IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Just A Few Thoughts From A Controller, Flight 77 flight characteristics

airshow
post Apr 13 2008, 07:05 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 9
Joined: 13-April 08
From: Vancouver Canada
Member No.: 3,146



Hello everyone, not sure that I can start a new thread without some sort of permission. There seems to be a lot of information on this board and it certainly will take hours to sort through. I thought I would give my opinions before I read everything, which then would not be influenced by what I have read. Hopefully it would also lend credibility for some other opinions out there on the same matter. My opinions are in general for AA77 but some could be made for all four flights in general.

I for one was an ATC'er for 33 years and was working on the day. In Canada of course we were busting our butts taking all the overseas flights into Canada when the ESCAT was declared. Even at that we managed to watch as much of the events unfold as we could. Before I g on, I must say that the controllers of NavCanada performed flawlessly under extra ordinary circumstances. Americans should be proud of their counterparts 'up north'.

First off, for 4 a/c to be successfully hijacked and all flight crews relinquish control is nearly impossible in most aviation peoples mind. I remember when a disgruntled FedEx employee stowed aboard a MD11 or DC 10 tried to overpower the crew so as to crash the aircraft. This event I think more closely resembles the actions of a flight crew than any other historic incident. Although the 10 had a three man crew, the attacker made quick work of the flight engineer and then tried to overpower the remaining two. The captain nor the first officer gave up the ship so to speak. So here's the deal, do you resist in the cockpit where your odds might just be equal, or do you give up with the hope that reason will eventual get you back in control. Personally the FedEx incident proves what a cockpit crew would do. There are only three scenarios in my mind. A violent struggle in the cockpit where even with the crew overpowered, it would still require a struggle. With the captain or the F/O struggling, the a/c autopilot would surely have been disengaged by any sort of control movement, and thus be recorded on radar. The incapacitated crew is dispatched to the front of business class where they obviously would be noted by the passengers. This requires moving people out of a tight spot, over a bank of throttles, trim levers and radio's. Who can do that with two people and not move the a/c around? The second scenario is that one of the flight crew is removed for a hijacker to assume that position. In the phone call that Olsen made, was the pilot bloody? Any clothing dishevelled (sp). Was he cursing, gathering concensus to storm the cockpit, much like what was reported in Pennsylvannia?

The third scenario is that the crew was overpowered and instructed in where to go, much like an ordinary hijacking. I think the first two are highly unlikely, as the FedEx incident shows.

In watching the NTSB simulation I found several oddities. The first right off was that the a/c was never quite level once the hijacking had started. I am arguing against my own assumptions, but a student pilot always flies with the left wing down slightly. This is prevalent for the entire remainder of the flight. So it was hand flown for the duration. Very tough to do at altitude for a novice. As well, in 33 years I have never seen someone be able to turn an aircraft visually 180 degrees and roll out on the right heading for a city under only VFR. If the hijacker knew how to program the flight director or even just a VOR, he should be able to engage the auto pilot to fly the turn. The turn looked reasonable, but it was not flown by the auto pilot. The weather back at Dulles was limited to 10 SM because of smog or Haze. No one, no matter how many years under their seat belts are going to be able to make a visual turn back to DC by eyeball only.

I also question the right turn. If you're going to bend the a/c anyway, why not reduce throttles, push the stick forward and praise Allah. At this point you've accomplished 90% of your mission. And why turn right. A reasonable decision would be to fly a little further on course, keep your destination in sight and turn left. Unless of course the aircraft was flown from the right seat.

Also the controversy about the altimeter setting going through FL180 could mean that the crew was pre-occupied, or that the people flying at the time were not qualified.

I also have a problem with the radar tracking. Immediately I see that the track returns are spaced equally. Radar sweeps are 6 seconds or 10 seconds. The a/c changed speed quite a bit, therefore the spacing should reflect that. It could be that relevant other returns were eliminated from the tape and that the track of AA77 was man made as a representation of the flight track. It certainly does not look like the playback that one would see on a PC. The NTSB should admit to that.

I also question the debris field. An explanation of 'vaporization' is just not plausible. In order to vaporize something, the initial resistance must be solid. But it was how many walls that the aircraft tore through? You can not give the explanation of vaporization when after the first, second and third wall, there was still enough material and inertia left to keep going. Now I will admit that there won't be much left, but certainly more than they admit to. I have seen aircraft burying it flying straight down at well over 400 knots, and other accident scenes will bear this out, but there has always been large tail sections, engines and luggage left.

Also, with 70 some people in the a/c apparently vaporized, did the rescuers wear medical masks? I have more comments but I'll leave them for a while. Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Apr 13 2008, 07:33 PM
Post #2


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Welcome to the forum, airshow! Interesting first post. Thanks for letting us know your predispositions. cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 14 2008, 05:03 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,682
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Welcome to the forum Airshow. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Looking forward to more of your posts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carl Bank
post Apr 14 2008, 06:29 AM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,114
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Berlin
Member No.: 121



Welcome to P4T, airshow! cheers.gif

Great to have another ATC on board!

Please give Your 2Ct. to this ATC related thread:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=11080
when you find the time to do so.


thanks in advance: Carl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
airshow
post Apr 17 2008, 02:44 AM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 9
Joined: 13-April 08
From: Vancouver Canada
Member No.: 3,146



Another thought that I have posted elsewhere, but will add it here as well. BTW, call me paranoid but does the government monitor sites like this?

Here's another observation I have.

I have a few points to throw out and see if anyone with more insight can add their thoughts. Both planes that hit the WTC's, had flashes just prior to hitting the buildings. Much has been made about these and some have discounted these as proof that missiles were not fired from the a/c as there was no damage to the building at the time. In a video compilation on YouTube of the 2nd WTC hit, one close-up segment confirms what I thought, that the flash was not a reflection from a window breaking, or from a penetration or rupture of the exterior wall. What in fact both videos show is the commonality of these flashes.

Both were on the starboard side. Both flashes appear just as the nose was within 5 - 10 feet of the exterior wall. Both flashes (can be seen in the close-up of the second hit) increase in intensity as the a/c gets closer. The second flash (the second hit), which can be examined in better detail, is still evident as the nose penetrates the building, and the flash disappears as the fuselage enters the building at a point that is equivalent to the front portion of the 'unusual' object. Just forward of the leading edge at the wing root. At this point, when it disappears, there is still no damage to the portion of building where the flash (or reflection) was seen. To me, it clearly indicates that the flash was caused by something on the a/c. And that it was caused by something that emanated from between aft of the cockpit and forward of the wind root from the starboard side. So as the a/c came closer, the reflection on the window or building, grew and then disappeared as the wing root entered the building. Hope I explain this right.

Now as a controller I have gotten used to parallax and perspective in relationship to an a/c's speed, direction and it's size. I have also developed a keen eye for things that are out of place, in spite of lighting conditions. Controllers just seem to develop a certain sense about how an a/c should appear in the sky. After viewing the mpegs of the various angles of the flight that hit the second building almost a few thousand times, I would have to say that the flight looked very much like a large airliner as it approached. The spped and perspective was right. I thought that 5 seconds prior to the hit, the pilot corrected quite a bit to the left and down in order to make his intended target. (Not saying the pilot was aboard) However, the unusual addition underneath the a/c is definitely not something of the ordinary. Having viewed it time and time again, I too would have to think that something has been added under the starboard portion of the fuselage. I can not tell if it would interfere with the gear, but the object is inline with the flash that appears just prior to the hit.

I also tried to get a sense of the colour schemes of the second a/c, and although the frame by frame analysis shows little detail, I did get the feeling that the a/c was more of a military colour than commercial aviation.

I do not have any military background (In Canada we try to be friends with everyone and there fore our military is not quite up to American standards) and therefore have little knowledge of weapons or aiming devices, but I keep coming to the conclusion that the flash came from the aircraft, from a point under the fuseage, to the right side and just forward of the leading edge of the wing.

Now one more point. When talking about a missile or a bomb, some people counter that the building wasn't penetrated by anything other than the a/c. But then does a missile have to strike a target on it's own? Can it not be "carried" into a target.....the building? That both buildings exhibited the flash, at the same points, and that they disappeared at the same points, and that the major explosions were well after the flashes disappeared, is strong evidence that something on each flight had a common element.

Hope this makes sense. In terms of the Pentagon crash, did an eyewitness also not describe seeing a flash just prior to the hit? Long post...sorry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Apr 17 2008, 03:58 AM
Post #6


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (airshow @ Apr 16 2008, 11:44 PM) *
. . .
BTW, call me paranoid but does the government monitor sites like this?


LoL. I certainly hope so. Sometimes I fear they may yet be our only hope! blink.gif

As for the rest of your report, I followed it fairly easily and I'm just a dumb artist (don't know anything about aircraft except what I've learned here). I have no idea what the flashes are or whether they are important. I've read debates about the 'pods' but have never come to any solid conclusion about them one way or another. And I DO HOPE this thread doesn't get into some bizarre debate about it.

I'm quite willing to accept your observations as those of someone far more qualified than myself. Whatever the cause or purpose if any, the flashes seem fairly undeniable. I don't know about underpinnings of airframes so I have no way of evaluating what is discussed pro and con regarding 'pods' or anything like that.

However, when you get to this point:
QUOTE
In terms of the Pentagon crash, did an eyewitness also not describe seeing a flash just prior to the hit?


The answer is, yes, as a matter of fact. I believe you are talking about the witness account given by Terry Morin which is being discussed in THIS THREAD.

Specifically Morin states:

QUOTE
As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110).


You'll note he is very clear in his parenthetical that he didn't know what caused the flash until he was told by someone else. Problem is, if he in fact saw all that he says he saw, then the plane he was observing could not have knocked down a light pole that is the parenthetical explanation he was given for it. The how and why this is known is a large part of what is being discussed in various nooks and crannies of this forum.

You will have to read through the thread to get that.

In that thread I point out that Morin states he gave his account to an FBI agent who then, willy nilly, introduces him to a wounded man who, Morin states, "indicated" that he had seen the plane hit the building.

I believe Morin is telling us precisely what he saw and what he was told about it that he did not actually witness.

You know, life is a funny thing. It is kind of difficult to stay in one's own movie when you begin to realize that one is a bit character in an espionage thriller where the clock is ticking. I'm an artist. I look at things aesthetically. I should spend more time making art rather than reading and posting to on-line forums. But then, in a way, it has become an extension. Not very profitable -- but then I learned long ago that art seldom is, especially for those who make it. Except, that is, of course, for the satisfaction one can glean from knowing that one is a part of the co-creative process. We are all trying to do something that, so far as I can tell, is outside the scope of historical precedent. One hardly knows how to describe it. Some like to adopt the concept of a kind of warfare -- information warfare, for example. But I've never fully embraced that particular paradigm. As an artist I know that for something truly new to appear, we can't simply repeat what we've learned from the past. Oh, yes, all that is very useful and I'm not suggesting we abandon it -- even if we could. But somehow we have to also hold open all sorts of possibilities regarding where this is going to go and how it is all going to turn out. Too many of us scare one another too much of the time. I'm not saying there isn't anything to be afraid of -- 9/11 and all that has followed in its wake has put the obvious lie to that. However, fear is too dark a star to be our guiding light.

painter2.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Apr 17 2008, 03:56 PM
Post #7


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



Welcome to the forum airshow! Great posts by you so far.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Apr 17 2008, 05:09 PM
Post #8





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi AIrshow

QUOTE
BTW, call me paranoid but does the government monitor sites like this?


If they do - f*ck 'em. Maybe they will monitor it diligently enough to learn how to conduct a proper investigation and make a proper report.

My own perspective is that my age lessens the pain of getting thrown in jail at this point in my life - I've already had a good run.
I'm also too old to tolerate having smoke blown up my ass.

Your posts were excellent. Doing time with you wouldn't be all that bad.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 4 2008, 10:59 AM
Post #9





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,911
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Airshow

My theory on what you describe here is that the Boeings were 2 of the 20 some odd that were delivered by one of Dov Zakheim's companies to the USAF at McDill AFB in Florida some years back. Those were 767s supposedly modified to compete in the contest for a modern tanker to replace KC135s. If so, it might explain the bulge on the lower fuselage that seems so apparent in some pictures.

The flashes you describe might be part of an electronic homing/targeting system onboard the aircraft. And a last minute lock-on by such a system could possibly explain the hard bank at the last second.

From day one I have never been able to understand why a pilot, lined up on a well seen target for at least 5 miles, would have to bank so hard at the last second.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th August 2014 - 08:10 AM