Wrong. If you had looked at the videos posted in this thread of those who were not propped up by certain members of the media, then you would know that's not the case. Furthermore, if you had paid attention to the very first post in this thread with respect to the A-4 Skyhawk, then you would know why anyone would make the connection to "American Airlines." How difficult do you think it is to put an American Airlines livery on a much smaller airborne vehicle, and then push that same vehicle to a high enough velocity such that anyone surprised by its presence will snap their head, see the paint and immediately assume they see an American Airlines aircraft? The very first group of non-government and non-staged "eyewitnesses" said that they saw something much smaller than large commercial jet. They reported seeing a "small jet," a "commuter type aircraft," a "regional jet," and a "20 passenger jet." There is no way on earth that anybody witnessing a Boeing 757, would confuse it with these kinds of descriptors. You then had "eyewitnesses" whose statements seemed very staged. When asked by an anchor person or reporter about what they saw, this group of "eyewitnesses" made a point to let you know up front that they "saw an American Airlines Boeing 757." These were some of the first words that few out their mouths and the two segments: American Airlines | Boeing 757, were always tied together in a deliberate statement - as if they were trying to convince someone that they were telling the truth. Who were these "eyewitnesses?" They were not aviation experts, enthusiasts, pilots, or people familiar with commercial aviation. So, how do you get surprised by the sudden appearance of a Boeing 757, clocking 480kts over the Pentagon lawn, snap your head around and have the ability to identify the damn thing as a 757? [video=youtube;Uiv6UvYnf3s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uiv6UvYnf3s[/video] [video=youtube;VbExXrk9iqM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbExXrk9iqM[/video] That was a Boeing 757 - nowhere near 480kts. Minding your business and then suddenly being surprised at one passing by even at this speed, no one without knowledge of what they were looking at would be able to identify it as a "Boeing 757." [video=youtube;FyEu15Akz_E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyEu15Akz_E[/video] That was a high speed tuck flyby at nearly 400kts. Did you catch the aircraft type? Then how would expect people who don't have intimate commercial aviation experience to be able to identify something moving 80kts FASTER than what you just saw here? Wake Up.
Yep, no matter what people clearly saw, it won't make a difference to a true believer in conspiracy. Arguing fact with someone that wants to believe in fantasy is like pissing in the wind.
I don't exactly know what did hit the Pentagon. I do know with a fair degree of certainty that it was not something having the same size of a Boeing 757. Camber has nothing do with "radius," so you are not asking real question, which means you call yourself being insulting which is pretty typical for someone not knowing the subject matter. In the following pic, you can see the camber of the airfoil concept: This is the completed wing of a Boeing 757-200: This shows the differential between the upper camber and lower camber, including the slope. This shows an example of how to calculate the Aspect Ratio: Putting all this together, we can see from the photo that I posted earlier of the debris found at the Pentagon, that the Area Profile of the piece on the ground does not fit the Area Profile of the Boeing 757 wing you see above. Because the difference is so large, we can visually inspect the piece on the ground and compare that to what we know about the Camber, Chord and Aspect Ratio of the Boeing 757 airfoil and make a fairly reasonable deduction that what we see on the ground, is not consistent and commensurate with that of a Boeing 757 lifting surface. Do you have any other questions for me in this area?
They did not say they merely saw a "jet liner." There were a pack of tightly timed "eyewitnesses" who initiated their statements with: "I saw an American Airlines Boeing 757." None of them were commercial aviation professionals or aviation enthusiasts after examining what could be examined about their backgrounds. So, how did they know they were looking at a Boeing 757 at 480kts on a surprise attack that they were not supposed to know about? I just posted video of what Boeing 757 doing a fly by at well below 480kts looks like. I then posted a high speed pass at 400kts of a fighter which was 80kts below the FDR indicator airspeed of the NTSB Boeing 757. If you don't have a level of intimate experience with the aircraft, how can you be surprised by it at 480kts and be able nail down the Make, Model and Type so precisely? I can understand how people could believe they are seeing an American Airlines aircraft, because that can be painted on just about anything. But, I cannot understand how people not familiar with commercial aviation and who are not aviation enthusiasts, can somehow know that at 480kts and while being surprised by the sudden appearance, that they are without question seeing a Boeing 757.
For those other than the official story tellers who might be interested, turn to CNN right now (3828/14 at 5:39pm eastern) as they will be discussion howa commercial heavy aircraft can be controlled from a remote location on the ground and flown without the input from anyone in the cockpit. That's happening right now with Wolf Blitzer, in the CNN Situation Room, on the search for Flight 370. - - - Updated - - - Willful ignorance is like willful ignorance. At the end of the day, you are still willfully ignorant and no closer to the truth.
No indication that's what happened on 9/11,In fact,the first time a jet has been piloted remotely(to crash in the Mexican desert) was within the last few years,and even then they had pilots stay with it almost till the crash and bailed out via the rear stairs on that model jet,while a plane followed flying it.... You really need to reign in your arrogant attitude,before you accuse others of being ignorant
Your penchant for continuing to get it wrong is stupendous. The first time a jet was piloted remotely was not "within the last few years," nor was it flown into the "Mexican desert," nor did anyone "bail out via the rear stairs." If you are going to discuss this subject, then at least do some homework so you don't come off like someone who is jealous, arrogant and underachieving. The real arrogance is yours, because you offered nothing but insults without understanding the subject matter into which you wade, nor having the ability to intelligently dialogue on the subject matter that you feign knowledge, skill and expertise. The aircraft was originally dubbed the Xb-47 as far back as 1947. The QB-47 variant was a test program and it flew radio controlled under the power of jet engines and no crew (this one flew in 1961): [video=youtube;Kqt2gUvtwhk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqt2gUvtwhk[/video] If radio control of multi-engine turbojet aircraft was doable then, where do think the technology for radio control of jet aircraft is today. 1961, is not "within the last few years," nor did anyone leap out of the "rear" of the aircraft. If you are going to correct me and then call me arrogant and ignorant, at least make sure that you know the subject matter as well as I do. Otherwise, you come off like a real jealous and envious individual who cannot stand finding out that he's flat out wrong in his assumptions.
Stop giving definition, praise and consent to your underachievement. Official Story Tellers tend to always implode like this when they've lost a debate, or where never in the debate to begin with because they had no ideas that made any sense. You only highly your disconnectedness when you post continual nonsequitur reply having nothing to do with the topic on the first page of the thread. The "young man" had information that at the time nobody else was supposed to have and this thread demonstrates that he could not have been referring to Flight 93. Flights 11 and 175 were already down. That leaves Flight 11 as the only probability remaining. Of course, if you admit that fact, then you have to also admit that Cheney, had prior knowledge and the fiasco that is the Official Story about the events of 911 is nothing but a lie. This is why Official Story Tellers either quit responding (smart), or go down the path of issuing continual off-topic nonsequitur reply (telling), or start throwing out what they believe to be personal insults (dumb). Be 'smart' for once.
Sigh....your ignorance and arrogance astound me..I was speaking of a multi engined civilian jet,like the 727 crashed by the discovery channel in the Mexican desert in 2012. do keep up,sky pilot<sarcasm>
That was NOT the "first" as you incorrectly claimed: You are the biggest fraud on this board. It was a NASA Boeing 702 joint test program in 1984, some 30 years ago at the Dryden Flight Research Facility, now the NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center - which is not in Mexico as you incorrectly claimed: [video=youtube;v2J5pgaC5Bo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2J5pgaC5Bo[/video] Neither was this flight made in "recent years"recently, as you incorrectly claimed. You claimed above that the "first jet aircraft" was remotely controlled with a crew on-board who then bailed out in Mexico, in recent years. That was false. You then try to cover your tracks by coming back here and changing your story to mean "multi-engine civilian jet" like the 727. If you knew that at the time before you googled it, then you would have put that in your first post. Stop wasting my time. You are a wasteful fraud who has no integrity because you don't standby your own printed words.
Directions to the NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, in the Mojave Desert: NASA Armstrong Flight Research (formerly Dryden Flight Research Facility and Home of the NASA Boeing 702 Remote Control Test in 1984). Stop pretending.
LOL, of course people that fantasize and don't understand the evidence resort to "lofty arrogance" like you do. Your world is complete isn't it, kind of like you followed the white rabbit down the hole. Be 'rational' for once.
Seems to me there are 'monitors' here whose duty is to combat your astute posts, Primus. I'm sure you can get an idea of who they are by now. I certainly can. These other posters seem intent on squashing any reasonable conversation geared toward dissenting opinions. Keep posting Primus. You're doing splendidly.
It appears some are not able to respond to you in an intelligent and reasonable way. You present the facts in a crystal clear and concise manner and I am thoroughly enjoying your posts, both for the information being presented and the lack of intelligent response retorted. It's quite humorous, as well as informative. I will be looking forward to your continued shredding of controllers empty rhetoric. Fantastic job, Sir.
Frankly, he claims to have done all this legwork, yet makes a claim of wreckage of flight 93 being found 8 miles away from the crash site. Which is silly, considering it is 8 miles by road, yet nowhere near that distance when looked at from a map from above. And has already shown himself to be a liar when initially making claims of flying in formation, then later admitting he didn't. So credibility a far as I am concerned is shot. Just another Brother Jonathan.
