. Incidentally, the 777 is the only aircraft they make that is a fly-by-wire system. While there is a fully programmable GPS-based navigation system as a standard on these aircraft to control in-flight navigational manuevers, there is no remote control feature standard on Boeing 757/767s YET. Anyway, here is the information to refute that erroneous claim:

Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology

Barkley is long winded but in that entire post he managed to AGREE with all of my previous points (though you would hardly know it).

But first he goes off on a tangent about the fact that jet planes CAN be flown by Remote Control.

Well Duh.

Since that's well known its hardly important, unless you can show that THOSE SPECIFIC planes had Remote Controls installed. Which of course NO ONE HAS.

Even the Raytheon system mentioned does not start until AFTER TAKEOFF and then only UNTIL you get ready to land.


The CLAIM that Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727 is only PARTIALLY true and not very relevant.


Note: Raytheon designed and developed the differential GPS ground station under an Air Force contract for the Joint Precision Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program. The JPALS system is being developed to meet the Defense Department's need for an anti-jam, secure, all weather Category II/III aircraft landing system that will be fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilising the same technology. Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force have been conducting extensive flight testing for JPALS at Holloman over the last three months.

The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using the JPALS ground station.



So it was NOT A TAKEOFF/LANDING SYSTEM as he claims. What they developed was the GROUND STATION for a LANDING SYSTEM.

For this to work on 9/11, the planes would have had to been equipped and the GROUND STATION would have had to be installed in the WTC towers and the Pentagon.

And as to all that BS about G limits:

The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits. "It's not a lack of trust in technology," said John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations for Boeing. "We certainly don't have the feeling that we do not want to rely on technology. But the pilot in control of the aircraft should have the ultimate authority."

Why the long winded answer, since he didn't DISPUTE one of my claims. Because AFTER he posts things which PROVE every one of my claims was in fact correct he joins the standard CT'er brigade:

So, will you say that this possibility is NOT possible after all of this information from credible sources stating otherwise


Almost anything IS POSSIBLE but that is not the same as saying its likely or in this case that you have a SHRED of EVIDENCE that it happened.

Oh, and in case anyone is wondering WHY the pervasive lies about the REMOTE CONTROL TAKEOFF CAPABILITY, that's because if you can't takeoff you still need pilots willing to commit suicide. If that's the case then you don't need REMOTE CONTROL. And of course, having suicidal pilots on board leads you right back to Atta and company.

Which is the POINT of all his BS, to convince people that Atta and company didn't do it.

Arthur
Barkley
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 31 2006, 04:56 PM)
mad.gif
QUOTE

Show me one shred of PROOF that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks, please. Not even the FBI can claim that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. See for yourself:


You mean like in the last tape Osama Douchbag Bin Laden sent to AL Al Jazeera where he CLAIMS He Hand picked the 19 hijackers?

Osama Claims responsibility for the attacks on 911

Or how about this one?

Osama claims responsibility


Why do you hate my country so much?

The
PLAIN SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT Osama Bin Laden is a Manipulative PU$$Y *** that persuades simpleminded retards like the 19 hijackers that he Personally Selected for the 911 Mission and yourself Barkley to do his bidding.


Please stop spreading his propaganda.
Unless you really do hate My country the United States Of America then by all means feel free to be an Osama Bin Laden douchbag Lackey, but at least have the Balls ADMIT you HATE the United States Of America and that is why you are doing so.

It is painfully obvious that you have no interest in any sort of discussion. Instead, you seek only to vent. That's fine but you lack credibility if you think that people should just blindly accept such heresay.

Your country? Since when do you have the right to lay sole claim to OUR nation? The US is my country too and I choose to question such events because I love my country dearly and do not want to see this system of government changed into an authoritarian dictatorship. You know absolutely nothing of me or my qualifications in any matters of state. What sacrifices have YOU made in the effort to promote the continuation of our way of life and system of government?


This grand experiment of a democratic republic has lasted only 219 years so far and contrary to what many people believe, it is frail and needs constant attention to see that it continues to exist and to pass it along to our children in a healthy state. In terms of time, it is a mere drop in the bucket. By comparison, the Roman and Greek empires lasted over a millenia while the Ottoman empire lasted for over 600 years. The danger to our form of government does not come from the outside, Ed Wood. It resides within. When our own citizens become lazy and stop being vigilant of their government, they are apt to lose it to those who would take advantage of our inattention.



You should probably read the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution sometime to remind yourself what the hell you are missing out on. You can choose to relinguish liberties guaranteed by our Constitution in exchange for a hollow promise of security. However, I do not. You want your pound of flesh in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks yet you have no conclusive proof as to who actually committed such atrocities and no one here on this forum does either. You are young. It is apparent in your emotional outbursts. You speak without the benefit of forethought and that is exactly the type of mob rule mentality that leads to suppression of civil rights and the rise of an authoritarian state. Read "Animal Farm" by George Orwell sometime. Perhaps you'll see the parallel here. Here's a clue: Snowball didn't do it. blink.gif
adoucette
QUOTE
You should probably read the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution sometime to remind yourself what the hell you are missing out on. You can choose to relinguish liberties guaranteed by our Constitution in exchange for a hollow promise of security. However, I do not.


Interesting claim, that if we don't agree with you that we are choosing to "relinquish liberties".

But notice, NOTHING prevents you from CHARGING THE GOVT with the most HEINOUS of crimes.

In fact, as long as you don't call for the ARMED overthrow of the govt you can do/say damn near anything you want.

IN PUBLIC

Because ALL our other liberties stem from FREE SPEECH.

Now of course, that also means that someone like Ed (or me) also has the right to tell you off.

Arthur
Barkley
QUOTE (adoucette+May 31 2006, 05:03 PM)
Barkley is long winded but in that entire post he managed to AGREE with all of my previous points (though you would hardly know it).

But first he goes off on a tangent about the fact that jet planes CAN be flown by Remote Control.

Well Duh.

Since that's well known its hardly important, unless you can show that THOSE SPECIFIC planes had Remote Controls installed. Which of course NO ONE HAS.

Even the Raytheon system mentioned does not start until AFTER TAKEOFF and then only UNTIL you get ready to land.


The CLAIM that Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727 is only PARTIALLY true and not very relevant.


Note: Raytheon designed and developed the differential GPS ground station under an Air Force contract for the Joint Precision Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program. The JPALS system is being developed to meet the Defense Department's need for an anti-jam, secure, all weather Category II/III aircraft landing system that will be fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilising the same technology. Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force have been conducting extensive flight testing for JPALS at Holloman over the last three months.

The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using the JPALS ground station.



So it was NOT A TAKEOFF/LANDING SYSTEM as he claims. What they developed was the GROUND STATION for a LANDING SYSTEM.



Almost anything IS POSSIBLE but that is not the same as saying its likely or in this case that you have a SHRED of EVIDENCE that it happened.

Oh, and in case anyone is wondering WHY the pervasive lies about the REMOTE CONTROL TAKEOFF CAPABILITY, that's because if you can't takeoff you still need pilots willing to commit suicide. If that's the case then you don't need REMOTE CONTROL. And of course, having suicidal pilots on board leads you right back to Atta and company.

Which is the POINT of all his BS, to convince people that Atta and company didn't do it.

Arthur



Arthur,

Nice attempt at discrediting my post (and me) however, you failed to notice the following, which directly refutes your claim (again) about manned takeoff as a necessity:

from the NASA website:
"The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway."


Apparently, remotely piloted takeoff means that no pilot was inside the aircraft OPERATING the flight controls upon takeoff. You claim that a pilot is still needed for the taxi down the runway. Why? Hell, these tests above were conducted in 1984! I'm certain that you are not naieve enough to think that remote control technology hadn't advanced at all since then? A tractor pushes an airliner out from a gate and places it in taxiing position. How hard is driving a plane to the runway at low speed when you have a trained operator and a damn video monitor with an audiolink to the ATC? It's doubtful that an ATC would even know that no one was in the cockpit.


Since when does the military release cutting edge technologies to the public? LOL. The F-117A Stealth was flying since 1982 yet the general public was unaware of its existence until 1988. Do you HONESTLY think that there is no viable remote control sytem for use in the US military during 2001 given that the successful testing announcements of the Raytheon landing system were made?


Have you ever heard of the Global Hawk?! Unless you have been living under a rock, you'd know that this technology is currently being used on a regular basis. Obviously, this type of remote takeoff/landing system didn't just appear in the last 4 years. huh.gif It publically debuted in October, 2001. That means that the remote control technology was ALREADY AVAILABLE to the military establishment prior to that date. Get it?



So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released? You are being disingenuous with most of these arguments and you are clearly aware of it.


You claim that I want to convince people that Atta didn't do it. Contrary to that statement, I want PROOF that Atta and Co. did it. Proof that is not forthcoming from the federal government. What is so wrong with wanting conclusive proof of who committed a murder of almost 3000 people on US soil? Am I wrong or a conspiracy theorist for wanting to be sure? Or is it in vogue to shoot first and ask questions only after they're dead now- because dead men tell no tales? Likewise, it could quite effectively be argued that you want to convince people that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks. In this effort, you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact. Still, you consider me a CT'er, lol. I suppose that Oswald did all the shooting in Dealey Plaza as well?



I'm beginning to think that perhaps you are a disinformation specialist. You ignore a lot of obvious flaws in the government theory and at times appear to even attempt to distort facts presented to make your case. I'm not about winning an argument, Arthur. I just want an honest and open discussion on this topic in addition to a transparent and independent investigation. You seem to oppose such things with every fiber of your being. I just don't understand your actions at all.
Barkley
QUOTE (adoucette+May 31 2006, 06:29 PM)
QUOTE
You should probably read the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution sometime to remind yourself what the hell you are missing out on. You can choose to relinguish liberties guaranteed by our Constitution in exchange for a hollow promise of security. However, I do not.


Interesting claim, that if we don't agree with you that we are choosing to "relinquish liberties".

But notice, NOTHING prevents you from CHARGING THE GOVT with the most HEINOUS of crimes.

In fact, as long as you don't call for the ARMED overthrow of the govt you can do/say damn near anything you want.

IN PUBLIC

Because ALL our other liberties stem from FREE SPEECH.

Now of course, that also means that someone like Ed (or me) also has the right to tell you off.

Arthur

I have no doubt that because I disagree with you that you would love to tell me off. If all of our liberties stem from free speech then why are there now fenced in "Free Speech Zones" during public protests such as the republican convention?

Your arguments and credibility are weakened by your personal attacks, Arthur. Strong words often take the place of weak counterpoints.
adoucette
QUOTE (Barkley+May 31 2006, 02:36 PM)

Nice attempt at discrediting my post (and me) however, you failed to notice the following, which directly refutes your claim (again) about manned takeoff as a necessity:

from the NASA website:
"The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway."


Apparently, remotely piloted takeoff means that no pilot was inside the aircraft OPERATING the flight controls upon takeoff. You claim that a pilot is still needed for the taxi down the runway. Why? Hell, these tests above were conducted in 1984! I'm certain that you are not naieve enough to think that remote control technology hadn't advanced at all since then? A tractor pushes an airliner out from a gate and places it in taxiing position. How hard is driving a plane to the runway at low speed when you have a trained operator and a damn video monitor with an audiolink to the ATC? It's doubtful that an ATC would even know that no one was in the cockpit.


Since when does the military release cutting edge technologies to the public? LOL. The F-117A Stealth was flying since 1982 yet the general public was unaware of its existence until 1988. Do you HONESTLY think that there is no viable remote control sytem for use in the US military during 2001 given that the successful testing announcements of the Raytheon landing system were made?


Have you ever heard of the Global Hawk?! Unless you have been living under a rock, you'd know that this technology is currently being used on a regular basis. Obviously, this type of remote takeoff/landing system didn't just appear in the last 4 years.  huh.gif  It publically debuted in October, 2001. That means that the remote control technology was ALREADY AVAILABLE to the military establishment prior to that date. Get it?



So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released? You are being disingenuous with most of these arguments and you are clearly aware of it.


You claim that I want to convince people that Atta didn't do it. Contrary to that statement, I want PROOF that Atta and Co. did it. Proof that is not forthcoming from the federal government. What is so wrong with wanting conclusive proof of who committed a murder of almost 3000 people on US soil? Am I wrong or a conspiracy theorist for wanting to be sure? Or is it in vogue to shoot first and ask questions only after they're dead now- because dead men tell no tales? Likewise, it could quite effectively be argued that you want to convince people that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks. In this effort, you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact. Still, you consider me a CT'er, lol. I suppose that Oswald did all the shooting in Dealey Plaza as well?



I'm beginning to think that perhaps you are a disinformation specialist. You ignore a lot of obvious flaws in the government theory and at times appear to even attempt to distort facts presented to make your case. I'm not about winning an argument, Arthur. I just want an honest and open discussion on this topic in addition to a transparent and independent investigation. You seem to oppose such things with every fiber of your being. I just don't understand your actions at all.

Actually there was only ONE flight made without a pilot and no, they didn't taxi it anywhere, they lined it up on the runway, started the engines and then left the plane. The landing, alas was off target, and they didn't get the results they wanted.

Also they were not trying to do this COVERTLY, meaning the cockpit looked nothing like a regular cockpit. I'll see if I can find some pics. Had they been trying to do this "under the covers" the modifications would have been MUCH more daunting. Furthermore, unlike what you are suggesting, NASA was NOT trying to REMOTELY SIMULATE all the things a PILOT does to take a commercial plane off from a boarding gate. You know, like boarding the plane through the airport along with Flight Crew, SIGNING OFF ON THE PAPERWORK for the flight, backing out of the gate which reguires HAND SIGNALS TO AND FROM THE GROUND CREW and of course the pilot is quite visible to the moveable gangway operator during this time, notify the FAs, Starting the engines, talking to Ground Control and Tower and then taxing to the end of the correct runway etc etc. at which point they are also quite visible to other aircraft (and I can assure you during this time their ABSENSE would be noted)

So the fact that we HAVE technology that allows basic Remote Control of a plane is NOT an indication that we could REMOTELY take a commercial jet from an AIRPORT GATE without ANYONE being aware that there were not pilots on board the aircraft.

For you to suggest we could means you have to come up with a LOT more evidence than what NASA did in order to CRASH a jet.

So not only have you NOT SHOWN we COULD do it, you have SHOWN NO EVIDENCE we DID DO IT.

What YOU LIED about was this:

Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727

Since Raytheon's system had NOTHING to do with Starting a jet up, taxing out or the actual TAKEOFF.

Of course when you make statements like:
So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released?

Which are PATENTLY FALSE.

ALL of the sites were CRAWLING with NON-FEDERAL authorities, which ANY set of pictures of the aftermath will CLEARLY SHOW.

But what is MOST HILARIOUS is your use of LACK OF PROOF as PROOF.

As far as PROOF that it was Atta and company, clearly nothing will convince you, so I'm certainly not going to waste my time.

As to

you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact.

Pardon me, but your BIAS is showing.

laugh.gif

Arthur
badthinker
QUOTE (adoucette+May 31 2006, 07:31 PM)
QUOTE (Barkley+May 31 2006, 02:36 PM)

Nice attempt at discrediting my post (and me) however, you failed to notice the following, which directly refutes your claim (again) about manned takeoff as a necessity:

from the NASA website:
"The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway."


Apparently, remotely piloted takeoff means that no pilot was inside the aircraft OPERATING the flight controls upon takeoff. You claim that a pilot is still needed for the taxi down the runway. Why? Hell, these tests above were conducted in 1984! I'm certain that you are not naieve enough to think that remote control technology hadn't advanced at all since then? A tractor pushes an airliner out from a gate and places it in taxiing position. How hard is driving a plane to the runway at low speed when you have a trained operator and a damn video monitor with an audiolink to the ATC? It's doubtful that an ATC would even know that no one was in the cockpit.


Since when does the military release cutting edge technologies to the public? LOL. The F-117A Stealth was flying since 1982 yet the general public was unaware of its existence until 1988. Do you HONESTLY think that there is no viable remote control sytem for use in the US military during 2001 given that the successful testing announcements of the Raytheon landing system were made?


Have you ever heard of the Global Hawk?! Unless you have been living under a rock, you'd know that this technology is currently being used on a regular basis. Obviously, this type of remote takeoff/landing system didn't just appear in the last 4 years.  huh.gif  It publically debuted in October, 2001. That means that the remote control technology was ALREADY AVAILABLE to the military establishment prior to that date. Get it?



So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released? You are being disingenuous with most of these arguments and you are clearly aware of it.


You claim that I want to convince people that Atta didn't do it. Contrary to that statement, I want PROOF that Atta and Co. did it. Proof that is not forthcoming from the federal government. What is so wrong with wanting conclusive proof of who committed a murder of almost 3000 people on US soil? Am I wrong or a conspiracy theorist for wanting to be sure? Or is it in vogue to shoot first and ask questions only after they're dead now- because dead men tell no tales? Likewise, it could quite effectively be argued that you want to convince people that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks. In this effort, you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact. Still, you consider me a CT'er, lol. I suppose that Oswald did all the shooting in Dealey Plaza as well?



I'm beginning to think that perhaps you are a disinformation specialist. You ignore a lot of obvious flaws in the government theory and at times appear to even attempt to distort facts presented to make your case. I'm not about winning an argument, Arthur. I just want an honest and open discussion on this topic in addition to a transparent and independent investigation. You seem to oppose such things with every fiber of your being. I just don't understand your actions at all.

Actually there was only ONE flight made without a pilot and no, they didn't taxi it anywhere, they lined it up on the runway, started the engines and then left the plane. The landing, alas was off target, and they didn't get the results they wanted.

Also they were not trying to do this COVERTLY, meaning the cockpit looked nothing like a regular cockpit. I'll see if I can find some pics. Had they been trying to do this "under the covers" the modifications would have been MUCH more daunting. Furthermore, unlike what you are suggesting, NASA was NOT trying to REMOTELY SIMULATE all the things a PILOT does to take a commercial plane off from a boarding gate. You know, like boarding the plane through the airport along with Flight Crew, SIGNING OFF ON THE PAPERWORK for the flight, backing out of the gate which reguires HAND SIGNALS TO AND FROM THE GROUND CREW and of course the pilot is quite visible to the moveable gangway operator during this time, notify the FAs, Starting the engines, talking to Ground Control and Tower and then taxing to the end of the correct runway etc etc. at which point they are also quite visible to other aircraft (and I can assure you during this time their ABSENSE would be noted)

So the fact that we HAVE technology that allows this to happen in NO WAY suggests that it WAS used that day.

And you have SHOWN NO EVIDENCE it was used that day.

What YOU LIED about was this:

Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727

Since Raytheon's system had NOTHING to do with Starting a jet up, taxing out or the actual TAKEOFF.

Of course when you make statements like:
So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released?

Which are PATENTLY FALSE.

ALL of the sites were CRAWLING with NON-FEDERAL authorities, which ANY set of pictures of the aftermath will CLEARLY SHOW.

But what is MOST HILARIOUS is your use of LACK OF PROOF as PROOF.

As far as PROOF that it was Atta and company, clearly nothing will convince you, so I'm certainly not going to waste my time.

As to

you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact.

Pardon me, but your BIAS is showing.

laugh.gif

Arthur

QUOTE
As far as PROOF that it was Atta and company, clearly nothing will convince you, so I'm certainly not going to waste my time.


I would love to see some of this evidence. Would you mind?
adoucette
Having posted on this topic for some time now its quite clear that if TODAY you do not believe it was Atta and co. that did it, then NOTHING I post is going to change that.

Have a nice day.

Arthur







Ed Wood
Barkley, 'Peace be unto you'

What I see is that you have created is at best a very unlikely possibility at worst an attempt to deceive.

In order to even entertain the possibility that the "Government" is responsible you must have answers the following questions.


What is the "governments" motive?

Who in the "government" would gain anything by killing 3000 Americans?

What would "they" gain?

How have "they" the inept Government managed to keep such a secret when "they" cannot even keep it a secret that "they" have certain surveillance programs without leaks or find out what happened to those missing weapons of Mass Destruction or even Plant weapons of Mass Destruction to make themselves look good?

Has anyone other than Osama Bin Laden CONFESSED to Ordering the ATTACKS on 9/11?

By the way when I said my country I was assuming you were not an American as you seem to dislike our form of government so much you try to spread lies half truths in an effort to deceive and spread fear among freethinking people thereof. As you may recall in Animal Farm that is how the pigs manage to ruin it for everyone else. It only takes one to deceive the whole world as long as he has believers who are willing to do his bidding.



Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
tongue.gif






amadaun
Barkley.............
QUOTE
The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits.


It says they can override the onboard computers, but are we to believe that amateur pilots, trained in Cessna's, knew how to do this? I'm assuming that it wouldn't be an automatic override. [Let alone fly the plane accurately into a target, with only a few hours of experience. I'm sure the flight deck on a jet would be a little more complicated than that of a Cessna.]

Thanks for the other info you posted, interesting stuff.
Especially that Raytheon employees were supposed to be on board the plane.

When I have more time, I will check out the other links you supplied as well.
amadaun
QUOTE
I'm beginning to think that perhaps you are a disinformation specialist. You ignore a lot of obvious flaws in the government theory and at times appear to even attempt to distort facts presented to make your case. I'm not about winning an argument, Arthur. I just want an honest and open discussion on this topic in addition to a transparent and independent investigation. You seem to oppose such things with every fiber of your being. I just don't understand your actions at all.


Yep, you got Arthur sussed.

I just engaged him in a debate about MSG which ran to many pages. With similar results ~ he just wants to 'win' the argument, whilst being obnoxious and rude along the way.
adoucette
QUOTE (amadaun+Jun 2 2006, 09:10 PM)
Barkley.............
QUOTE
The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits.


It says they can override the onboard computers, but are we to believe that amateur pilots, trained in Cessna's, knew how to do this? I'm assuming that it wouldn't be an automatic override. [Let alone fly the plane accurately into a target, with only a few hours of experience. I'm sure the flight deck on a jet would be a little more complicated than that of a Cessna.]

Thanks for the other info you posted, interesting stuff.
Especially that Raytheon employees were supposed to be on board the plane.

When I have more time, I will check out the other links you supplied as well.

You just move the controls to over-ride the computers.

Once you move the controls you automatically DISCONNECT the auto-pilot.

This is IDENTICAL to how you disconnect the cruise control on your car by tapping the breaks.

Yes the flight deck is more complicated, which is why they spent money to buy time in 767 simulators.


Arthur

amadaun
I'm not just talking about the auto pilot, but the software limits.

What would be the point of installing these limits, if they can be easily overridden with the controls?

amadaun
QUOTE
Yes the flight deck is more complicated, which is why they spent money to buy time in 767 simulators.


I wasn't just speculating here~ the flight deck is super complicated on big jets.

My father and half brother are both pilots for Air 2000 in England, and I know it takes ages before you are allowed to fly a big jet solo.
You have to work your way up through the ranks, and have years of training.

Yet we are supposed to believe that these guys with a bit of training in Cessnas and a few hours in a flight simulator can fly a big jet into a fairly small target.

Oh, I forgot, they read flight manuals, which they left in a taxi[?] so we would know where they had been and what training they had.

Also, if you can train to fly Cessnas and use flight simulators anywhere in the world, why would you risk blowing your cover by doing it in Florida?

These and many other questions remain unanswered.........
Ed Wood
Hey Barkley and the rest of you conspiracy wack jobs,

One of your top commanders in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was TERMINATED today.

Don't worry though for now you you can still receive instructions for the undermining of American Freedoms Osama Bin Ladens' tapes.

By the way he is on the same list that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was on so the amount of BS. he is able to send you may be limited. laugh.gif

Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
amadaun
Wood 'ed.........

I'm sure its very comforting for you to believe that the bad Arabs are the ones endangering your freedoms.

Its very disconcerting to have to consider other possibilities, like government orchestrated destruction.

So, stay safe in your coccoon, but don't complain when the rest of us speculate on who, why and how, huh?



Or you could think about what you're losing..........

QUOTE
The National Security Agency (NSA) has been collecting the phone call records of millions of Americans, without warrants, under the guise of anti-terrorism protection.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a non-profit group that works on protecting privacy, contends that the phone company cannot give customer data to the federal government without a warrant, and have filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T for doing so.

The government is now trying to have the case thrown out because of alleged "security reasons." This is the typical pattern of the government to introduce a problem, generate a reaction -- fear -- and then come up with a solution that takes away your freedom in exchange for their protection from the perceived threat. 


adoucette
QUOTE (amadaun+Jun 5 2006, 09:09 PM)
QUOTE
Yes the flight deck is more complicated, which is why they spent money to buy time in 767 simulators.


I wasn't just speculating here~ the flight deck is super complicated on big jets.

My father and half brother are both pilots for Air 2000 in England, and I know it takes ages before you are allowed to fly a big jet solo.
You have to work your way up through the ranks, and have years of training.

Yet we are supposed to believe that these guys with a bit of training in Cessnas and a few hours in a flight simulator can fly a big jet into a fairly small target.

Oh, I forgot, they read flight manuals, which they left in a taxi[?] so we would know where they had been and what training they had.

Also, if you can train to fly Cessnas and use flight simulators anywhere in the world, why would you risk blowing your cover by doing it in Florida?

These and many other questions remain unanswered.........

The flight deck is MORE complicatated, but the ESSENTIALS are the same.

In fact, the PRIMARY flight instruments: Turn & Bank Indicator, Airspeed indicator and Vertical Speed Indicator ARE AVAILABLE and in an IDENTICAL format that one you would find on a Cessna and are ALL YOU NEED TO FLY ANY AIRCRAFT, even in instrument conditions. Add to that the Flight Director which projects a visual representation of the classic Attitude gyro, along with the standard compass and standard altimeter and the fact that the Flight Controls (stick & rudder) operate identically and that they weren't concerned with takeoff or landing, then NO, what they did, did NOT require super pilot skills.

PS, unlike AIR 2000, Terrorists organizations don't require long training regimens before Soloing as they really AREN'T concerned about the passanger safety or the aircraft condition after the flight.

WTC and Pentagon were fairly small targets? Right, what would be a LARGE target?

As far as Flight training in the US. Training FORIEGN pilots is (or was) a BIG BUSINESS in the US and pre 9/11 getting primary or advanced flight training would not raise suspicion.

Arthur


amadaun
Barkley,
You might be interested in this.

QUOTE
Now here's a new wrinkle for conspiracy theorists who believe that the hijacked planes were actually remotely controlled from the ground and that the hijackers were actually themselves turned into suicide mission patsies. Put this name into your system: Dov Zakheim
BACKGROUND
1985 to 1987 he was deputy under secretary of defense for planning and resources, and held various other senior Pentagon posts in the Reagan administration. He was previously with the Congressional Budget Office. Zakheim is currently corporate vice president of the Systems Planning Corporation (SPC), a high-technology research, analysis, and manufacturing firm, and chief executive officer and president of SPC International, Inc. In 1998, Zakheim, an expert in ballistic missiles, worked in 1998 with Rumsfeld Commission. More significantly, he is a long-time Bush associate, having served as a policy advisor to the governor during the 2000 campaign. In May, 2001, Zakheim was sworn in to the Bush Administration as Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) of the DOD.
Here's the wrinkle: Zakheim's company produces advanced Command Transmitter Systems, designed to provide "remote control and flight termination functions through a fully redundant, self-contained solid state system." The unit is just 5 feet high and can be mounted easily on a mobile platform. Although designed to control unmanned flights such as Global hawk from remote positions on the ground, one British aviation engineer said after 9/11 that the planes used in the attacks were could have been equipped with, or suitable for, such remote control units.


And these little snippets.........

A former adjunct economics professor at New York's Yeshiva University, Rabbi Zakheim has spent more than 30 years working in various jobs at the Pentagon. But he has also worked in private industry, specifically as a consultant to McDonnell Douglas and Boeing

.............an dual Israeli-American citizen as Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the United States Dept. of Defense should raise some eyebrows. He was also President Bush's senior foreign policy advisor during the 2000 campaign.


The plot sickens...........
amadaun
QUOTE
In fact, the PRIMARY flight instruments: Turn & Bank Indicator, Airspeed indicator and Vertical Speed Indicator ARE AVAILABLE and in an IDENTICAL format that one you would find on a Cessna and are ALL YOU NEED TO FLY ANY AIRCRAFT, even in instrument conditions. Add to that the Flight Director which projects a visual representation of the classic Attitude gyro, along with the standard compass and standard altimeter and the fact that the Flight Controls (stick & rudder) operate identically and that they weren't concerned with takeoff or landing, then NO, what they did, did NOT require super pilot skills.


Gawd, they must put all those other dials and instruments there for the hell of it?

No super pilot skills required?

Photographic evidence and eye-witness accounts support the idea
that the override functionality of the planes' computers was
somehow defeated, allowing "the hijackers" to make prohibited
maneuvers. For example, there are multiple photographs and video
clips showing AA Flight 175 making an outrageously hard turn
into the second tower. According to official information, the
plane that hit the Pentagon also made aerobatic descent
maneuvers worthy of a fighter pilot
. To have flown the planes in
this manner, Atta and the rest would have needed 1) advanced
large plane skills, and 2) a way to defeat the planes' avionic systems


Methinks you have been watching too many TV movies where the inexperienced hero takes control of the plane after the pilot is incapacitated.
adoucette
QUOTE (amadaun+Jun 14 2006, 09:39 PM)
QUOTE
In fact, the PRIMARY flight instruments: Turn & Bank Indicator, Airspeed indicator and Vertical Speed Indicator ARE AVAILABLE and in an IDENTICAL format that one you would find on a Cessna and are ALL YOU NEED TO FLY ANY AIRCRAFT, even in instrument conditions. Add to that the Flight Director which projects a visual representation of the classic Attitude gyro, along with the standard compass and standard altimeter and the fact that the Flight Controls (stick & rudder) operate identically and that they weren't concerned with takeoff or landing, then NO, what they did, did NOT require super pilot skills.


Gawd, they must put all those other dials and instruments there for the hell of it?

No super pilot skills required?

Photographic evidence and eye-witness accounts support the idea
that the override functionality of the planes' computers was
somehow defeated, allowing "the hijackers" to make prohibited
maneuvers. For example, there are multiple photographs and video
clips showing AA Flight 175 making an outrageously hard turn
into the second tower. According to official information, the
plane that hit the Pentagon also made aerobatic descent
maneuvers worthy of a fighter pilot
. To have flown the planes in
this manner, Atta and the rest would have needed 1) advanced
large plane skills, and 2) a way to defeat the planes' avionic systems


Methinks you have been watching too many TV movies where the inexperienced hero takes control of the plane after the pilot is incapacitated.

I'm a friggin PILOT (check the FAA database, I post under my REAL NAME).

Most of the other instruments are for Navigation, Communication, Radar, Engine Status, Fuel Status, Cabin Status etc etc. The PRIMARY FLIGHT instruments though remain essentially the SAME ,

767 cockpit
User posted image

http://www.obapne.com/photos/2005%20Northe..._767Cockpit.jpg

Cessna 172 cockpit, the 172 is your basic fixed gear, fixed pitch, 4 passenger aircraft, used extensively for both flight training and rentals.
User posted image

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/C...nfo/cockpit.jpg

I'll let you find the matching instruments, but ALL THE PRIMARY INSTRUMENTS are in BOTH cockpits and LOOK AND WORK THE SAME.

There are NO COMPUTER systems on a BOEING that have to be over-ridden. (we've been OVER this already) The LITTLE BUTTON on the yoke when pressed disconnects the auto pilot. Like I said, just like disconnecting cruise control on your car.

See: User posted image

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/EA990/B767Cockpit.jpg

Also there were NO weird maneuvers prior to EITHER plane hitting the towers, the Pentagon plane did a SINGLE DESCENDING CONSTANT RATE TURN a most elemental of maneuvers.

Is there ANY BS you WON'T post.

The RADIO CONTROL angle is a NON-STARTER since there is NO WAY that a jet is going to leave a gate without PILOTS on board to sign off on the paper work and communicate with the rest of the flight crew and Ramp personnel.

Arthur
amadaun
I like to consider the opinion of experts in the field........

Retired career Special Forces Master Sergeant Stan Goff has highlighted the problem of the official story with respect to the Pentagon strike:
[excerpt]
QUOTE
....Now, the real kicker: A pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this building at 460 nauts.
When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator.
This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on I-40 at rush hour by buying her a video driving game. It's horse ***!



However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.

http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"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," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away, says O'Brien, "and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west … Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started relaying to them the information, [that] we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles west."


And yet this was accomplished by a pilot incapable of controlling a cessna.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
....Now, the real kicker: A pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this building at 460 nauts.
When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator.
This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on I-40 at rush hour by buying her a video driving game. It's horse ***!



However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.

http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"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," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away, says O'Brien, "and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west … Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started relaying to them the information, [that] we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles west."


And yet this was accomplished by a pilot incapable of controlling a cessna.

At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.
However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

adoucette
What does a Special Forces Master Sergeant have to do with flying a plane?
What does an ATC controller have to do with the difficulty in flying a plane?

Hani got more training after that quote.

A single descending turn, leveling out and then flying the rest of the way straight into the Pentagon at a VERY SHALLOW DIVE IS NO BIG DEAL.

In fact, all one has to do is reduce power a little and turn the yoke to achieve ~ a 60 degree bank (conveniently marked on T&B indicator) and you'll get a very fast descending turn. When the turn is complete, simply turn the yoke back the other way to level the aircraft and it will pull out of the dive on its own simply due to the high speed achieved in the descending turn. Once level, add power, roll in a little down trim to keep the nose from rising and when one gets close to the Pentagon push forward on the yoke to impact near ground level .

As to the FAA ctlr.

NO, you DON'T fly 757s that way, why? Because is SCARES the passengers, not because you can't fly it that way or because its difficult to fly it that way. I'm sure compared to the ROUTINE approaches the controller sees every day this fairly rapid descent looked unusual, but that is NOT an indication of the DIFFICULTY of the turn.

Arthur
amadaun
Arthur, you really should broaden your horizons and read material that doesn't emanate from government and industrial websites.

This regarding your comment on the MSG thread about refitting planes with remote control systems.

QUOTE
The most venerable means of transmitting control inputs from a
plane's cockpit to its various aerodynamic control surfaces
(rudder, ailerons, etc.) is via a system of cables, i.e.
"aircraft cables." With the introduction of huge planes during
and after W.W.II, unassisted human arms could no longer provide
the force needed to actuate proportionately huge control
surfaces, and so hydraulic assist devices and fully hydraulic
control systems were developed. [I]The introduction of autopilots
and landing guidance systems over the next three decades layered
yet another 'control system' over this one, an electronic layer
capable of manipulating the hydraulics directly and thus flying
the plane on its own[/I].

In the 757- and 767-series planes boardedby "the hijackers," Boeing expanded this layer enormously,making it much more sophisticated and integral to the continuous operation of these planes.
For one thing, it continuouslymonitors such things as attitude, acceleration, turn rates,etc., and if necessary can assert exclusive control of the
hydraulics at any time, modifying or even overriding pilot
decisions that would otherwise result in drastic maneuvers,
inappropriate for passenger service.
Though meant to provide an added margin of safety in the event of gross pilot error, this arrangement introduces an ominous new dimension: in a very real
sense, the humans on the flight deck have only tenuous control
of flaps, rudder, etc.; the computer, the arbiter between the
two, allows them direct control only on it's own immutable
terms.
If the computer can override the pilot some of the time,
a potential exists for it to override the pilot ALL of the time
.
This is a vulnerable arrangement, as anyone who has dealt with a
virus should know. In other words, the advancing dependency on
avionic interfaces has brought with it an advancing potential
for the total electronic co-optation of those interfaces. As
they have grown exponentially in complexity, so too has the
number of entry points by which such co-optation might be
effected. All that was needed was for technologists to devise a
"back door"...
Enter the US government and its defense contractors, who began
joint development of remote flight control and flight
circumvention technology at least two decades ago, using the
full force of their virtually infinite R&D resources.


The existence of these programs, and of the resulting technology,
was verified soon after 9-11 by a panel of commercial and
military pilots participating in an independent inquiry (16).
The existence of such technology IN ANY FORM raises intriguing
questions/possibilities about 9-11: 1) could the planes have
been hijacked via this technology alone? 2) Were they? 3) Remote
hijacking and on-board hijacking are not mutually exclusive
scenarios; if there were actual human hijackers on those planes,
their plot may have been remotely co-opted by another party they
knew nothing about, leaving them as horrified as anyone when the
planes took control of themselves and banked straight into
buildings.
Photographic evidence and eye-witness accounts support the idea
that the override functionality of the planes' computers was
somehow defeated, allowing "the hijackers" to make prohibited
maneuvers. For example, there are multiple photographs and video
clips showing AA Flight 175 making an outrageously hard turn
into the second tower. According to official information, the
plane that hit the Pentagon also made aerobatic descent
maneuvers worthy of a fighter pilot. To have flown the planes in
this manner, Atta and the rest would have needed 1) advanced
large plane skills, and 2) a way to defeat the planes' avionicsystems.

Since that flight school they attended in Venice, Fla.
probably didn't offer a course titled "Hot-dog Maneuvers with
Airliners 101," they must have possessed these abilities
already, so why would they have bothered with flight lessons at
all?
Any benefit they realized in terms of understanding new
control layouts would have been at the cost of increased
exposure, thus endangering their mission. On the other hand, if
they were as inexperienced as the presstitutes tell us ("I just
want to learn how to steer"), they couldn't possibly have flown
the planes this way at all, which means someone else must have.
However distasteful, there is a real possibility that remote
circumvention occurred on those planes, a possibility that any
credible investigation would hardly ignore. All the more so
because the necessary hardware isn't just a cockamamie theory: a
fully developed, totally programmable remote flight control
platform actually exists. Suggestively named the "Flight
Termination System," it is manufactured by Systems Planning
Corporation of Rosslyn, Virginia,
which maintains web pages
devoted to the FTS and various subsystems.
Anthony Lawson
Many years ago, I was on an early-model Airbus (quite similar to a Boeing 757) which was landing at Orlando Airport, Florida. I was not on my way to Disney World, I might add. It was quite early in the morning, and the air was still. I was in a window seat, and I noticed that we crossed the threshold at an altitude of 150 feet or so, and gently continued our descent until we levelled off at what looked to be about 50 feet above the ground. And there we floated for what seemed like about fifteen seconds. Next, the engines which had been very quiet, started to wind up, and the thought crossed my mind that we might be going around, for some reason. Then came the sensation of deceleration, followed by an almost imperceptible bump, as we finally touched down and the engines increased their pitch in full reverse-thrust mode. It was the smoothest landing I have ever experienced.

Later, during a long wait at the luggage roundabout, I spotted the crew of our flight heading towards the exit. Excusing myself for holding him up, I asked the captain what the landing was all about. He gave me a broad grin and told me that he, too, had been wondering when the wheels were finally going to meet the runway, which is why he’d deployed reverse thrust before we were actually on the ground.

He explained about “ground effect” and said that the air was probably a little heavier than usual, and that the engines’ thrust had exactly balanced the upward pressure, which was why we’d floated for such a long distance, sitting on the cushion of air under the wings. Later, I wondered why he’d not used the airbrakes, but it was too late to ask; maybe he’d been enjoying the floating sensation too much.

The memory of the experience has often surfaced when thinking about the official story of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, but I’ve never followed it through. Perhaps I’ve been sidetracked by the arguments about the size of the entry hole in the building. Which is, in a way, putting the cart before the horse, because, before you can hit the base of a large building with an aeroplane, you’ve first got to find the building, and then you’ve got to fly the aircraft so low that it doesn’t damage the lawn in front of the building, but still makes its entry at ground-floor level and only slightly damages the first floor.

However, while looking for some other information, I came across what seems to be absolute proof that—never mind what could or could not have caused the damage which was done to the outer pillars, or the size of the entry hole—an aircraft similar or identical to a Boeing 757 could not possibly have been what hit the Pentagon. The item can be found at the website: Raw Story | Blue Lemur http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?...2443b1122f8a9b5

I recommend that the full article be studied, but here are a few excerpts. The highlighted introductory comments to the quotes are mine. There was no copyright notice, so I am assuming that the author, Nila Sagadevan, will not mind my quoting him. In fact, from his indignation at the acceptance of the official findings, I am sure he will be pleased that his excellent article is getting wider coverage.

QUOTE
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot.

There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.


On the difficulties of operating Flight Simulators (disregarded by the 9/11 Commission)
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot.

There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.


On the difficulties of operating Flight Simulators (disregarded by the 9/11 Commission)
A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how “easy” it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the “open sky”. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.

And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport by themselves are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.

For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.


On the need for instrument-flying competence (disregarded by the 9/11 Commission)
QUOTE
And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they ‘lost it’ while flying in IFR conditions.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.


On the basic problems of hijacking Flight 77 (overlooked by the 9/11 Commission?)
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they ‘lost it’ while flying in IFR conditions.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.


On the basic problems of hijacking Flight 77 (overlooked by the 9/11 Commission?)
Now let’s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker Hani Hanjour presumably rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the pilot's cabin* with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the pilot's cabin* (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little chap with a box cutter—Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let’s ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.


So, let us assume that Hanjour gets control of Flight 77 without any problems (as did the 9/11 Commission)
QUOTE
After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there’s little point in looking outside—there’s nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he’d be faced with a bewildering array of instruments—nothing like he had seen in a Cessna 172. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position.

After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.


But let’s assume (as the 9/11 Commission seems to have done), that finding the target is not a problem
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there’s little point in looking outside—there’s nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he’d be faced with a bewildering array of instruments—nothing like he had seen in a Cessna 172. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position.

After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.


But let’s assume (as the 9/11 Commission seems to have done), that finding the target is not a problem
According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “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.” http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=4084


Again, let’s assume (as did the 9/11 Commission) that it was a commercial airliner with Hanjour at the controls, and that he manages to find the Pentagon, then decides he’s not heading for the right part of it, but finally manages to get the aircraft pointing at the section which, presumably, Osama had told him to hit
QUOTE
I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads. The DVD, “Loose Change – 1st Edition” contains an excellent clip of trucks being blown off the end of a runway when a jetliner powers up for take-off.)

Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.


A challenge to repeat Hanjour’s (alleged) incredible performance (something that the 9/11 Commission did not bother to look into)
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads. The DVD, “Loose Change – 1st Edition” contains an excellent clip of trucks being blown off the end of a runway when a jetliner powers up for take-off.)

Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.


A challenge to repeat Hanjour’s (alleged) incredible performance (something that the 9/11 Commission did not bother to look into)
The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.


Some pertinent information about stunt flying in passenger aircraft which the 9/11 Commission could easily have obtained, but chose not to
QUOTE
The author recently received a letter from a senior 757 captain currently flying with one of the airlines involved in 9/11. It contains the following statement:

“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”


Once again, I thoroughly recommend that the full article is studied, it is at http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?...2443b1122f8a9b5


Final comment: Although I did not start off with the express intention of commenting on the 9/11 Commission’s failure to look into the most obvious problems of hijacking an aircraft and then flying it into a building, my comments do point up the utter incompetence of that so-called investigative body. Unless, of course, it demonstrates an incredible competence in side-stepping those issues which would have knocked the original and official fairy tale into a cocked hat.
________________________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars may make the world a better place.
amadaun
QUOTE
What does a Special Forces Master Sergeant have to do with flying a plane?
What does an ATC controller have to do with the difficulty in flying a plane?

Hani got more training after that quote.



[1]Stan Goff, Master Sergeant, was sent to Vietnam in 1970-71, where he served with the 173rd Airborne Brigade as an infantryman.

......he was then reassigned back to Fort Bragg, to 3rd Special Forces Group, where he was given the task of running a Special Forces team, called an A-Detachment, in this case, Operational Detachment - A (ODA) 354, a military freefall parachute specialty team.
I guess he's been involved with military planes all of his life.
But I'm sure he's no match for the experiences of the great Arfa.

[2] The ATC was there. They monitor planes all day, its their friggin job.
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.

[3] Hahahahaha. He would have needed a helluva lot more training. About 3 years worth.
amadaun
Welcome Anthony Lawson!!


QUOTE
The author recently received a letter from a senior 757 captain currently flying with one of the airlines involved in 9/11. It contains the following statement:

“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”


According to Arthur, [but no one else in the world, with maybe the exception of the 9/11 investigating commission]~these manoeuvres are simple, a piece of cake.

Some other snippets of interest [to those with open minds, anyhoo]

The wrong plane........
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html
Flight 175 may not have even hit the south tower, according to this site. The planes proportions are out. They say it was a 767-300, not a 767-200 as reported.

The Pentagon Exit hole.........

The Pentagon exit hole is one of the most anomalous features of the Pentagon attack. It is 310 feet away from the impact area, near perfectly round and absolutely inexplicable in terms of the composite nose of a Boeing 757-200 "punching out". The other sore thumb about it is that it is avoided in ALL of the official reports. "It is not explained in the Building Performance Report, the Shoring Report, the Arlington County After-Action Report or the 9/11 Commission Report.". The only report by an engineer commenting on it was linked right here at Rense.com. This article will attempt to support Michael Meyer's position that a type of shape charge was used.

If any part of an aircraft survived after traveling through the 24 inch thick steel reinforced, Kevlar mesh "E ring façade, blast resistant windows, all of the interior walls, pillars and office contents of 3 rings of the Pentagon, then why didn't it show itself in the A-E drive? And how did it break such a clean hole and then decelerate in the space of 30 feet so as not to even chip the opposing "B" ring wall?

What is a rapid wall breaching kit?http://www.rense.com/general70/hole.htm
adoucette
I love it, Stan was an INFANTRYMAN.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

It was the WRONG PLANE.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

The Boeing system can be over-ridden by the pilot, so the first article is based entirely on a FALSE premise.

The second article has been dealt with in this thread.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=31136

Have fun.

Arthur
amadaun
QUOTE
I love it, Stan was an INFANTRYMAN.


Yeah, in the Airbourne Brigade.
Airbourne = planes, see the connection?

Also he was running a special forces military freefall parachute specialty team. When you parachute, generally its out of a plane.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I love it, Stan was an INFANTRYMAN.


Yeah, in the Airbourne Brigade.
Airbourne = planes, see the connection?

Also he was running a special forces military freefall parachute specialty team. When you parachute, generally its out of a plane.

The Boeing system can be over-ridden by the pilot, so the first article is based entirely on a FALSE premise.


Sorry, I just don't buy this.
As I have said previously, what would be the point of installing software to prevent pilots from making maneouvres that could endanger passengers, if the pilot could override it without punching in a code, or some sort of procedure?
And if this is so, would inexperienced pilots who could barely manage a Cessna, have knowledge of the procedure to do this?

I notice you have very little to say regarding Anthony Lawson's post?

We're waiting..........

adoucette
QUOTE (amadaun+Jun 19 2006, 08:23 PM)
QUOTE
I love it, Stan was an INFANTRYMAN.


Yeah, in the Airbourne Brigade.
Airbourne = planes, see the connection?

Also he was running a special forces military freefall parachute specialty team. When you parachute, generally its out of a plane.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I love it, Stan was an INFANTRYMAN.


Yeah, in the Airbourne Brigade.
Airbourne = planes, see the connection?

Also he was running a special forces military freefall parachute specialty team. When you parachute, generally its out of a plane.

The Boeing system can be over-ridden by the pilot, so the first article is based entirely on a FALSE premise.


Sorry, I just don't buy this.
As I have said previously, what would be the point of installing software to prevent pilots from making maneouvres that could endanger passengers, if the pilot could override it without punching in a code, or some sort of procedure?
And if this is so, would inexperienced pilots who could barely manage a Cessna, have knowledge of the procedure to do this?

I notice you have very little to say regarding Anthony Lawson's post?

We're waiting..........

Just because he jumped out of planes doesn't mean he knows ANYTHING about flying them.

His comment was about what it took to FLY THE JET in a particular manner.

You have shown NOTHING to indicate he had ANY TRAINING AT ALL in how to fly a plane.

See this: http://www.ntsb.gov/events/EA990/B767Cockpit.jpg

User posted image

That little button on the yoke disconnects the autopilot.

I don't CARE if you don't buy that it can't be easily disconnected.

See the L1011 crash in the Everglades in Miami, it "landed" in the Everglades when the pilot ACCIDENTALLY disconnected the Autopilot simply by leaning against the yoke a bit too hard when he leaned forward to see if the bulb in the landing gear down indicator light was broken.

This supports my contention that just moving the yoke is sufficient.

As to the plane limiting what you can do with it:

See NTSB report on the AA587 crash in 2001 in NY.

The PILOT RIPPED THE FRIGGIN TAIL off the A300 jet by use of the Rudder controls.

Go back into the NTSB logs and you will find any number of planes that have been damaged/crashed via over control.

The plane DOES NOT PROTECT YOU from over control.

They had PILOT Licenses, some had advanced licences, they could handle a Cessna. They had taken advanced Flight Sim classes in the 767s, so they would be familiar with how the plane was operated and how it handled. Quotes taken EARLY in their learning are not relevant. Get quotes from the LAST people who were with them in the cockpit.

All of Lawson's post was covered in the thread I posted the link to, I'm not going to rehash that again.

Arthur






Anthony Lawson
adoucette

All of Lawson's post was covered in the thread I posted the link to, I'm not going to rehash that again.

Which, presumably refers to this:

"The second article has been dealt with in this thread.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...t&p=31136"

It is a politicians trick to refer you to what he or she alleges he or she has already said ot written, on a particular matter, hoping that you will not check too closely. I did, and, on the page indicated, their is one mention of "ground cushion effect", and it is not by adoucette. There are no mentions of "ground effect".

You seem to enjoy posting long opinions, so would you mind pointing out exactly what you meant by "Lawson's post was covered in the thread I posted the link to..."?

Anthony
_______________________________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars may make the world a better place.
adoucette
QUOTE (Anthony Lawson+Jun 20 2006, 09:15 PM)
adoucette

All of Lawson's post was covered in the thread I posted the link to, I'm not going to rehash that again.

Which, presumably refers to this:

"The second article has been dealt with in this thread.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...t&p=31136"

It is a politicians trick to refer you to what he or she alleges he or she has already said ot written, on a particular matter, hoping that you will not check too closely.  I did, and, on the page indicated, their is one mention of "ground cushion effect", and it is not by adoucette.  There are no mentions of "ground effect".

You seem to enjoy posting long opinions, so would you mind pointing out exactly what you meant by "Lawson's post was covered in the thread I posted the link to..."?

Anthony
_______________________________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars may make the world a better place.

Simple, the material you posted has been posted EARLIER in that thread.

I refer to this type of post as Deja Moo

That's the eerie feeling you get that you've heard this BS before.

That's why they have a SEARCH FUNCTION.

For instance this quote:

QUOTE
Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.


was dealt with repeatedly


I did a search on Ground Effect in that thread and this was the LAST entry that came up, but it had been discussed many times before, in that same thread.

A poster by the name of galdur was CONVINCED a plane was breaking aerodynamic laws if it flew that close to the ground. He could produce NO aerodynamic laws to back up his assertions, nor in fact any evidence at all that flying close to the ground is a problem. Multiple pictures, links, explanations of Ground Effect etc were posted that refuted his assertion.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=88700


As to this Nila guy actually being a pilot, turns out THAT is also bogus.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread185820/pg1

Arthur
Anthony Lawson

I've checked out those other posts, and Nila Sagadevan, as an aeronautical engineer, seems to know what he is talking about. I have also found other articles which point out that ground effect is a real physical phenomenon.

The aircraft was flying low to the ground, as the broken light poles signify; it was not on a controlled glide slope, with its aiming point the junction between the wall of the Pentagon and the ground, as someone else has indicated.

Furthermore, the reason I was searching for material on ground effect was because I had experienced it myself, and the pilot of the aircraft I had just stepped out of gave me a full explanation of why he couldn't get the plane onto the runway until he'd reduced his speed and, therefore, the ground-effect air cushion which was keeping the plane from touching down.

That personal experience together with Nila Sagadevan's explanation (plus a few others), as well as the fact that the many videos, which would should have shown a 757 crashing, were stolen by the FBI and have never been see since, at least not by those of us who doubt the official story, convinces me that it is unlikely that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

Add to that the fact that the hole it was supposed to have made was, at the most, only 90 feet wide, with three support pillars still hanging in there, which would have reduced its "plane passage" dimension to about 80 feet, while the wingspan of a 757 is 124 feet, give or take a foot or two. And common sense leads me to believe that aircraft wings do not fold up and follow their fuselage into a confined space, except if they are designed to do that, as they are on some aircraft which land on ships. Just the weight of the engines makes that a ridiculous assertion.

Which makes it highly unlikely that what crashed into the Pentagon was a Boeing 757

Then there is the fact that two 19-ton Rolls Royce RB211 engines were never found, and conclusively identified, when they, rather than the fuselage, would have been more likely to reach the first inner roadway within the building, because of the greater density; mass to volume ratio. If the fuselage is given a nominal density of one, then the engines would have a relative density of at least four; possibly five.

Which makes it extremely unlikely that what crashed into the Pentagon was a Boeing 757.

Then there is the anomaly that all of the passengers were supposed to have been identified by their DNA, recovered from within the Pentagon, yet very little of the plane was recovered and identified, including that small piece that ended up near the highway, nor was there any attempt to reconstruct it, as is normally done, not only with crashed aircraft, but with the Space Shuttle, as well.

Then there is the fact that governments have been know to lie to their citizens in the past.

And why won't Boeing answer my e-mails about ground effect?

With all of the above suggesting that a lot of people have been hiding the truth, any sane person would be foolish, indeed, to believe what the politicians have told us, particularly as 9/11 was used as the clarion call to launch two disastrous and murderous wars, as well as unprecedented attacks upon the freedoms of those being asked to bear the costs, in human terms, as well as the ignominy of fighting them.

______________________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars may make the world a better place.
adoucette
If you agree with Nila that
QUOTE
its physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.
then FIND SOME EVIDENCE, besides this unsubstantiated quote to prove it.

You can't compare a pilot who is trying to make a SMOOTH landing in a plane at a low airspeed and high angle of attack (where ground effect is greatest) and thus has to deal with ground effect which NO ONE DISPUTES can lengthen a landing, with a HIGH SPEED JET with no flaps and a LOW angle of attack.

There is NOTHING WHICH PREVENTED THE JET from flying the way it did.

NOTHING.

User posted image
User posted image
User posted image

Now before you write back "those aren't 757s", remember ground effect doesn't know that.


Those aren't support pillars 'hanging in there" that's the second floor slab hanging down.

Actually the engines were found, one inside, the one that hit the generator trailer remained outside, and yes they have been identified. What comes out the other side is dependent on if it hits one or more of the interior columns first, not just your simplistic mass exercise. As far as DENSITY goes though, nothing is denser than the landing gear, and gee, guess what made it all the way through?

As we have seen, the low frame rates of the surveillance cameras are of little use in convincing idiots that it wasn't a 757.

Reconstructing aircraft is not NORMALLY done. It HAS been done, when we are trying to learn something about what precipitated a crash, but that OBVIOUSLY was NOT the case here, thus there was NOTHING to be gained by putting the plane back together.

Boeing won't return your emails for the OBVIOUS reason.

But since you are not likely to figure out the reason on your own maybe this article will help explain it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../18/MN73840.DTL

Arthur
Ed Wood
I cannot believe you retards are still seriously defending your Conspiracy theories.

There is no Conspiracy here.

There is no MOTIVE for a Conspiracy.

What is the motive for killing 3000 people?

Who would gain ANYTHING and what is it that they would gain by Killing 3000 people?



MOTIVE?
NONE!!!!!!
(Make BUSH and Republicans Look Bad.)

Who would gain?
NOBODY!!!!!!
(Democrats by making the Republican president look bad to get back at them for slamming on Clinton)

What would they gain?
NOTHING!!!!!!
(More of my and my Companies time and money spent going through the F#@*ed up Security at Airports and some federal UNION Jobs)

Hey maybe the Democrats were behind the whole thing

I'm sorry even a Brand new huge federal bureaucracy Complete with several thousand Union employees like the TSA and making republicans look bad are not enough to KILL 3000 People.


Maybe some of you Conspiracy theorists can present at the very least a MOTIVE.

Have a DAY huh.gif



sleep.gif
lala
osama is a cia operative and has close ties with the bush family for years with buisness


do u like false inteligence?


if so dont look here

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/articlesosama.html
lala
osama is a cia operative and has close ties with the bush family for years with buisness


do u like false inteligence?


if so dont look here

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/articlesosama.html


The MOTIVE is to make money many benifited from 9/11

larry silverstein 6 weeks before put an unsermountable ammount of insurance on wtc7 the most in history, coincidence? wake up....

"Cui Bono?"

"Cui Bono?" is Latin for "who benefits?"

Is there a connection between the rich flow of profit and market manipulations flowing from 9-11 and the stonewalling by the Administration and the agency members of the National Security Council?

Time has passed since September 11, 2001. As new budgets are approved, financial statements published, laws passed, taxes cut and stocks go up, it is easier to identify who benefited politically and financially from 9-11.

As we map out the financial "real deal" on 9-11, we realize there are three categories of people benefiting.

Richly Guilty: The first category of people who benefited were those who are guilty and complicit in designing, implementing and financing the 9-11 operation. On such a sophisticated and successful covert operation, the people responsible would have had budgets and financing and would have organized the operation to maximize their political and financial benefits. This is the nature of economic warfare.

Richly Opportunistic: The second category of people who benefited were those who were opportunistic in taking advantage of 9-11 as an economic and political event as soon as it happened. Some folks, such as money managers, are obligated as fiduciaries to be opportunistic. Others, such as government officials, may be opportunistic at the cost of ignoring their fiduciary obligations. As one retired banking executive said, "Let's face it, if the guys in Washington had been doing their job instead of helping their pals make money, 9-11 could never have happened."

Sustainably Na�ve: The third category of people who benefited where those who shared in the political and economic profits generated by the first two categories. Taking the position that, "money has no smell," the large number of people in this category are generally not cognizant of their complicity through the incentive system created by "voting with their money, time and attention."

Where to begin to determine the specifics of who benefited? This is a significant task for private citizens who do not have the rich flow of investigatory, intelligence and enforcement resources of government. Hence, a citizen led effort will need to break the task down into manageable collaborative pieces.

One way for global networks of researchers, blog authors and Internet media to start to build the "Cui Bono?" unanswered questions of 9-11 is to develop a framework that outlines the general areas of profiteering.

Top 20 Areas of 9-11 Profiteering

Here are my candidates for the top twenty profit flows resulting from or related to 9-11 and the response to 9-11:

**** # # # ****

Money Missing from the US Treasury

In fiscal 1999 and 2000, the Department of Defense (DOD) reported $3.3 trillion of undocumentable adjustments in the process of failing to produce audited financial statements. In the summer of 2001, the appropriations for DOD failed to report out of committee before the summer recess. The political tension between arms manufacturers and defense contractors who anticipated pay back from the Bush election victory and those pressing for federal spending and financing to conform to spending and securities law was resolved by 9-11.

The questions remain � who has the $3.3 trillion plus missing from the US Treasury? what is the role of the NY Federal Reserve Bank and its members as depository for the US government and agent for the Exchange Stabilization Fund? and why are we proposing to cut back social security rather than getting these resources back?

Useful Link:

Where is the Money?
http://www.whereisthemoney.org

US Stock Market Pump & Dump Fraud

At the time of 9-11, federal and state enforcement leaders were facing a mountain of documentation that up to $6 trillion had been fraudulently skimmed out of pension funds and retail stock holdings through insider trading and other forms of corporate and banking financial fraud and securities law violations.

The events of 9-11 are alleged to have destroyed significant amounts of documentation related to investigations against Wall Street firms and leading New York Federal Reserve members. Subsequent to 9-11, enforcement bureaucracies attention shifted in response to the Patriot Act and a shift in budgetary resources away from policing white collar crime by corporate and banking leadership."Cui Bono?"

"Cui Bono?" is Latin for "who benefits?"

Is there a connection between the rich flow of profit and market manipulations flowing from 9-11 and the stonewalling by the Administration and the agency members of the National Security Council?

Time has passed since September 11, 2001. As new budgets are approved, financial statements published, laws passed, taxes cut and stocks go up, it is easier to identify who benefited politically and financially from 9-11.

As we map out the financial "real deal" on 9-11, we realize there are three categories of people benefiting.

Richly Guilty: The first category of people who benefited were those who are guilty and complicit in designing, implementing and financing the 9-11 operation. On such a sophisticated and successful covert operation, the people responsible would have had budgets and financing and would have organized the operation to maximize their political and financial benefits. This is the nature of economic warfare.

Richly Opportunistic: The second category of people who benefited were those who were opportunistic in taking advantage of 9-11 as an economic and political event as soon as it happened. Some folks, such as money managers, are obligated as fiduciaries to be opportunistic. Others, such as government officials, may be opportunistic at the cost of ignoring their fiduciary obligations. As one retired banking executive said, "Let's face it, if the guys in Washington had been doing their job instead of helping their pals make money, 9-11 could never have happened."

Sustainably Na�ve: The third category of people who benefited where those who shared in the political and economic profits generated by the first two categories. Taking the position that, "money has no smell," the large number of people in this category are generally not cognizant of their complicity through the incentive system created by "voting with their money, time and attention."

Where to begin to determine the specifics of who benefited? This is a significant task for private citizens who do not have the rich flow of investigatory, intelligence and enforcement resources of government. Hence, a citizen led effort will need to break the task down into manageable collaborative pieces.

One way for global networks of researchers, blog authors and Internet media to start to build the "Cui Bono?" unanswered questions of 9-11 is to develop a framework that outlines the general areas of profiteering.

Top 20 Areas of 9-11 Profiteering

Here are my candidates for the top twenty profit flows resulting from or related to 9-11 and the response to 9-11:

**** # # # ****

Money Missing from the US Treasury

In fiscal 1999 and 2000, the Department of Defense (DOD) reported $3.3 trillion of undocumentable adjustments in the process of failing to produce audited financial statements. In the summer of 2001, the appropriations for DOD failed to report out of committee before the summer recess. The political tension between arms manufacturers and defense contractors who anticipated pay back from the Bush election victory and those pressing for federal spending and financing to conform to spending and securities law was resolved by 9-11.

The questions remain � who has the $3.3 trillion plus missing from the US Treasury? what is the role of the NY Federal Reserve Bank and its members as depository for the US government and agent for the Exchange Stabilization Fund? and why are we proposing to cut back social security rather than getting these resources back?

Useful Link:

Where is the Money?
http://www.whereisthemoney.org

US Stock Market Pump & Dump Fraud

At the time of 9-11, federal and state enforcement leaders were facing a mountain of documentation that up to $6 trillion had been fraudulently skimmed out of pension funds and retail stock holdings through insider trading and other forms of corporate and banking financial fraud and securities law violations.

The events of 9-11 are alleged to have destroyed significant amounts of documentation related to investigations against Wall Street firms and leading New York Federal Reserve members. Subsequent to 9-11, enforcement bureaucracies attention shifted in response to the Patriot Act and a shift in budgetary resources away from policing white collar crime by corporate and banking leadership.
Dlanod
Well, at least you've got it all figured out. It would be really scary to think that nobody was actually in control of the world. I would hate to think that it's all just a headless blunder operating under the illusion that someone is in control.

Heaven forbid that any "enemy" groups would want to kill us simply because of our way of life.

What if the world really was a collection of people with varying viewpoints, cultures, and ways of life? What if they really DIDN'T all just get along?! That would freak me out.

Thank you for pointing out that there truly is a "star chamber" of world controlling masters. Now I can sleep at night like never before. It all makes sense finally.

Thank God somebody is in control of all this!

--Dlanod ph34r.gif
Ed Wood
I would have never guessed some JEWISH guy runs the CIA, Al Qaeda, the Military industrial complex, Big Business, the current administration, and he is able to steal money from the Federal burocracy.


Does he Control the Democratic Party too?

I think he must why else would Bill Clinton have done the following.

1. Give classified missile guidance technology to the Chinese thereby starting a new space race giving the Military industrial complex the pretext to siphon off secret funds.

2. Let BP and Amoco Merge lessening the competition in the oil market benefiting Big Oil.

3. Allow the first World Trade Center to happen as a ploy to make Americans believe that Islamic terrorists exist after all we all know they are controlled by Larry Silverstein through his proxy Osama Bin laden in the CIA.


I must get to know this Larry Silverstein maybe he can give me an interest free loan.

Silly me I thought Islamic terrorist were in the business running a Jihad to destabilize democracies and install their caliphate all over the world to Kill the Infidels, the homosexuals, the women’s rights activists, to perform female circumcisions, Kill the Jews, Kill and or convert the (Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other religious group that is not Islam), to put an end to the pornographic Hollywood, Ballywood movie machine, to put the liberal media out of business, AND make us all follow SHARIA LAW as derived by MULLAS in the Qur'an.


Little did I know that some Jewish guy was responsible for this deception.

DUH! How Could I have missed it? ohmy.gif Derpa Derpa Allah

Yeah right
CFR
"We are still trapped by the mentality of conspiracy theories, one that has limited our capability to think.”

--Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the terrorist-supporting Hamas Government in the Palestinian Authority
Dodovier
Where R the 77 flight passengers?!!

CREW
Charles Burlingame of Herndon, Virginia, was the plane's captain. He is survived by a wife, a daughter and a grandson. He had more than 20 years of experience flying with American Airlines and was a former U.S. Navy pilot.

David Charlebois, who lived in Washington's Dupont Circle neighborhood, was the first officer on the flight. "He was handsome and happy and very centered," his neighbor Travis White, told The Washington Post. "His life was the kind of life I wanted to have some day."

Michele Heidenberger of Chevy Chase, Maryland, was a flight attendant for 30 years. She left behind a husband, a pilot, and a daughter and son.

Flight attendant Jennifer Lewis, 38, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the wife of flight attendant Kenneth Lewis. Flight attendant Kenneth Lewis, 49, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the husband of flight attendant Jennifer Lewis.

Renee May, 39, of Baltimore, Maryland, was a flight attendant.

PASSENGERS
Paul Ambrose, 32, of Washington, was a physician who worked with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the surgeon general to address racial and ethnic disparities in health. A 1995 graduate of Marshall University School of Medicine, Ambrose last year was named the Luther Terry Fellow of the Association of Teachers of Preventative Medicine.

Yeneneh Betru, 35, was from Burbank, California.

M.J. Booth

Bernard Brown, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. He was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Suzanne Calley, 42, of San Martin, California, was an employee of Cisco Systems Inc.

William Caswell
Sarah Clark, 65, of Columbia, Maryland, was a sixth-grade teacher at Backus Middle School in Washington. She was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Asia Cottom, 11, was a student at Backus Middle School in Washington. Asia was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

James Debeuneure, 58, of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, was a fifth-grade teacher at Ketcham Elementary School in Washington. He was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Rodney Dickens, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. He was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Eddie Dillard

Charles Droz

Barbara Edwards, 58, of Las Vegas, Nevada, was a teacher at Palo Verde High School in Las Vegas.

Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, of University Park, Maryland, was the director of research at ECOlogic Corp., a software engineering firm. He worked on data systems for NASA and also developed data systems for the study of global and regional environmental issues. Falkenburg was traveling with his wife, Leslie Whittingham, and their two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3.
Zoe Falkenberg, 8, of University Park, Maryland, was the daughter of Charles Falkenberg and Leslie Whittingham.

Dana Falkenberg, 3, of University Park, Maryland, was the daughter of Charles Falkenberg and Leslie Whittingham.

Joe Ferguson was the director of the National Geographic Society's geography education outreach program in Washington. He was accompanying a group of students and teachers on an educational trip to the Channel Islands in California. A Mississippi native, he joined the society in 1987. "Joe Feguson's final hours at the Geographic reveal the depth of his commitment to one of the things he really loved," said John Fahey Jr., the society's president. "Joe was here at the office until late Monday evening preparing for this trip. It was his goal to make this trip perfect in every way."

Wilson "Bud" Flagg of Millwood, Virginia, was a retired Navy admiral and retired American Airlines pilot.
Dee Flagg

Richard Gabriel

Ian Gray, 55, of Washington was the president of a health-care consulting firm.

Stanley Hall
, 68, was from Rancho Palos Verdes, California.

Bryan Jack, 48, of Alexandria, Virginia, was a senior executive at the Defense Department.
Steven D. "Jake" Jacoby, 43, of Alexandria, Virginia, was the chief operating officer of Metrocall Inc., a wireless data and messaging company.

Ann Judge, 49, of Virginia was the travel office manager for the National Geographic Society. She was accompanying a group of students and teachers on an educational trip to the Channel Islands in California. Society President John Fahey Jr. said one of his fondest memories of Judge is a voice mail she and a colleague once left him while they were rafting the Monkey River in Belize. "This was quintessential Ann -- living life to the fullest and wanting to share it with others," he said.

Chandler Keller, 29, was a Boeing propulsion engineer from El Segundo, California.

Yvonne Kennedy
Norma Khan, 45, from Reston, Virginia was a nonprofit organization manager.

Karen A. Kincaid, 40, was a lawyer with the Washington firm of Wiley Rein & Fielding. She joined the firm in 1993 and was part of the its telecommunications practice. She was married to Peter Batacan.

Norma Langsteuerle

Dong Lee

Dora Menchaca, 45, of Santa Monica, California, was the associate director of clinical research for a biotech firm.
Christopher Newton, 38, of Anaheim, California, was president and chief executive officer of Work-Life Benefits, a consultation and referral service. He was married and had two children. Newton was on his way back to Orange County to retrieve his family's yellow Labrador, who had been left behind until they could settle into their new home in Arlington, Virginia.

Barbara Olson, 45, was a conservative commentator who often appeared on CNN and was married to U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson. She twice called her husband as the plane was being hijacked and described some details, including that the attackers were armed with knives. She had planned to take a different flight, but she changed it at the last minute so that she could be with her husband on his birthday. She worked as an investigator for the House Government Reform Committee in the mid-1990s and later worked on the staff of Senate Minority Whip Don Nickles.
Ruben Ornedo, 39, of Los Angeles, California, was a Boeing propulsion engineer.

Robert Penniger, 63, of Poway, California, was an electrical engineer with BAE Systems.
Lisa Raines, 42, was senior vice president for government relations at the Washington office of Genzyme, a biotechnology firm. She was from Great Falls, Virginia, and was married to Stephen Push. She worked with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on developing a new policy governing cellular therapies, announced in 1997. She also worked on other major health-care legislation.
Todd Reuben, 40, of Potomac, Maryland, was a tax and business lawyer.

John Sammartino

Diane Simmons

George Simmons

Mari-Rae Sopper of Santa Barbara, California, was a women's gymnastics coach at the University of California at Santa Barbara. She had just gotten the post August 31 and was making the trip to California to start work.

Bob Speisman, 47, was from Irvington, New York.

Hilda Taylor was a sixth-grade teacher at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. She was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Leonard Taylor was from Reston, Virginia.

Leslie A. Whittington, 45, was from University Park, Maryland. The professor of public policy at Georgetown University in Washington was traveling with her husband, Charles Falkenberg, 45, and their two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3. They were traveling to Los Angeles to catch a connection to Australia. Whittington had been named a visiting fellow at Australian National University in Canberra.

John Yamnicky, 71, was from Waldorf, Maryland.

Vicki Yancey
Shuyin Yang

Yuguag Zheng

TOO IMPORTANT JOBS...NO?!?!?!?!
Ed Wood
QUOTE (Dodovier+Sep 11 2006, 08:29 PM)
Where R the 77 flight passengers?!!

CREW
Charles Burlingame of Herndon, Virginia, was the plane's captain. He is survived by a wife, a daughter and a grandson. He had more than 20 years of experience flying with American Airlines and was a former U.S. Navy pilot.

David Charlebois, who lived in Washington's Dupont Circle neighborhood, was the first officer on the flight. "He was handsome and happy and very centered," his neighbor Travis White, told The Washington Post. "His life was the kind of life I wanted to have some day."

Michele Heidenberger of Chevy Chase, Maryland, was a flight attendant for 30 years. She left behind a husband, a pilot, and a daughter and son.

Flight attendant Jennifer Lewis, 38, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the wife of flight attendant Kenneth Lewis. Flight attendant Kenneth Lewis, 49, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the husband of flight attendant Jennifer Lewis.

Renee May, 39, of Baltimore, Maryland, was a flight attendant.

PASSENGERS
Paul Ambrose, 32, of Washington, was a physician who worked with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the surgeon general to address racial and ethnic disparities in health. A 1995 graduate of Marshall University School of Medicine, Ambrose last year was named the Luther Terry Fellow of the Association of Teachers of Preventative Medicine.

Yeneneh Betru, 35, was from Burbank, California.

M.J. Booth

Bernard Brown, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. He was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Suzanne Calley, 42, of San Martin, California, was an employee of Cisco Systems Inc.

William Caswell
Sarah Clark, 65, of Columbia, Maryland, was a sixth-grade teacher at Backus Middle School in Washington. She was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Asia Cottom, 11, was a student at Backus Middle School in Washington. Asia was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

James Debeuneure, 58, of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, was a fifth-grade teacher at Ketcham Elementary School in Washington. He was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Rodney Dickens, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. He was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Eddie Dillard

Charles Droz

Barbara Edwards, 58, of Las Vegas, Nevada, was a teacher at Palo Verde High School in Las Vegas.

Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, of University Park, Maryland, was the director of research at ECOlogic Corp., a software engineering firm. He worked on data systems for NASA and also developed data systems for the study of global and regional environmental issues. Falkenburg was traveling with his wife, Leslie Whittingham, and their two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3.
Zoe Falkenberg, 8, of University Park, Maryland, was the daughter of Charles Falkenberg and Leslie Whittingham.

Dana Falkenberg, 3, of University Park, Maryland, was the daughter of Charles Falkenberg and Leslie Whittingham.

Joe Ferguson was the director of the National Geographic Society's geography education outreach program in Washington. He was accompanying a group of students and teachers on an educational trip to the Channel Islands in California. A Mississippi native, he joined the society in 1987. "Joe Feguson's final hours at the Geographic reveal the depth of his commitment to one of the things he really loved," said John Fahey Jr., the society's president. "Joe was here at the office until late Monday evening preparing for this trip. It was his goal to make this trip perfect in every way."

Wilson "Bud" Flagg of Millwood, Virginia, was a retired Navy admiral and retired American Airlines pilot.
Dee Flagg

Richard Gabriel

Ian Gray, 55, of Washington was the president of a health-care consulting firm.

Stanley Hall
, 68, was from Rancho Palos Verdes, California.

Bryan Jack, 48, of Alexandria, Virginia, was a senior executive at the Defense Department.
Steven D. "Jake" Jacoby, 43, of Alexandria, Virginia, was the chief operating officer of Metrocall Inc., a wireless data and messaging company.

Ann Judge, 49, of Virginia was the travel office manager for the National Geographic Society. She was accompanying a group of students and teachers on an educational trip to the Channel Islands in California. Society President John Fahey Jr. said one of his fondest memories of Judge is a voice mail she and a colleague once left him while they were rafting the Monkey River in Belize. "This was quintessential Ann -- living life to the fullest and wanting to share it with others," he said.

Chandler Keller, 29, was a Boeing propulsion engineer from El Segundo, California.

Yvonne Kennedy
Norma Khan, 45, from Reston, Virginia was a nonprofit organization manager.

Karen A. Kincaid, 40, was a lawyer with the Washington firm of Wiley Rein & Fielding. She joined the firm in 1993 and was part of the its telecommunications practice. She was married to Peter Batacan.

Norma Langsteuerle

Dong Lee

Dora Menchaca, 45, of Santa Monica, California, was the associate director of clinical research for a biotech firm.
Christopher Newton, 38, of Anaheim, California, was president and chief executive officer of Work-Life Benefits, a consultation and referral service. He was married and had two children. Newton was on his way back to Orange County to retrieve his family's yellow Labrador, who had been left behind until they could settle into their new home in Arlington, Virginia.

Barbara Olson, 45, was a conservative commentator who often appeared on CNN and was married to U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson. She twice called her husband as the plane was being hijacked and described some details, including that the attackers were armed with knives. She had planned to take a different flight, but she changed it at the last minute so that she could be with her husband on his birthday. She worked as an investigator for the House Government Reform Committee in the mid-1990s and later worked on the staff of Senate Minority Whip Don Nickles.
Ruben Ornedo, 39, of Los Angeles, California, was a Boeing propulsion engineer.

Robert Penniger, 63, of Poway, California, was an electrical engineer with BAE Systems.
Lisa Raines, 42, was senior vice president for government relations at the Washington office of Genzyme, a biotechnology firm. She was from Great Falls, Virginia, and was married to Stephen Push. She worked with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on developing a new policy governing cellular therapies, announced in 1997. She also worked on other major health-care legislation.
Todd Reuben, 40, of Potomac, Maryland, was a tax and business lawyer.

John Sammartino

Diane Simmons

George Simmons

Mari-Rae Sopper of Santa Barbara, California, was a women's gymnastics coach at the University of California at Santa Barbara. She had just gotten the post August 31 and was making the trip to California to start work.

Bob Speisman, 47, was from Irvington, New York.

Hilda Taylor was a sixth-grade teacher at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. She was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Leonard Taylor was from Reston, Virginia.

Leslie A. Whittington, 45, was from University Park, Maryland. The professor of public policy at Georgetown University in Washington was traveling with her husband, Charles Falkenberg, 45, and their two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3. They were traveling to Los Angeles to catch a connection to Australia. Whittington had been named a visiting fellow at Australian National University in Canberra.

John Yamnicky, 71, was from Waldorf, Maryland.

Vicki Yancey
Shuyin Yang

Yuguag Zheng

TOO IMPORTANT JOBS...NO?!?!?!?!

Dodovier,

I'll answer this for all the conspiracy theorists.

They are DEAD. They all DIED when the plane that crashed into the pentagon.

Here is a high resolution photograph of the crash site where they DIED.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Lawn1.jpg

So please let give the memory of these PEOPLE (yes, actual individual men women and children that before the plane was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon by Islamic terrorists WERE ALIVE) the respect they deserve and stop this conspiracy nonsense lest we let it happen again by spending wasted energy pointing the finger at ghosts and conspiratorial nonsense.
Dodovier
AH yeah!

I see! It's so clear... Sorry... dry.gif
I pray for the souls of that innocent people but...
I'll be very very very angry with all that secretism and lies.
Is not the first time...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-Ameri...f_the_USS_Maine

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p119_Stolley.html

The war and the death moves a lot of money.
They r not telling us ALL the truth.

Always the same...


amadaun
Wood 'Ed.........looked at your Wiki pic..........but I still see no evidence of a plane.
laugh.gif
amadaun
QUOTE
*****,

No one thinks the Fuel fire caused the collapse.
What it DID do was ignite the TONS of office material across many floors.
That and the damage done by the collision, including disloging the critical sprayed on steel insulation caused the collapse.

You can read ALL ABOUT it in the NIST report.

Or you can show up on forums like this and wave your hands around.


I had to chuckle at this from Arthur, back at the start of the topic. Just been checking out the Physics911 site.....


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
*****,

No one thinks the Fuel fire caused the collapse.
What it DID do was ignite the TONS of office material across many floors.
That and the damage done by the collision, including disloging the critical sprayed on steel insulation caused the collapse.

You can read ALL ABOUT it in the NIST report.

Or you can show up on forums like this and wave your hands around.


I had to chuckle at this from Arthur, back at the start of the topic. Just been checking out the Physics911 site.....


The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel.  However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures.  (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.)  This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.

By Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University


http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones.htm
amadaun
Back on topic........

QUOTE
Boeing 757 Engine and Wings in Relation to Impact

As can be seen in the drawing, the engines could only have penetrated the building by being allowed to slip between support columns. This drawing was made before the authors viewed the ASCE engineering report, but it happens to match it rather closely. There would be no way, of course, for the wings to enter the building without taking out any support columns in their path. Structural integrity of the wings, as well as the lack of any holes on either side of the main initial entrance hole, preclude the wings from breaking into eight-foot fragments which then passed into the building individually. In any case, a majority of windows on the ground floor (not to mention all floors above them) remained unbroken after the crash
.

All this from the Physics911 site~~
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings.htm

Relevant dimensions of Pentagon (Infoplease, 2003)

height of building: 23.6 m (77' 3")
inter-window distance: 3.1 m (10' 2") (derived)
inter-column distance: 3.1 m (10' 2") (derived)

Relevant dimensions of Boeing 757-200 (Flugzeugtriebwerke 2003)

wingspan: 38.1 m (125')
inter-engine span:
center-to-centre: 16.3 m (49' 11") (derived)
outside span: 18.5 m (60' 8") (derived)
max. diameter of fuselage: 3.6 m (12' 4")
max. height of fuselage: 4.0 m (13' 2")

The mostly visualy convincing evidence is the picture of the Pentagon grounds with the jet superimposed on it.
It just ain't happenin'
amadaun
Another interesting point that I was not aware of, is the lack of serial numbers recovered from any of the plane crash sites on 9/11.

George Nelson Colonel USAF [retired]

QUOTE
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.


Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible


Hmmm.
Comments anyone?
Peerless
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 24 2006, 01:47 PM)


There is NOTHING WHICH PREVENTED THE JET from flying the way it did.


how about this: explain how a civilian with no military training (which includes direct experience with high G forces), wearing no G-suit, was able to make a 5-7G military maneuver and make a direct hit?

I breathlessly await your intelligent rebuttal..
adoucette
By what STRETCH of the IMAGINATION have you determined there was a 5-7 G maneuver involved?

Arthur
amadaun
Hey Peerless, don't forget the guy flying the plane couldn't even fly a Cessna successfully.
Tho Arthur assures us his flying had improved by the time he got behind the controls of the Boeing.
Must have been the biggest upskill in history. laugh.gif
adoucette
QUOTE (amadaun+Nov 5 2006, 06:32 PM)
Hey Peerless, don't forget the guy flying the plane couldn't even fly a Cessna successfully.
Tho Arthur assures us his flying had improved by the time he got behind the controls of the Boeing.
Must have been the biggest upskill in history. laugh.gif

Hard to not be able to fly and also have both a PRIVATE and COMMERCIAL license.

Arthur
Alan.morse@malmstrom.af.mil
all u queers shut the hell up! tongue.gif
Latrosicarius
Alan, that was such a great idea to post a derogatory remark with your real name and official Malmstrom AFB email address... Not that I care, but jeeze, how dumb can you be?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.