# 9/11 wreckage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 16, 2009, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567 "2009-01-16T05:42:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/341 "2009-01-19T02:21:00Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > [http://serendipity.li/wot/pentagonhole.jpg](http://serendipity.li/wot/pentagonhole.jpg) > > [http://www.physics911.net/omholt](http://www.physics911.net/omholt) You really do not pay attention to warnings eh? I warned you that it was my experience that most conspiracy theorists have the knack of not showing the whole picture: Your picture here is a close up: [![](https://serendipity.li/wot/pentagonhole.jpg) ](https://serendipity.li/wot/pentagonhole.jpg) The images in the site still does not show the whole image just after the firefighters controlled the fire and just before the collapse. A wider picture shows: [http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/pentagon-hole.jpg](http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/pentagon-hole.jpg) And what do we see when the firetruck stops shooting water? [http://harrythomas.info/specialREPORTS/hole11.jpg](http://harrythomas.info/specialREPORTS/hole11.jpg) > **[www.oilempire.us](http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html)** The section of your first image is over the “18 feet label” most likely hit by the tail of the pane. The images you linked to are misleading by not showing the real area of the damage, the hole in the Pentagon is big enough for all of the bulky parts of a 757. Incidentally the site where I found the whole images is coming from a conspiracy theorist too, but it seems that he got tired of being identified with truters that still think there was no plane crashing into the pentagon. > **[www.oilempire.us](http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html)** > [@](#): > > People like Eric Hufschmid, who was one of the first to have a big impact on persuading many of us that flight 77 didn’t crash into the Pentagon, upon further discovery, have proven to me to be an incompetent researcher. And possibly even worse, he has shown a desire to discredit our work by association. He has shown a real disdain for a democratic republic. He holds himself up as being smarter than most of the public even though all the while he peddles nonsense about the Apollo moon landings as being a hoax. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/342 "2009-01-19T02:28:05Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Popular mechanics is the only site listed more than 3 times here. Come with something else. That site has been embarrassed by people who are worth something at their computer. There are others sites that I posted already, even a conspiracy one too (just because it had the whole pictures of the pentagon aftermath, that he is calling the people who are still proposing that it was not a 737 what crashed into the Pentagon fools is only gravy). And not once you have shown why Popular Mechanics was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/343 "2009-01-19T02:39:00Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Thank you! > > If the Pentagon is a mere ‘office building’ with no “reinforced masonry” or “bomb proof” elements, then how could airplane wings leave no mark on the wall? the windows closest to the point of impact were still intact. there are images taken a few minutes after the crash before the wall collapsed. Fallacy of the excluded middle, plus a completely false misinterpretation of the event. The Pentagon is not a fort and was not reinforced to sustain heavy shelling or bombardment. However, it was in the midst of being internally reinforced to prevent massive damage if a sabotage bomb had been planted within it. So it falls between being a “fort” and being “just” an office building. Then, your characterization of the impact is horribly flawed. The plane did not have a 125’ diameter. The fuselage was roughly twelve feet in diameter and it had an approximately 125’ wingspan. A wing that is built to support a heavy plane at high speeds may have the ability to clip off a light pole, (most of which have been designed to tear away when struck in order to minimize damage to vehicles when they might strike it), and still easily disintegrate when smashed into a reinforced granite faced wall. There were scars on the buidling, but they are not easily noticed in the photos taken at the time of the event, with smoke and emergency workers obscuring them. On the other hand, the fuselage was not merely twelve feet wide, but also just under 180 feet long and most of the 200,000+ lbs of aircraft weight were contained in that cylinder, making a very effective battering ram. A twenty foot wide hole made by a twelve foot wide, 200,000 lb. battering ram makes a lot of sense. Pretending that because a building is not a “fort” that reinforced granite cannot withstand the impact of thin aluminum wings does not. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/344 "2009-01-19T02:43:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And not once you have shown why Popular Mechanics was wrong. I found the Popular Mechanics piece quite good too, and this bothers the hell out of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Hoffman’s critique of Popular Mechanics is what I found lacking and embarrassing, but I suspect that is what he’ll use in order to attempt to refute it. Perhaps he has a better site in mind, but judging from his sources thus far, I kind of doubt it. razncain ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/345 "2009-01-19T02:46:24Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > If all the planes were deviating off their intended paths, then maybe it would be a puzzle. The fact remains, when you see a blip, with no label (or cabin audio), deviate off the flight path, you investigate it. That would be the atc jobs. The fact remains that flight 77 was tracked for 40 minutes, which basicully nullifies your whole argument. The fact remains that our counter-terrorism officials did nothing to intercept this plane. Without a working transponder, it would be very difficult to figure out that it was flight 77. And sure, ATC would investigate, but their first thought wouldn’t be that a civil airliner (assuming they knew that’s what it was) represented a terrorist threat. Chances are they would assume it was in distress and had suffered radio failure. So no, the USAF does not scramble to intercept every unidentified blip on primary radar, especially when the evidence suggested that it was something that had not, until that date, represented a military threat. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/346 "2009-01-19T02:48:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > There are others sites that I posted already, even a conspiracy one too (just because it had the whole pictures of the pentagon aftermath, that he is calling the people who are still proposing that it was not a 737 what crashed into the Pentagon fools is only gravy). And not once you have shown why Popular Mechanics was wrong. [http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop\_mech/reply\_to\_popular\_mechanics.htm](http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/347 "2009-01-19T02:50:35Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > So it took 5 days to calculate the volume loss… How is this helping your agrument? What are you babbling about? The NYSE and many related markets were CLOSED. Lower Manhattan was a disaster area! The city was still dealing with ash cloud, many buildings were damaged by the collapses. This is beyond idiotic. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/348 "2009-01-19T02:51:09Z")
From “Pilots for Truth” referenced in post #320: > [@](#): > > I find it hard to believe Capt. Burlingame gave up his ship to Hani Hanjour pointing a boxcutter at him. Pilots know The Common Strategy prior to 9/11. Capt. Burlingame would have taken them where they wanted to go, but only after seeing more than a “boxcutter” or knife. Why was Capt. Burlingame, a retired Military Officer with training in anti-terrorism, reported to have given up his airplane to 5 foot nothing. 100 and nothing Hani Hanjour holding a “boxcutter”. (Exaggeration added for size of Hani, he was tiny, lets just put it that way). We at [pilotsfor911truth.org](http://pilotsfor911truth.org) feel the same as his family in that Capt. Burlingame would not have given up his airplane unlike what is reported in this linked article from CNN. Reports from passengers on cellphones on the hijacked planes said that the hijackers had _cut the throats_ of some of the flight crew. That’s more than just “pointing” a boxcutter at someone. That’s making it clear you’re will to _use_ that boxcutter to _kill_ people. From an author who admits he (or she) “exaggerated” the size of Hani. If you are attempting to debunk something WHY are you using a deliberate falsehood? Is the truthful evidence not good enough to prove your case? I agree, pilots would not be inclined to surrender to someone waving a knife around. Someone using a knife to _cut your coworkers’ throats?_ Yeah, that’s a lot more plausible reason to surrender. > [@](#): > > This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). A setting of 29.92 is a _standard setting_ used by ALL airliners above a certain altitude for consistency in altitude _regardless of local conditions_. That means after take-off pilots set the altimeter for a barometric pressure of 29.92 for cruise. A perfectly logical explanation is the _standard setting change_ was made after take off but before the hijacking. After the hijacking the hijacking pilot simply never bothered to change it - why would he? He’s not typing a GPS coordinate into an autopilot, he’s flying it by hand and eye into the side of the Pentagon - _you don’t have to pay attention to an altimeter to do that!_ You just look out the freakin’ window in front of you! Without making any changes in the altimeter setting the altitude at landing (or crashing) in this case is meaningless unless you know the exact barometric pressure at the time and location stated. Not to mention that since this is an _animation_ and NOT the _actual view at the time of crash_ there is no way to know if what is depicted is accurate _or a transcription error_. The graphic shown _proves nothing either way._ There’s a big list of questions, many of which I’m not going to answer because I don’t have time to drag through the FDR information, but I will point out a few things that are obvious to me: > [@](#): > > ``` > 4. Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set?(This is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it) > > ``` Or too bad for them the hijacker was distracted/not used to airliner procedures _and forgot to change the setting?_ I know I did that at least twice in MY first 600 hours of flight, and I never had the stress of flying an airliner I wasn’t trained on or being on a suicide mission to distract me! > [@](#): > > 1. Do you have any video showing a clear impact and/or of the plane on its approach to impact? Why do CT people _never_ accept that _maybe these images don’t exist because no camera captured them?_ > [@](#): > > 1. Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator? Because a right bank is consistent with damage to the Pentagon. Seek alternate explanation for the damage to the generator. > [@](#): > > 1. Why does the hijack timeline show a 3 min interval for hijacking to take place? Because… maybe that’s how long it took? > [@](#): > > Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. The footnote “59, 60, 61” refers to The Flight Path Study of American 77 provided by the NTSB, which no one can find. One person claims to have called the NTSB and the NTSB says they havent done any reports/analysis for any of the aircraft of Sept 11. NTSB phone in DC (202)-314-6000. I tried, but i hit brick walls. Update: 8/11/06 NTSB Flight Path Study released. Note backpedaling: “Oh, we don’t have the report! It doesn’t exist! It’s being suppressed! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!” then “Oh, they released it, ho-hum” > [@](#): > > So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots ( **Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed**. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph. \*\*Update: FDR is now available \*\*and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed. So… supposedly there was all this suppressed FDR data… but now it’s available? So initially they came to all these conclusions with inaccurate data… but the only thing they did since was add “update: blah blah”? > [@](#): > > So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We’ll get to him later… **WHY are they assuming a standard rate turn? WHY?** There is NO REASON other than _standard operating procedure_ to make standard rate turns. NONE! _Why are they assuming a HIJACKER intent on MURDER is going to follow “standard procedure”?_ They _admit_ they don’t know bank angles or speed. ALL they know is a rate of descent, but time, bank, and other factors can make an enormous difference. Remember - Hani _did_ have some simulator time. Hell, he might have drilled this on _MS Flight Simulator_. He doesn’t have to be a _trained_ 757 pilot drilled in standard procedures _all he has to do is complete his mission_. He can use whatever unorthodox method he cares to as long as he doesn’t crash the airplane before he reaches his target. What if he took FOUR minutes to make that turn? then he’s only descending 1250 fpm. What if he was _really_ slow and pokely and took EIGHT minutes to make that turn? 625 fpm - only _slightly_ faster than than typical 500 fpm descent, and well within eye-balling range. _They don’t know how long that turn took - therefore they don’t know how fast he was descending_. They are GUESSING. The 430 knots is his FORWARD speed, not his VERTICAL speed. > [@](#): > > Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral Even if he _entered_ a graveyard spiral a pilot with a commercial-license of training should be able to get out of it before impact. This is NOT rocket science! (the jet engines… sort of rocket science. Pulling out of a turn… not so much) > [@](#): > > AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. Which, really, is not that amazing because in ground effect the airplane can resist descending further. This is a phenomena encountered early in flight training - like, _the very first landing_ - and it boggles my mind these “pilots” don’t consider it. This is PARTICULARLY noticeable when one is flying in ground effect at relatively high speed rather than the slower speeds of normal landing. > [@](#): > > With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree. I’m sure we all wouldn’t. I know pilots who have, no joke, flown six inches off the ground the length of a runway _upside down in an open cockpit_ - NOT a place where you want to screw up. What Hani did was _unusual_ but not _impossible_. There was nothing superhuman about it, particularly if he had had some means of rehearsing it beforehand. > [@](#): > > Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI’s took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172’s when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you “get it” if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches. The thing is, if he was incompetent to landing a 172 you have to wonder who passed him for his private and commercial checkrides? The other thing to note is that it is NOT uncommon for pilots used to flying larger, heavier, faster airplanes to, indeed, have difficulty handling a 172 at the first few landings. If he had flown only low wing airplanes and this episode with the 172 was his first experience with high wing airplanes (a little unusual, but _entirely_ plausible - there are pilots who have never flown Cessnas) he might _also_ have trouble as there are handling differences between low and high wings. I once flew with a two-weeks retired 747 pilot sitting at my right who was _struggling_ with landing small Cessnas - something about his habit of flaring at 50 feet being a little too firmly established for safety. > [@](#): > > Later, a week after Sept 11. Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, “although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon.” What?? Bernard, who didnt even fly with Hani, doesnt know the maneuver involved, where the plane hit, the speeds, etc etc.. says he has no doubts that he could hit the pentagon? Sure - he wasn’t _landing_ the airplane, he was holding it in level flight, right? > [@](#): > > Sure, my grandma could hit the pentagon. Sure - assuming you get everything set up properly you could use a bungee cord to hold the yoke and go get a cup of coffee while the airplane hit the Pentagon for you. I think Hani struggled a little to get pointed at the building, but once aimed he hit it just fine, didn’t he? > [@](#): > > How about looking into the maneuver before making that statement? He made that statement while the pentagon was still smoking for petes sake. A bit of monday morning quarterbacking if you ask me. A common theme among inexperienced pilots. On what basis is this person determining that this “Bernard, the Chief CFI” of a Maryland flight school is “inexperienced”? Presumably he is a professional pilot holding at least a commercial license. > [@](#): > > So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, We have already determined this alleged descent rate was pulled out of the author’s as— er. thin air. > [@](#): > > …with a very steady hand as to not overshoot… How can you freakin’ _overshoot_ something the size of the Pentagon when you’re pointed directly at it? You can’t - that’s the point. This is a planned collision. > [@](#): > > … or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, Ground effect would most likely make it harder for him to hit the lawn thank otherwise. > [@](#): > > …at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? I don’t know - maybe he’d never been in a C172 or highwing before? I sure screwed up the flare my first couple attempts landing a lowwing after a 150 hours flying only high wings. The reverse also occurs. It’s easily correctable, IF you don’t cop an attitude. Maybe Hani _did_ have a bad attitude - if he refused to take advice heck no they won’t rent him an airplane! > [@](#): > > My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Or he rehearsed this plan for weeks on a PC flight simulator, rented some time in a full motion simulator, then carried out his plan? > [@](#): > > There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why… so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You dont give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with. Why not? Do they think they put it in a warehouse with the Ark of the Covenant out in Area 51? I know a pilot who owns a twin-engine airplane that was confiscated by the DEA and used as evidence in a drug smuggling case. It was sold at auction, that’s how my acquaintance got it. Evidence doesn’t have to be retained infinitely - if it did, murder victims would never be buried, they’d be stacking up in morgues. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/349 "2009-01-19T02:53:55Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > [http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html](http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html) That page is full of half-truths and misrepresentations. Let’s start with Capt. Burlingame, he was an instructor for anti-terrorist tactics but had zero training in going face-to-face with an actual terrorist. A “boxcutter” is a razor blade with one side embedded in a handle. You try not cooperating with some zealot who’s holding a razor to your throat and see how long you stay alive. The flight data recorder seems a little off because there is data missing at the end. They acknowledge this but not the entire effect it has on the video recreation. Further, other pilots have said that a descent from the last position in the video into the Pentagon’s ground floor and hitting the lampposts on the way is not impossible. Hani Hanjour didn’t have any interest in learning how to land–go figure–and his instructor has no problem believing that he hit the Pentagon. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/350 "2009-01-19T02:55:16Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Fallacy of the excluded middle, plus a completely false misinterpretation of the event. > > The Pentagon is not a fort and was not reinforced to sustain heavy shelling or bombardment. However, it was in the midst of being internally reinforced to prevent massive damage if a sabotage bomb had been planted within it. So it falls between being a “fort” and being “just” an office building. > > Then, your characterization of the impact is horribly flawed. The plane did not have a 125’ diameter. The fuselage was roughly twelve feet in diameter and it had an approximately 125’ wingspan. A wing that is built to support a heavy plane at high speeds may have the ability to clip off a light pole, (most of which have been designed to tear away when struck in order to minimize damage to vehicles when they might strike it), and still easily disintegrate when smashed into a reinforced granite faced wall. There were scars on the buidling, but they are not easily noticed in the photos taken at the time of the event, with smoke and emergency workers obscuring them. On the other hand, the fuselage was not merely twelve feet wide, but also just under 180 feet long and most of the 200,000+ lbs of aircraft weight were contained in that cylinder, making a very effective battering ram. > > A twenty foot wide hole made by a twelve foot wide, 200,000 lb. battering ram makes a lot of sense. Pretending that because a building is not a “fort” that reinforced granite cannot withstand the impact of thin aluminum wings does not. The scars are definitely not easily identifiable. If the wall made of granite was reinforced, then how did a plane, made of the same metal all around, crash through 3 walls? Not to mention, the engines are located behind the wings. Not within the body of the plane. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/351 "2009-01-19T02:57:35Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Popular mechanics is the only site listed more than 3 times here. Come with something else. That site has been embarrassed by people who are worth something at their computer. In other words, you have nothing to counter it with. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/352 "2009-01-19T03:01:27Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Without making any changes in the altimeter setting the altitude at landing (or crashing) in this case is meaningless unless you know the exact barometric pressure at the time and location stated. What, the Pentagon doesn’t have ATIS? 😛😉 ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/353 "2009-01-19T03:03:41Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > … Please answer my post #334. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/354 "2009-01-19T03:03:49Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > That page is full of half-truths and misrepresentations. Let’s start with Capt. Burlingame, he was an instructor for anti-terrorist tactics but had zero training in going face-to-face with an actual terrorist. > > A “boxcutter” is a razor blade with one side embedded in a handle. You try not cooperating with some zealot who’s holding a razor to your throat and see how long you stay alive. > > The flight data recorder seems a little off because there is data missing at the end. They acknowledge this but not the entire effect it has on the video recreation. Further, other pilots have said that a descent from the last position in the video into the Pentagon’s ground floor and hitting the lampposts on the way is not impossible. > > Hani Hanjour didn’t have any interest in learning how to land–go figure–and his instructor has no problem believing that he hit the Pentagon. Well, there are a lot of possibilities which aren’t impossible. This site only shows whats unlikely, or extremely unlikely, as said by former pilots. the terrorist piloting the plane didnt need to land, but he had to stay off the ground perfectly enough for miles before hitting the pentagon square in the face of the wall, even hitting numerous objects beforehand. And notice how the lawn is in perfect shape also. Going 500 mph, it might as well have been a perfect landing. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/355 "2009-01-19T03:04:09Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > [Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11](http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm) That isn’t even close to a debunk. Good lord what a load of Special Pleading and false assumptions! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/356 "2009-01-19T03:05:12Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > ps How many times has the stock market ever been closed except for holidays? > > Not more than 2 or 3 world wars im sure. The most polite response to this claim is “bullshit.” [Stock Market Closings, 1888 - 2007](http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/closings.pdf) (.pdf) Sample non-holiday closings: > [@](#): > > Nov. 22, 1963 (Fri) Closed at 2:07 pm. Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. > Nov. 25, 1963 (Mon) Funeral of President John F. Kennedy. > Jan. 6-14, 1966 (Thu-Fri) 2:00 pm closing due to transit strike (seven days). > Aug. 8-18, 1967 (Tue-Fri) 2:00 pm closing (nine days) due to back office work load. > Jan. 22-Mar. 1, 1968 (Mon-Fri) 2:00 pm closing due to back office work load. 3:30 close resumed March 4. > Apr. 9, 1968 (Tue) National Day of Mourning for Martin Luther King, Jr. > Mar. 31, 1969 (Mon) Closed. Funeral of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower. > July 21, 1969 (Mon) Closed – National Day of Participation for the lunar exploration. > Dec. 28, 1972 (Thu) Closed. Funeral of former President Harry S. Truman. > Jan. 25, 1973 (Thu) Closed for funeral of former President Lyndon B. Johnson. > Sept. 27, 1985 (Fri) Market closed due to Hurricane Gloria. > Apr. 27, 1994 (Wed) Closed for funeral of former President Richard M. Nixon. > **Sept. 11-14, 2001 (Tue-Fri) Closed following the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.** > June 11, 2004 (Fri) Closed in observance of the National Day of Mourning for former President Ronald W. Reagan (died June 5, 2004). > Jan. 2, 2007 (Tue) Closed in observance of the National Day of Mourning for former President Gerald R. Ford (died December 26, 2006). You keep asking rather odd questions with really straightforward answers when only a bit of research would demonstrate that your Conspiracy Kook sources are really lacking in reliability. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/357 "2009-01-19T03:06:30Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > If all the planes were deviating off their intended paths, then maybe it would be a puzzle. The fact remains, when you see a blip, with no label (or cabin audio), deviate off the flight path, you investigate it. There are not little dotted lines in the sky for the airplanes to fly along. A primary radar screen does NOT have “flight paths” painted on it. WHAT makes you think that you could at a screen with _dozens_ of moving, unlabeled blips on it and determine which is and is NOT following an official flight plan? Add to that - primary radar doesn’t just pick up airliners, it picks up EVERY airplane, including little Piper Cubs put-putting along. Are you even aware that MOST flights in the US _don’t require a flight plan?_ Are you even aware that, outside of major urban areas, _it is legal for some aircraft to fly WITHOUT transponders?_ Fine - an airliner’s transponder stops responding. You go to primary radar. EVERY label on those blips vanishes, AND you’ll have _even more_ blips from the airplanes ATC _wasn’t_ directing (that would be quite a few, given how nice a flying day 9/11 was, I almost played hookey from work to go flying myself) - NOW you have to figure out which one your Mystery Plane is. THEN you have to figure out if it is or isn’t following the flight plan but for Og’s sake _don’t_ look aware from the radar screen because you’ll lose it again. > [@](#): > > That would be the atc jobs. The fact remains that flight 77 was tracked for 40 minutes, which basicully nullifies your whole argument. Yes - AFTER the fact they looked at the radar records and painstakiningly separated out Flight 77 from all others of the time. AFTER the fact. When they didn’t have to worry about doing it in real time. It was NOT such an easy exercise for the poor controllers who had to try to follow the thing in real time _while directing other airplanes_. Eventually they assigned ONE controller to follow ONE airplane and even then had some trouble. > [@](#): > > The fact remains that our counter-terrorism officials did nothing to intercept this plane. Yes, they did - they diverted military training flights to intercept two of the airplanes. However, even though military jets are fast they are not infinitely fast. By the time they could give those pilots directions there wasn’t enough time for them to intercept. You can’t change physics, sorry if that’s inconvenient. _ **NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION: Have YOU ever been in a working control tower?** _ A simple yes or no will suffice. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/358 "2009-01-19T03:06:39Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > There’s this big building where people have to go to make those markets work. They were scared a plane might go there too. > > Simple enough? And how filled to max occupancy were the buildings to start with? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/359 "2009-01-19T03:07:10Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Ground effect would most likely make it harder for him to hit the lawn thank otherwise. AA 77 actually did hit the ground just before hitting the building. The port engine struck a ground level concrete ventilation structure. > [@](#): > > _Or he rehearsed this plan for weeks on a PC flight simulator, rented some time in a full motion simulator…_ …and went to a training camp that specialized in how to use boxcutters to hijack a plane. There were reports of the existence of such facilities prior to 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567/360 "2009-01-19T03:07:50Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > [Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11](http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm) I gave up on that site as soon as he complained that Popular Mechanics used an image that did not show the “pod” under the plane (seems it is supposed to be important to show the planes were not the passenger ones) ignoring that if there was a pod it would also have shown in other images. As I investigated before, what he has is just artifacts of computer images being used to mislead people into thinking that that was a “pod” under the plane. A useless site. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-wreckage/481567.md?page=19)