9/11 conspiracy theories

[Tony]

Open mindFlight 77 could not possibly have flown at those speeds which they said they did,without going into a high-speed stall."

 

Speeds? How does that work then? I was also under the impression that it was pretty much horizontal when it hit the pentagon.

[ann_a]

Another site..

Honjour flew hundreds of miles with no air-traffic control assistance,flying by the seat of his pants,staring at nothing but the clouds.was then able to perform this detailed manoeuvre.It required making a tight 270-degree turn whilst descending seven thousand feet, then levelling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagonto knock down lamp-posts.After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first floor leveland at such a shallow angle that an engine penetrated three rings of the building while managing to avoid touching the lawn.And he had to do this whilst flying over 400mph.

[ann_a]

No it wasn't.

[ann_a]

Later......

[Tony]

More nonsense. KenH will elaborate no doubt (if he can be bothered)

 

"No air traffic control"? "Seat of the pants"? How do you think aircraft find their way around the rest of the time? They navigate to their destination of course. It's not difficult when trained and every pilot does it every time they fly. As for "flying through cloud" - do you not remember that the skies on that day were remarkably clear and blue for the time of year. Visbility over washington was apparently "unlimited".

 

The impact speed may have been 400 mph, but that's different to the cruise or manoeuvring speed, and in any case it's still of no consequence to a trained pilot. As you keep being told, the flight path wasn't a precision flight plan. It was like hitting a barn door with a bazooka.

 

In closing, here's a quote from one of those tricky things that "Truth Seekers" keep ignoring - an independant eye witness.

 

Richard Cox was so close to American Airlines Flight 77 that he could see the rivets on the underbelly of the huge plane. The veteran Arlington County motor officer, who was setting up cones at a Columbia Pike intersection less than a half-mile away, just knew something wasn’t right.

 

“I heard it first and then it came right over my head,” said the 44-year-old father of three. “The weather was perfect, I remember — it wasn’t too hot, it wasn’t too cold.”

[KenH]

More nonsense. KenH will elaborate no doubt (if he can be bothered)

 

I can certainly easily explain part of it.

 

Air traffic control is irrelevant to navigation. Navigation is done using radio beacons and GPS. although even then the GPS is often used to identify/check the position of a radio beacon. To navigate from anywhere in the world to anywhere else in the world, you simply enter the position you want to go to into a navigation system or simpe, GPS. On the simplest systems you simply hit a "goto" button and then either put in the name of an airport, a beacon or even a lat/long.

 

On the flights which were hijacked they will have had a navigation computer called an FMS but also backup navigation systens such as one that looks at radio beacons. The hijackers took courses where they learned about the FMS, and they also bought a simulator for the PC, which is what most airline pilots start with these days.

 

However, even without any navigation equipment working they would easily have found new York and then they would have aimed at the really big buildings. Every aircraft is also fitted with an old fashioned compass but also modern ones which show direction on the display. If you know roughly where you are then you can head off in a compass direction for a specified time and you will see the city. This is how everyone managed to fly before there were any electronic gadgets. Lindbergh, for example, manged to fly from New York to Paris and to find a small aerodrome at night after flying 33 hours and his only tools were a map, compass and stopwatch.

 

You don't have to fly by the "seat of your pants" you can use the instruments in the cockpit which are essentially the same on every modern aircraft. What exactly is "seat of your pants"? If it means keeping the aircraft level by looking out of the window then this is how everyone learns to fly.

 

The sharp turn is another one of these silly fantasies because it sounds really hard to make a tight turn but actually it is a case of turning the yoke. The harder you turn the yoke the tighter you turn. The hardest bit about a tight turn is to keep the aircraft level in the turn as the natural tendency is for it to rapidly descent, which is called a spiral dive. If you simply make a rapid turn without either adding power or pulling up the nose then the aircaft falls because it loses lift when the wings are at sharp angles. The result is a rapid descent. Of course you can also make precision turns by simply turning the dial on the autopilot which will make a turn that takes 2 minutes for 360 degrees. If the autopilot was used then a turn of 270 degrees would take 1 minute 30.

[ann_a]

So your'e saying it was a simple manoeuvre?...Okay...

And he just happened to hit the only part of the Pentagon that shortly before had been re-inforced...another coincidence?

[KenH]

So your'e saying it was a simple manoeuvre?...Okay...

And he just happened to hit the only part of the Pentagon that shortly before had been re-inforced...another coincidence?

 

 

He came in along the river because this is an easy feature to find. He then will have had to decend and to turn back towards the Pentagon which will have taken him to the far side. I have no idea if there is any truth in the idea that it was reinforced, but why would they do this as part of a conspiracy?

[KenH]

So your'e saying it was a simple manoeuvre?...Okay...

And he just happened to hit the only part of the Pentagon that shortly before had been re-inforced...another coincidence?

 

 

Since you like third party web sites and videos, here are two for you:-

 

The first is a web site where an ex low level military pilot has analysed the route, more for his own peace of mind than anything else. Whilst I don't exactly share his opinion on everything he says, he has clearly done some research and calculations. Perhaps the most telling phrase he uses on his site is:-

 

This would explain the circuitous 270 degree turn that was made to the impact point

 

He doesn't refer to the turn in any hysterical language, he calls it "circuitous" and calculates it would need 30 degrees of bank at 270 knots. (the angle of bank is greater at greater speeds for the same turning circle).

 

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm

 

 

The next video is a simulation of the flight hitting the pentagon using simulation software and checking this against the images from security cameras. This shows that it was a 757 for those few deluded souls who think it might have been a missile.

 

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm

 

At the end of the video are images of parts of the aircraft shoing it was not a missile.

[fnkysknky]

You've put the same link twice KenH - any chance of the other one as I'd like to see it Ta.