ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags flight 77 , flight data recorder

Reply
Old 24th August 2006, 06:14 AM   #1
realitybites
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,066
Flight 77 Animation

Courtesy of our buddy JohnDoe with the data from the FDR.

Something I learned from watching this is that not only does the data recorder give info on airspeed, altitude, etc... It is also able to tell whether or not the pilot fears being intercepted.

Something I didn't know before, but know now.

Knowing's half the battle.

Yo JohnDoe!
realitybites is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 06:46 AM   #2
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,251
Are there any pilots here who can comment on this?
Where's Billzilla when you need him?
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:03 AM   #3
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,627
Originally Posted by realitybites View Post
Courtesy of our buddy JohnDoe with the data from the FDR.

Something I learned from watching this is that not only does the data recorder give info on airspeed, altitude, etc... It is also able to tell whether or not the pilot fears being intercepted.

Something I didn't know before, but know now.

Knowing's half the battle.

Yo JohnDoe!
Amazing. Who knew that you could read a pilot's mind from a flight data simulation?
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:06 AM   #4
realitybites
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,066
I think it's telling that the focus of the CTers now seems to be not on what hit the Pentagon, but what hit the lightpoles.

They have a flight data recorder that shows a passenger airliner diving into the Pentagon, but are still questioning whether a passenger airliner dove into the Pentagon. Why?

.... Because of lightpoles. They have become this movement's equivalent of the 'magic bullet'.
realitybites is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:12 AM   #5
MarkyX
Master Poster
 
MarkyX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,157
Speaking of Light Poles, anyone have some good photos of all of the light poles and the generator that was hit?
__________________
MarkyX's Haunted Bloghouse - Read my boredom
MarkyX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:33 AM   #6
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,251
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=11381

More of JDX's work on the FDR material.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 08:28 AM   #7
Beleth
FAQ Creator
 
Beleth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,124
Once again, a lot of questions, with the implied answers being nothing like the reasonable answers...

"The Pentagon Straight Ahead: Why start this turn? Why not push the nose straight down into the Pentagon?"
Implied Answer: He was incompetent.
Reasonable Answer: He knew what his objective was, and hitting the Pentagon at the angle that maneuvering the plan in that fashion would not achieve that objective.

"This pilot doesn't seem concerned about intercept.. ???"
Implied answer: He knew that there wasn't going to be any.
Reasonable answers: He was concerned but knew he couldn't do anything to prevent it; he had lots of other things on his mind at the time; he figured that no one would shoot him down over a city full of civilians.

"wow... no F-16's? No F-15's? The WTC has just been hit! Where are our defenses?"
Implied answer: The government was in on this all along.
Reasonable answer: The US didn't have defenses against this kind of attack at the time. Fighter jets take time to deploy even if we did have defenses against this kind of attack. The previous attack was hundreds of miles away; if any defenses would have been deployed, it would have been there.

"For someone who was refused to rent a 172 because he couldn't control it... He sure is doing a pretty good job in this 757 without having any training in type."
Implied answer: It was someone else piloting the plane.
Reasonable answer:Yes, he is. He has planned this moment for months, if not years, and he's giving it 110% of his concentration. Besides, the implication in the first question was that he was incompetent to fly this airplane. Now the implication is that he was too competent for the amount of training he received. Which is it?

"Still not a worry in the world of being intercepted. Hmmm...."
Implied answer: See question 2 above.
Reasonable answer: See question 2 above. There is no reason why he would be any more concerned with interception now than he was a minute and a half ago. Besides, it is unclear what counter-interception steps the questioner thinks would be appropriate for the pilot of a 757. Shields up, red alert, perhaps? Tell Chewbacca to punch it?

"Anyone have a book to read while this maneuver is completed? Where is the intercept?!?!?!?!?!?"
Implied answer: See above.
Reasonable answer: Chewbacca has apparently still not punched it. Besides, every FDR animation I have ever seen takes this long for anything to happen.

"Cue the Top Gun Music[.] Watch this incredible control and precision. Keep an eye on the yoke."
Implied answer: Someone with better training than the terrorists had was piloting.
Reasonable answer: He's coming in for the terrorist equivalent of a landing. It is not unreasonable to compensate more for small changes in the plane's orientation at that time, since failures have bigger consequences if the pilot doesn't.
__________________
Administrator Emeritus, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forum
Beleth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 08:34 AM   #8
Kent1
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,179
Originally Posted by MarkyX View Post
Speaking of Light Poles, anyone have some good photos of all of the light poles and the generator that was hit?
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/033.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
Kent1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 09:14 AM   #9
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,545
Originally Posted by Beleth View Post
"For someone who was refused to rent a 172 because he couldn't control it... He sure is doing a pretty good job in this 757 without having any training in type."
I thought the animation made him look like a terrible pilot. His altitude is all over the place. The flight path looks like a roller coaster.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 09:36 AM   #10
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,458
Originally Posted by Kent1 View Post
That's an awesome video. Thanks.
KingMerv00 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 10:24 AM   #11
IXP
Graduate Poster
 
IXP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,392
"The Pentagon Straight Ahead: Why start this turn? Why not push the nose straight down into the Pentagon?"

I am a pilot. The reason is quite simple, he was too high. You cannot simply point an aircraft at a point on the ground and hit it. If you go a too steep and angle, the airspeed will increase to the point where the plane is not controllable. A highly skilled pilot might have made the steep dive and hit the target, but a low skilled pilot probably would not, so he did just what he should have to be successful.

ixp
__________________
"When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar
IXP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 10:27 AM   #12
Joytown
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 65
Actually the watching the flight path reconstruction was quite interesting and a bit chilling. The comments, on the other hand, are beyond amusing:

Quote:
"The Pentagon Straight Ahead: Why start this turn? Why not push the nose straight down into the Pentagon?"
At least one explaination why - note the altimeter at this point: Altitude = 7900 feet. Note how close the plane is the pentagon at this moment.


Quote:
"This pilot doesn't seem concerned about intercept.. ???"
I didn't realize the "Pilot Concern" was one of the data points the FDR tracked.

Quote:
"wow... no F-16's? No F-15's? The WTC has just been hit! Where are our defenses?"
I didn't realize that F16 and F15 air defense data was included on the AA77 FDR. For all we know based on the data being simulated here, there could have been a squadron of F-16's buzzing the airspace.

Quote:
"For someone who was refused to rent a 172 because he couldn't control it... He sure is doing a pretty good job in this 757 without having any training in type."
Boy my (unprofessional, amateur) observation is that he looked like a rookie pilot, bouncing all over the place. And the Cessna wasn't rented to him because he "couldn't control it" at all, it was because he had "trouble" controlling and landing it. And while there's no proof he had 757 training specifically, there is evidence he had 737 simulator time.

Quote:
"Still not a worry in the world of being intercepted. Hmmm...."
How exactly would have "a worry of being intercepted" manifested itself in this simulation or in the AA FDR data?

Quote:
"Anyone have a book to read while this maneuver is completed? Where is the intercept?!?!?!?!?!?"
I'm confused a little by this. Is this implying that the manouver was taking too long to perform? Was there some prescribed amount of time it shuold have taken? I was under the impression (from the ATC comments) that it was actually a lot more severe and faster than one a commercial jet woud normally use. And again, more questions about an intercept. I'm confused - does the 757 have airdefense warning mechanisms that would have altered the pilot to a fighter jet intercept? Would these have shown up on the FDR?

Quote:
"Cue the Top Gun Music[.] Watch this incredible control and precision. Keep an eye on the yoke."
Top Gun? No - a Top Gun move would have been to aim at the side of the Pentagon, then pull up at the last second and do a barrel-roll flyby at 500MPH. This looks like someone pointing an airplane straight at an object and hitting it.

Quote:
"The recording stops here. At 180 Pressure Altitude above the light poles. The actual altitude of this aircraft is 480 feet. Too high to hit the light poles"
I don't know enough about these measurements to be able to comment intelligently, although I sense some mixing of numbers. What is "pressure altitude"? Why is this being stated as "above the lightpoles". What's the difference between that and actual altitude? Is it "above the ground" or "above sea level". Also - how far away from the Pentagon is the aircraft are these last numbers are recorded?

ETA: I would ask these questions directly to JDX on the LC forum, but of course I've been banned over for asking him these exact kinds of questions.

-Joytown

Last edited by Joytown; 24th August 2006 at 10:33 AM.
Joytown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 10:53 AM   #13
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,458
Quote:
"The recording stops here. At 180 Pressure Altitude above the light poles. The actual altitude of this aircraft is 480 feet. Too high to hit the light poles"
Um...then how did they get knocked down?
KingMerv00 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 10:55 AM   #14
Joytown
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by KingMerv00 View Post
Um...then how did they get knocked down?
Squibs.
Joytown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 10:57 AM   #15
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,458
Originally Posted by Joytown View Post
Squibs.
Squibs bend things?

Edit: AND create the holographic illusion of a jumbo jet?
KingMerv00 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 11:15 AM   #16
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,742
Originally Posted by KingMerv00 View Post
Squibs bend things?

Edit: AND create the holographic illusion of a jumbo jet?
Low flying kite with daylight stealth technology.
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 11:26 AM   #17
realitybites
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by KingMerv00 View Post
Squibs bend things?

Edit: AND create the holographic illusion of a jumbo jet?
Klingons/Romulans. CTers claim 9/11 was a pretext for war in the Middle East. Needless to say, this is extremely short-sighted.

Bush wanted to go universal.
realitybites is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 12:34 PM   #18
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I thought the animation made him look like a terrible pilot. His altitude is all over the place. The flight path looks like a roller coaster.
Did you ever see graphs of the FDR altitude data? From the time that the plane turned around and started heading to DC, there were long periods of solidly controlled altitude (flat lines), followed by periods where it looked like they were on a roller coaster. Obviously, Hanjour knew how to engage the autopilot, but at times when it wasn't in control, he had a hard time with altitude.

But the deal is, when you're trying to hold altitude, you are relying on your instruments, not nearly as much visual cues. You have to find the right pitch angle at that speed that results in a constand altitude, then if you notice that you're gaining, you have to push the nose down, but it's easy to over-correct, and all of this is done with instruments, therefore it takes more experience and skill. On the other hand, hitting a building is a visual thing - point the nose at the building. You can see from the FDR data that the altitude looked like a roller coaster up until the point where he made the final descent, then it was a straight line in.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 01:04 PM   #19
Yoink
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,936
According to JohnDoeX, the plane could fly perfectly happily into the building without striking the lamp standards. If that's the case, why go to the amazingly difficult task of faking their destruction? I mean, there were witnesses to the lamp standards being knocked over--are all those witnesses part of the conspiracy? What about the people who had to wire them with explosives? If you were planning to do a fake plane strike against the Pentagon, why would you throw in this gratuitous detail which makes it so much more likely that your cover will get blown?

Even more troubling: the question about the plane's altitude seems to be throwing doubt on the existence of the plane at all (surely no one is suggesting that a plane hit the pentagon but they faked the light poles anyway?). But then what's the stuff about "watch the joystick on approach"? If the whole FDR is bogus information for a flight that never happened, what's the point in doing a "fake expert pilot" for the last few seconds of the flight?

Has anyone ever come across a CT theory or theorist that wasn't just absurd on its face?
Yoink is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 01:47 PM   #20
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
Originally Posted by Joytown
"The recording stops here. At 180 Pressure Altitude above the light poles. The actual altitude of this aircraft is 480 feet. Too high to hit the light poles"
1. Huh? Altimeter setting of 29.92 (when the hijackers took over the plane, at 33-35,000 feet well west of DC). If they don't change it, we have a 300 foot error between MSL and AGL? That means altimeter setting of a high pressure system, 30.22, in the Washington area. Without the actual barometric pressure setting at Reagan was that morning at about that time (1000 Local time would suffice) it is hard to analyze.

2. Without that info, where do they get "actuallly 480?'" Radar Altimeter?

The plane, when it hit the light poles, was a second or two away from impact at 460 knots to an impact point about 40 feet above mean sea level. At 3600 fpm it would take 5 seconds to sink 300 feet. I think the simulation stops before the plane went over the parking lot.

At 460 knots = 7.5nm per minute = 15,000 yds per minute = 45,000 feet per minute = 750 feet per second = 2.5 football fields per second. Are the light poles some 3750 feet from the wall of the Pentagon's E Ring that was hit?

Speed: Think "low pass" by a Blue Angels solo pilot for how fast they were going, roughly.
Quote:
What is "pressure altitude"?
Pressure altitude is referenced to local barometric pressure, which is measured in inches of mercury by a barometer. Pressue above mean sea level for that pressure setting. Standard day at sea level is 15 deg C 29.92 " Hg.
Quote:
Why is this being stated as "above the lightpoles". What's the difference between that and actual altitude?
They are full of beans, perhaps?
Quote:
Is it "above the ground" or "above sea level".
To get Light poles "above sea level" altitude, add height of lightpole to elevation of parking lot above sea level. (roughly 15-30 feet?)
See my earlier post, 2641about sea level and Pentagon, and the light poles.

Quote:
Also - how far away from the Pentagon is the aircraft are these last numbers are recorded?
Isn't that the question? FDR isn't real time, it is slices of time. Whoever made the emulation did what manipulation of raw data? I smell a conspiracy.

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 03:57 PM   #21
Joytown
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 65
Thanks DR for that ..as well as your linked post. Makes a lot more sense now.

Even though I have only the scantest of knowledge in the aviation arena, that last comment in the video simulation smelled very fishy. Shick, eh?

-Joytown
Joytown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 06:32 PM   #22
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Just to add a little to what DR said... I Google Earthed the area in question and the elevation is 37 feet around where the poles were knocked down. If those things are 30 feet tall, we have a 757 at 65' pressure altitude.

But, as DR said, error is easy to come by when dealing with baro altitude data. When flights reach 18,000', the pilots dial the baro setting on the altimeter at 29.92. Is it possible to get the ATIS info from DCA that morning DR? Someone has to have it. In fact, ATC recordings from Dulles should give altimeter info on clearance right? Dulles is only 20 miles away, that should be close enough for us to be able to deduce what the altimeter indicated at the time of impact..

Also, radar altimeter data is input to the FDR under 2500' at a sample rate of 1.2 Khz. If we had access to the radalt plot we could deduce how high the 757 was because we know the speed of the aircraft in feet per second(780), the distance from the first and last poles to the impact point(559' and 1064'), and time it would take using the speed against these two distances(0.72 and 1.36 seconds).....The FDR sample rate is still fine enough to be able to get an exact altitude if we had the data. Maybe Mike needs another FOIA request?
apathoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 06:42 PM   #23
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
Just to add a little to what DR said... I Google Earthed the area in question and the elevation is 37 feet around where the poles were knocked down. If those things are 30 feet tall, we have a 757 at 65' pressure altitude.

But, as DR said, error is easy to come by when dealing with baro altitude data. When flights reach 18,000', the pilots dial the baro setting on the altimeter at 29.92. Is it possible to get the ATIS info from DCA that morning DR? Someone has to have it. In fact, ATC recordings from Dulles should give altimeter info on clearance right? Dulles is only 20 miles away, that should be close enough for us to be able to deduce what the altimeter indicated at the time of impact..

Also, radar altimeter data is input to the FDR under 2500' at a sample rate of 1.2 Khz. If we had access to the radalt plot we could deduce how high the 757 was because we know the speed of the aircraft in feet per second(780), the distance from the first and last poles to the impact point(559' and 1064'), and time it would take using the speed against these two distances(0.72 and 1.36 seconds).....The FDR sample rate is still fine enough to be able to get an exact altitude if we had the data. Maybe Mike needs another FOIA request?
Not Dulles, Reagan National, which is just down the river on Rte 1 about three or four miles south of the Pentagon. Dulles is 15 miles to the west or so. (I used to do some heavy partying out near Dulles, away back in my misspent youth.)

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:27 PM   #24
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
Not Dulles, Reagan National, which is just down the river on Rte 1 about three or four miles south of the Pentagon. Dulles is 15 miles to the west or so. (I used to do some heavy partying out near Dulles, away back in my misspent youth.)

DR
Been there many, many times myself. And actually the Pentagon is 0.8 miles from the northern end of runway 15/33 at DCA. I have a couple of good photos of the Pentagon on approach to 19(Mike at 911Myths is using one on his missile batteries page).

What I was saying is that the barometric pressure difference shouldnt be that great between the 2 airports. AA 77 took off from Dulles and the altimeter setting should be in the ATC transcripts during a clearance transmission...if we could get it, then we could ascertain the baro altitude(roughly) at impact.
apathoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 07:43 PM   #25
hellaeon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,488
ahhhh those CTers in glass houses should not throw stones!
hellaeon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 09:08 PM   #26
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Some observations...

First, the times are wrong - it's set at 1300hrs EDT. For now I'll assume the minutes are correct and that it's just set to 1300hrs instead of 0900hrs.

According to this, AA77 began the manoeuvre at 0934:03.

The following conversation takes place at NEADS at 0934:01 in the course of a call to Washington Centre:

Quote:
9:34:01
WASHINGTON CENTER: Now, let me tell you this. I—I'll—we've been looking. We're—also lost American 77—
WATSON: American 77?
DOOLEY: American 77's lost—
WATSON: Where was it proposed to head, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Okay, he was going to L.A. also—
WATSON: From where, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: I think he was from Boston also. Now let me tell you this story here. Indianapolis Center was working this guy—
WATSON: What guy?
WASHINGTON CENTER: American 77, at flight level 3-5-0 [35,000 feet]. However, they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.
This is the first time NEADS know that AA77 is even missing (note, no mention of hijack - Indianapolis Centre originally assumed AA77 had crashed).

By 0935:41 AA77 is 5400 ft, heading 271 degrees (due west). That's when the following information comes in to NEADS:

Quote:
9:35:41
ROUNTREE: Huntress [call sign for NEADS] ID, Rountree, can I help you?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Latest report, [low-flying] aircraft six miles southeast of the White House.
ROUNTREE: Six miles southeast of the White House?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yup. East—he’s moving away?
ROUNTREE: Southeast from the White House.
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Air—aircraft is moving away.
ROUNTREE: Moving away from the White House?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yeah.…
ROUNTREE: Deviating away. You don’t have a type aircraft, you don’t know who he is—
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Nothing, nothing. We’re over here in Boston so I have no clue. That—hopefully somebody in Washington would have better—information for you.
Now, by my estimates based on the NTSB released flight path, when AA77 was flying due west, I put it about 10 miles SSW of the White House, "deviating away". Allowing for time delay, slightly incorrect directions (later NEADS aren't able to identify where the White House is on their radar scopes), etc... it's safe to assume this aircraft mentioned above is AA77 (though NEADS don't know it).

Now where are the interceptors? By this stage JohnDoeX has already asked this stupid question once, and will ask it again 20 seconds later at 0936:01.

Well, first off, NEADS has only two sets of interceptors - 2x F15s at Otis and 2x F-16s at Langley.

The Otis fighters are chasing down AA11 which it is believed is heading for Washington DC, based on projected flight path (bear in mind, at this stage no one knows it was AA11 that hit WTC1).

Quote:
9:21:50
NASYPANY: O.K. American Airlines is still airborne—11, the first guy. He’s heading towards Washington. O.K., I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I’m—I’m gonna take the fighters from Otis and try to chase this guy down if I can find him.
Okay so the F-15's are chasing a phantom plane, and Langley are being scrambled. But that's 14m21s before NEADS know about this plane over Washington DC, so where are the F-16s at 0935:41?

Well this was the only mistake made by the air defense on the day. When no direction to intercept is given, fighters are normally directed to clear civil airspace ASAP. Remember, pre 9/11, NORAD only sent intercepts inside the ADIZ, which is off the US coast.

So the ATC handling the Langley fighters sent them east to a training area over the Atlantic Ocean.

NEADS realise this BEFORE they know about the aircraft "deviating away" from the White House:

Quote:
9:34:12
NAVY A.T.C.: You’ve got [the fighters] moving east in airspace. Now you want ‘em to go to Baltimore?
HUCKABONE: Yes, sir. We’re not gonna take ‘em in Whiskey 386 [military training airspace over the ocean].
NAVY A.T.C.: O.K., once he goes to Baltimore, what are we supposed to do?
HUCKABONE: Have him contact us on auxiliary frequency 2-3-4 decimal 6. Instead of taking handoffs to us and us handing ‘em back, just tell Center they’ve got to go to Baltimore.
NAVY A.T.C.: All right, man. Stand by. We’ll get back to you.
CITINO: What do you mean, “We’ll get back to you”? Just do it!
HUCKABONE: I’m gonna choke that guy!
CITINO: Be very professional, Huck.
HUCKABONE: O.K.
CITINO: All right, Huck. Let’s get our act together here.
So 29 seconds before NEADS find out about this aircraft near the White House, the Langley F16's are turned around and headed for Baltimore.

Right. And what happens once NEADS know about this new threat?

Quote:
9:36:23
NASYPANY: O.K., Foxy [Major Fox, the Weapons Team head]. I got a aircraft six miles east of the White House! Get your fighters there as soon as possible!
MALE VOICE: That came from Boston?
HUCKABONE: We’re gonna turn and burn it—crank it up—
MALE TECH: Six miles!
HUCKABONE: All right, here we go. This is what we’re gonna do—
NASYPANY: We’ve got an aircraft deviating eight [sic] miles east of the White House right now.
FOX: Do you want us to declare A.F.I.O. [emergency military control of the fighters] and run ‘em
straight in there?
NASYPANY: Take ‘em and run ‘em to the White House.
FOX: Go directly to Washington.
CITINO: We’re going direct D.C. with my guys [Langley fighters]? Okay. Okay.
HUCKABONE: Ma’am, we are going A.F.I.O. right now with Quit 2-5 [the Langley fighters]. They are going direct Washington.
NAVY A.T.C.: Quit 2-5, we’re handing ‘em off to Center right now.
HUCKABONE: Ma’am, we need to expedite that right now. We’ve gotta contact them on 2-3-4-6.
Notice how it's not clear if the aircraft is SE or E? But for an F-16 it's not a big difference, given their speed and missile range.

Also notice things don't happen instantaneously in real life? The NEADS intercept order comes 1m42s after being notified of the threat.

So where is AA77 when this order to intercept comes in? Well, I timed the actual recording of the above conversation (51 seconds). So assuming the F-16's begin to move the instant that conversation ends, the time is 0937:14.

The F-16 pilots hit their afterburners and are thrown back in their seats as their aircraft roar towards Washington DC.

AA77 is lined up, Hanjour passes the throttle through 75% power, 305Kt, just over 2000ft. He plunges the nose forward into the aircraft's final descent.

In less that 60 seconds everyone on board, and over 100 people on the ground, will be dead.

And it is worth noticing, according to this simulation the pilot's flight control is appalling. The yoke barely stays still for a second. He is constantly over correcting. When he hits power the rate of descent drops of drastically, meaning he didn't compensate for the extra lift by nosing down.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 09:22 PM   #27
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Ok, just analyzed the FDR plot for AA77 for the last half hour or so.

http://www.911myths.com/AAL77_fdr.pdf

Couple of interesting things stood out.
First, the baro selectors were set to 30.20 for departure and then 29.92 after 18,000' as you might expect. However, sometime after the takeover and after initiating an autopilot descent, the #1 baro knob was set to around 30.25(somewhere between 30.20 and 30.30) descending through 15,000'.

Now, this might mean that the pressure altitude was fairly accurate, but did Hani set it exactly or just ballpark it. Using a pressure altitude calculator, I starting plugging in some numbers. If the baro knob was just .05 off, that leads to a 50 foot error.

Since JDX says AA77 was 180' over the lightploes, we'll go with that. Also, as I mentioned above, that area has a 37' elevation already and the poles were likely 30' or better. So thats 180-65= 115' of error - or - 0.12 inches of pressure. I am thinking that DCAs baro pressure was 30.13ish(Dulles was 30.20) and Hani didnt set it correctly(30.25), introducing an error in altitude data. I find it illogical that he changed it in the first place....
apathoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 09:26 PM   #28
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Some observations...

{snippage}

And it is worth noticing, according to this simulation the pilot's flight control is appalling. The yoke barely stays still for a second. He is constantly over correcting. When he hits power the rate of descent drops of drastically, meaning he didn't compensate for the extra lift by nosing down.

-Andrew
I noticed this too, but JohnD'oh says...

Originally Posted by Mr. D'oh
The precision and control shown in this video is remarkable for someone who has been reported as being refused to rent a 172 (Hani Hanjour).
Who are we to argue with a pilot wannabe...?
apathoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 10:04 PM   #29
Killtown
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,393
apathoid,

we are missing you over at the Flight 93 plume thread!
Killtown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2006, 03:50 AM   #30
Big Les
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,030
If you need any more professional refutations of specific points, it might be worth posting at pprune.org in their Tech Log forum. Make clear why you're asking though, as they've had one or two CTers and many will be suspicious.
Big Les is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2006, 06:44 AM   #31
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
Been there many, many times myself. And actually the Pentagon is 0.8 miles from the northern end of runway 15/33 at DCA. I have a couple of good photos of the Pentagon on approach to 19(Mike at 911Myths is using one on his missile batteries page).

What I was saying is that the barometric pressure difference shouldnt be that great between the 2 airports. AA 77 took off from Dulles and the altimeter setting should be in the ATC transcripts during a clearance transmission...if we could get it, then we could ascertain the baro altitude(roughly) at impact.
True enough, it's just that I am fairly certain Reagan has its own reporting and recording criterion. When you dial ATIS there, you don't get Dulles QNH, you get Reagan QNH. Fifteen miles is far enough, depending on weather and particularly as fronts run through, for an altimeter setting to make a difference in the terminal phase.

The other problem is that acceptable altimeter error for a baralt, unless something changed recently, is IIRC per FAA standard within 75' of field elevation on take off. If my field elevation is 110 feet, and I set my altimter to 29.97 based on ATIS reporting baralt as 29.97, and I get an altitude on the bar alt reading between 185 feet and 35 feet, I am legit. If forget what acceptable Rad Alt errors are, I think it is in single digits of feet.

Of course, the lackwits at Loose Change, and elsewhere, don't bother to know any facts about aircraft instrumentation, they just throw crap out there.

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2006, 07:04 AM   #32
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
Since JDX says AA77 was 180' over the lightploes, we'll go with that. Also, as I mentioned above, that area has a 37' elevation already and the poles were likely 30' or better. So thats 180-65= 115' of error - or - 0.12 inches of pressure. I am thinking that DCAs baro pressure was 30.13ish(Dulles was 30.20) and Hani didnt set it correctly(30.25), introducing an error in altitude data. I find it illogical that he changed it in the first place....

It is also worth noting that, IIRC, the highway itself was raised on something like a 15' berm... which would put you up to 80' or only 100' of error - 0.1 inches of pressure.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2006, 07:04 AM   #33
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
The F-16 pilots hit their afterburners and are thrown back in their seats as their aircraft roar towards [/html]Washington DC.
1. You presume that from "turn it and burn it" line?
Turn it and burn it, or "turn and burn" is a bit of pilot slang that connotes making haste, however, you typically expect to hear a comment like "select Zone 5" or "use burner" or "approved/cleared for supersonic" or something like that if the F-16's are going to go supersonic. With no tankers in the air, the likelihood that the F-16's hit after burner are situation dependent. However, since there are plenty of divert fields in the area, Andrews, BWI, and others near enough, they might have gone supersonic. Not a bad guess, but not a dead certainty.

After burner eats gas like Pacman eats dots. Pilots have to manage their fuel ladder meticulously. Where do we have explicit statements from the pilots, ATC, or the NEADS crew that the pilots were using afterburner or were directed to do so, or cleared to do so? Fuel management means, among other things, if yuo run the fighters out of gas, you have no fighters on CAP until tankers show up. If they refuel on the ground, it takes a while to turn them around and get them back on patrol.

I imagine such a discussion is in part of the 30 hours of tape the reported listened to, but was not in the excerpts he put in the article?

Or, I missed it when I read it.

2. Given how little flight time in model the hijack pilot had, I do not consider his control inputs "appalling." They were rough, and he seemed to do a poor job of anticipating aircraft response. He did about par for the course, since his intuitive sense of leading control inputs and trim for power settings, and airspeed settings, put him slightly behind the aircraft. In a novice pilot, that tends to induce over correcting.

All things considered, he did well to hit his target.

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2006, 07:16 AM   #34
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
1. You presume that from "turn it and burn it" line?
Turn it and burn it, or "turn and burn" is a bit of pilot slang that connotes making haste, however, you typically expect to hear a comment like "select Zone 5" or "use burner" or "approved/cleared for supersonic" or something like that if the F-16's are going to go supersonic.

I was really just being dramatic...

However, after Nasypany found out the F-16s were heading over the Atlantic, with an aircraft 6 miles from the White House, he did tell Weapons to get the fighters to Washington as fast as humanly possible... as he said "I don't care how many windows you break goddammit!"

In addition, the lead pilot out of Otis said he went to afterburner on his way to New York because he "had a bad feeling about it".

Of course, I have no idea if they actually did go to afterburner... but you get the idea, just as they were powering up to get to DC, Hanjour was almost finished powering up AA77 for its final approach.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2006, 07:39 AM   #35
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I was really just being dramatic...

However, after Nasypany found out the F-16s were heading over the Atlantic, with an aircraft 6 miles from the White House, he did tell Weapons to get the fighters to Washington as fast as humanly possible... as he said "I don't care how many windows you break goddammit!"
OK, that tips me toward the next transmission being from the controller to the pilot to go supersonic. Nasypany has already considered the risks of fuel management and chosen to sort that out in due course, and try to catch up.

In addition, the lead pilot out of Otis said he went to afterburner on his way to New York because he "had a bad feeling about it".

Thanks.

DR

EDIT: somethere in there, someone must have scrambled an alert tanker.
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

Last edited by Darth Rotor; 25th August 2006 at 07:40 AM. Reason: Missed a spot
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2006, 08:14 AM   #36
ghost707
Scholar
 
ghost707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 71
Well since the pressure altimeter is useless for altitude reference deviations of less than 100 feet, johndoe's argument is a red herring. That is why the automated ground reference callouts on approach are tied to the radar altimeter. I think the radar altimeter is accurate to within a foot or so.
I need to check that out
ghost707 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2006, 07:10 PM   #37
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
EDIT: somethere in there, someone must have scrambled an alert tanker.

I'd say so. Bearing in mind, from NEADS point of view there were 11 hijackings in the first 90 minutes and it didn't stop when UA93 crashed. From a very early stage they were prepping additional aircraft to establish CAPs with AWACS and tankers. They were basically calling every base they had to see what was available at short notice.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2006, 07:44 PM   #38
Cylinder
Philosopher
 
Cylinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 6,057
You guys are really boring me to death with all this tanker talk. I think we all know by now that if it did not play a prominent role in the movie Top Gun, then it's unworthy of discussion in an air defense readiness thread. [/sarcasm]

I can only assume that each AOC now has an alert tanker and airborne control platform at its disposal. I've been trying (with no success) to find out when the first tanker orbits were flown on 9/11 and what measures and when were undertaken to achieve that goal.
__________________
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm
Cylinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2006, 08:00 PM   #39
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Cylinder View Post
I can only assume that each AOC now has an alert tanker and airborne control platform at its disposal. I've been trying (with no success) to find out when the first tanker orbits were flown on 9/11 and what measures and when were undertaken to achieve that goal.

YeahI've never seen anything either... all I really know is by Wednesday morning over 300 aircraft were airbourne over every major North American city with AWACS and tankers in support.

I don't know if Operation Noble Eagle is still ongoing, but it involves permanently airbourne AWACS and tankers IIRC.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2006, 09:46 PM   #40
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
YeahI've never seen anything either... all I really know is by Wednesday morning over 300 aircraft were airbourne over every major North American city with AWACS and tankers in support.

I don't know if Operation Noble Eagle is still ongoing, but it involves permanently airbourne AWACS and tankers IIRC.

-Andrew
*snort* The AWACS went to Afghanistan and the Gulf in late 2001 and got ridden hard, put away wet.

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.