911truth movement exposed as fraudulent incompetent researchers by real airline pilots.

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan
Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy
aircraft.
There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although
proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the
impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in
flight simulators.
What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because
I've heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the
Internet and the TV networks-invariably by people who know nothing
substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.
A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how "easy" it
is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the
objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the "open sky".
But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the
least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And
if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of
miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the
challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.
And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a
Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton,
high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.
For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage,
a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and
disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even
remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or
even the software versions available for home computers.
In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill,
one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled
instrument-rated one to boot - and be thoroughly familiar with the actual
aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary
between aircraft.
The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to
approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight
simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these
phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched
out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving
past. Take-offs-even landings, to a certain degree-are relatively "easy",
because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist "outside" the
cockpit.
But once you've rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a
simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant
destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the
situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external
visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of
complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues
(altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)
In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS
(Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large
multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard"
instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight
data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and
progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with
regard to time and speed as well. When flying "blind", I.e., with no
ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and
then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this
information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an
instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in
relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as
"IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules.
And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because
that's all you have!
The corollary to Rule #1: If you can't read the instruments in a quick,
smooth, disciplined, scan, you're as good as dead. Accident records from
around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots -
I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots - who 'bought the farm'
because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.
Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men
were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 - an
elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around
the patch on a sunny day. A student's first solo flight involves a simple
circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a
landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.
Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary
exercise by himself.
In fact, here's what their flight instructors had to say about the
aptitude of these budding aviators:
Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."
Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our
standards."
Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited English and
incompetence at the controls."
Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons."
Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were
even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still
to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could
not fly at all."
Now let's take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker
Hani Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously
fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain
Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow
manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to
achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke
and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that
this would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a box
cutter-Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had
flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that
rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have
instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken
his neck when he hit the floor. But let's ignore this almost natural
reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.
Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew,
removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain's
seat. Although weather reports state this was not the case, let's say
Hanjour was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And
Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the
windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see,
35,000 feet -- 7 miles -- below him, a murky brownish-grey-green
landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was
now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence,
at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).
In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that
day), he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the
ground he was traversing. With this kind of "situational non-awareness",
Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or
Japan-he wouldn't have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.
After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there's
little point in looking outside-there's nothing there to give him any
real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little
Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the
comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange,
eerily unsettling environment indeed.
Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his
attention to his instrument panel, where he'd be faced with a bewildering
array of instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret his
heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays
before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less
where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position!
After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the
target.
It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground
reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these
incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a
daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn't have
known where to begin.
But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things beyond all
plausibility and say that Hanjour-whose flight instructor claimed
"couldn't fly at all"-somehow managed to figure out their exact position
on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they
traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown
by themselves before.
Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out
where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing
position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he
cannot see with his eyes-remember, our ace is flying solely on
instruments).
In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to
be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what
a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug
information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV
(lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official
story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots
while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible)
terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated
instruments.
To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these
men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This
still wouldn't relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let's
assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew
the aircraft to its intended-and invisible-target on instruments alone
until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have
necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to
Washington DC. (This portion of Flight 77's flight path cannot be
corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is
said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let's
not mull over that little point.)
According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up
over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a
rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end
of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost
forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in
the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors
later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the word if his
life depended on it).
The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a
commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers
at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the
maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar
room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a
military plane."
And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.
But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot.
You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one of the most
densely populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied by top military
brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order
to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn
and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns
himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited
due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120
civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work
included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).
I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large
commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A
discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash
sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the
scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown
whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-
lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.
The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in
the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively
low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at
400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one
mile.
Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street
light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were
snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat
trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is
known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes
of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles
(I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20
above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of
the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines
buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.
At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically
impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash
sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices,
simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than
approximately one half the distance of its wingspan-until speed is
drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal
landings.
In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could
not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a
maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with
high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and
Cruise missiles-and the Global Hawk.)
The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced
the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too,
would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps,
too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their
"final approach" maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible
to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training
aircraft.
Conclusion
The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the
flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers "took control"
of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in
their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that
these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the
buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to
the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner
at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they'd realize
the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.
In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable
difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into
a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles
away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over
500 MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.
Sounds like the guy hasn't done much research.
> But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the
> least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting.
True, in fact they did a really shitty job. They overspeed the planes
several times and had to circle around a couple times before they could
even find the very large targets.
> In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS
> (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large
> multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard"
> struments.
They probably used a very simple straight forward method to address the
EFIS. They probably covered it up with duck tape. They weren't trying
to execute ILS approaches to mins here, they just flew (very poorly I
might add) the planes into giant targets. Some have speculated they may
have had Garmin 295's on them, making navigation about as difficult as
eating PopTarts.
> Sounds like the guy hasn't done much research.
>
> > But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the
> > least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting.
>
> True, in fact they did a really shitty job. They overspeed the planes
> several times and had to circle around a couple times before they could
> even find the very large targets.
     And the FDR suggested it was anything but a smooth approach.
> > In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS
> > (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large
> > multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard"
> > struments.
>
> They probably used a very simple straight forward method to address the
> EFIS. They probably covered it up with duck tape. They weren't trying
> to execute ILS approaches to mins here, they just flew (very poorly I
> might add) the planes into giant targets. Some have speculated they may
> have had Garmin 295's on them, making navigation about as difficult as
> eating PopTarts.
  Yeah, I understand this guys point of view, but he makes alot of
comments about IFR.  This was not an IFR day.  All they had to
do was to modify the coordinates in the autopilot and let it get
them close.  Then merely guide it to impact in the approach.
It was a clear day and you could see a long darn way.  And
those building stood out.
Thank you for all the responses. It's nice to get other opinions. There's
a few things that weren't commented on though.
For instance.....
"In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an
EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six
large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard"
instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight
data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and
progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with
regard to time and speed as well. When flying "blind", I.e., with no
ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and
then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this
information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an
instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in
relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as
"IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules."
"According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up
over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a
rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end
of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost
forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in
the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors
later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the word if his
life depended on it)."
"The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a
commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers
at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the
maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar
room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a
military plane.""
"And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."
"But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot.
You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one of the most
densely populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied by top military
brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order
to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn
and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns
himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited
due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120
civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work
included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing)."
"I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large
commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A
discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash
sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the
scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown
whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
"Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-
lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH."
According to the article, the alledged hijackers would have had to be
trained instrument pilots, and thoroughly familiar with the 757/767 six
large screen LCD display in order to pilot the aircraft.
Also, how did the alledged highjacker fly into the Pentagon and make that
expert maneuver? Where's the 757 wreakage? How did such a large plane
make such a small hole? What about Sagadevan's comments about it not
being physically possible to fly a 757 twenty feet above the ground at
400MPH?
To answer some of your questions... The consensus of the 9/11 Truth
Movement is that the planes were flown remote control, and that the
passengers' voices were synthesized using a new technology. (One piece of
evidence for this is this cell phone call quote from a passenger: "Hello
mom, this is Mark Bingham." When was the last time your called your
mother and announced your last name?) Very weird...
For instance.....
>
> "In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an
> EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six
> large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard"
> instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight
> data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and
> progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with
> regard to time and speed as well. When flying "blind", I.e., with no
> ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and
> then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this
> information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an
> instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL
> AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in
> relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as
> "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules."
>
>
> "According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up
> over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a
> rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end
> of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost
> forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in
> the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors
> later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the word if his
> life depended on it)."
>
> "The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
> controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a
> commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers
> at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the
> maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar
> room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a
> military plane.""
>
> "And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
> Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."
>
> "But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot.
> You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one of the most
> densely populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied by top military
> brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order
> to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn
> and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns
> himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited
> due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120
> civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work
> included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing)."
>
> "I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large
> commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A
> discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash
> sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the
> scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown
> whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
>
> "Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-
> lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH."
>
>
>
>
> According to the article, the alledged hijackers would have had to be
> trained instrument pilots, and thoroughly familiar with the 757/767 six
> large screen LCD display in order to pilot the aircraft.
As the article states,
"When flying "blind", I.e., with no  ground reference cues, it takes a
highly skilled pilot to interpret, and  then apply, this data intelligently.
If one cannot translate this  information quickly, precisely and accurately
(and it takes an  instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO
SITUATIONAL  AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where s/he was
in  relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as
"IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules."
At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the established facts
as to what happened that day are completely consistent with what the article
claims. Oops.
At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the established
> > facts as to what happened that day are completely consistent with what
> > the article claims. Oops.
> >
> > Paul Nixon
>
> On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
> cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?
The pilot clearly *could* see the ground ( it was a lovely clear day ).
There is no evidence AFAIK that the pilots couldn't use instruments either.
Graham
TRUTH wrote:
>
>> "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
>>
>> > At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the
>> > established facts as to what happened that day are completely
>> > consistent with what the article claims. Oops.
>> >
>> > Paul Nixon
>>
>> On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
>> cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?
>
> The pilot clearly *could* see the ground ( it was a lovely clear day
> ).
>
> There is no evidence AFAIK that the pilots couldn't use instruments
> either.
>
>
> Graham
>
>
The point is that the article's author says that pilots use their
instruments when flying at that high altitude. So if they're not
instrument trained, aren't they really "flying blind"? (I know I would
be:))
The flight instructors said they couldn't fly. That's been reported all
over the news the past few years. And at least one of them couldn't even
spell. How on earth could they pilot 757/767s? How is it realistic to
think that they could?
btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are any of
you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any Aeronautical
Engineers here who have the education and training to debunk the article
scientifically?
Thanks
TRUTH wrote:
>
> The point is that the article's author says that pilots use their
> instruments when flying at that high altitude. So if they're not
> instrument trained, aren't they really "flying blind"? (I know I would
> be:))
The next time you fly, look out the window.
If it is a clear day, you can make out object, even at altitude.
I have no trouble recognizing Monterey and Santa Cruz, even when flying
to SJC at night.
>
> The flight instructors said they couldn't fly.
So, if they couldn't fly, why did they hijack the plane and fly it?
Are you suggesting the planes weren't hijacked by the people that took
these classes?
  That's been reported all
> over the news the past few years. And at least one of them couldn't even
> spell. How on earth could they pilot 757/767s? How is it realistic to
> think that they could?
Do you think they would have picked someone illiterate to fly the planes?
>
>
> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are any of
> you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any Aeronautical
> Engineers here who have the education and training to debunk the article
> scientifically?
I don't need to debunk the article. There is ample evidence of what
happened, especially in the PA crash, unless you thought the PA incident
was unrelated.
TRUTH wrote:
>>
>> The flight instructors said they couldn't fly.
>
> So, if they couldn't fly, why did they hijack the plane and fly it?
> Are you suggesting the planes weren't hijacked by the people that took
> these classes?
They did not hijack the airplanes. There were no Arab names on the
manifests. Do you remember hearing in the news that the "hijackers" had
their living expenses paid for by the FBI? The government needed their
assistance, even if they were too stupid to do the attacks themselves.
An offical Zogby poll from Aug 2004 showed that half of NYC residents
believe the government knew about the attacks and consciously failed to
act.
Most people (in the US) still don't know this, but there is ample
evidence at this time that shows the government actually orchestrated the
attacks themselves.
The airplanes must have been flown remote control. (I doubt any American
pilot would fly a suicide mission.) Whatever hit the Pentagon could not
have been a 757. According to the wreckage, it must have been a much
smaller military aircraft.
Remember the large number of stock "put" options purchased on the two
airlines that were used for the attacks? Someone must have knew something
was going to happen, and that the stock values were going to drop.
I'm sure we all remember that the entire bin Laden family was visiting
Washington DC on 9/11. Also, Osama was visited in a hospital in the
Middle East shortly before 9/11 by the CIA. Is he really the enemy?
AFA the WTC collapses... I'll get into that later.
>
>   That's been reported all
>> over the news the past few years. And at least one of them couldn't
>> even spell. How on earth could they pilot 757/767s? How is it
>> realistic to think that they could?
>
> Do you think they would have picked someone illiterate to fly the
> planes?
>
>>
>>
>> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are
>> any of you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any
>> Aeronautical Engineers here who have the education and training to
>> debunk the article scientifically?
>
> I don't need to debunk the article. There is ample evidence of what
> happened, especially in the PA crash, unless you thought the PA
> incident was unrelated.
Please.. show me the evidence. I'd like to see it.
Are you *qualified* to debunk the article, may I ask?
As far as flight 93 in PA, that plane was obviously shot down. The debris 
field was way too large for it to have simply crashed. And besides that,
Rumsfeld admitted (accidentally, I would assume) that it was shot down.
The cell phone calls were faked. There's evidence suggesting this as
well.
TRUTH wrote:
> Are you *qualified* to debunk the article, may I ask?
What "expertise" is required? Do you expect there aren't any experts
around that can debunk this fabrication?
It doesn't take a genus to understand that steering a plane into a
building 1400 feet tall and hundreds of feet wide would be possible with
some training? You do realize, of course, that non-pilots have actually
landed some aircraft in emergencies? Of course they weren't 757's, but
that doesn't mean someone with training couldn't have steered one into
the WTC.
  You are stating a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon. Are you
suggesting that all of the people who stated it was a 757 actual saw a
F-14 and got mixed up? Do you think the 757 that normally flies with
that flight numeber took off and landed at a secret base and the
passengers didn't die at the Pentagon?
>TRUTH wrote:
>
>
>> Are you *qualified* to debunk the article, may I ask?
>
>What "blah blah blah" is required?
>Do you expect there aren't any troll troll troll?
>You do realize, of course, that kook kook kook?
>Are you suggesting that bark bark bark?
>Do you think the woof woof woof?
Lay off the drugs, psycho.
Usenet Public Message
The "mrtravel" psycho:
- is a 47 year old unemployed loser, alcoholic, drug addict/dealer
- has been trolling usenet and flooding newsgroups for TWO DECADES
- has been harassing and stalking usenet posters for TWO DECADES
- is a known criminal, in trouble with the law since he was a teenager
- has no life outside usenet, is online trolling/harassing/stalking 24/7
- is such a loser he often responds to posts within one or two minutes
- is a known liar and bullshitter, lies about everything
- was fired by Cisco in early 2005 for doing all of the above from work
- likes to make death threats
- is a known pedophile and child sexual predator
- is a known importer of Russian whores looking for fast cheap green cards
If you are one of his victims, report him to Scotts Valley police:
Michael D. Voight, aka "mrtravel"
111 Bean Creek Rd, No. 118
Scotts Valley,  CA  95066-4148
(831) 438-2485
Scotts Valley PD
One Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
(831) 440-5670
Police Chief Steve Lind
s l i n d @ s c o t t s v a l l e y . o r g
http://www.scottsvalleypd.com
Also contact the Scotts Valley mayor:
Paul Marigonda
m a r i g o n d @ p a c b e l l . n e t
About the "mrtravel" psycho - FAQ
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/f207022ace08c90c
More info on the psycho
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/25a7ed8ad9d9d920
mrtravel's drug abuse
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.general/msg/f0c64751c93c3e2c
mrtravel's wife left him
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.air/msg/6828ed1eb3843662
Are you *qualified* to debunk the article, may I ask?
>
> What "expertise" is required? Do you expect there aren't any experts
> around that can debunk this fabrication?
Calling it fabrication is a predetermination on your part to consider it
false, and not to take it seriously at all. (The same holds true for all
the idiots out there who use name calling and tin foil hat nonsense to
make their point.)
> It doesn't take a genus to understand that steering a plane into a
> building 1400 feet tall and hundreds of feet wide would be possible
with
> some training? You do realize, of course, that non-pilots have actually
> landed some aircraft in emergencies? Of course they weren't 757's, but
> that doesn't mean someone with training couldn't have steered one into
> the WTC.
There was a lot more invloved than "steering" it into the WTC. Besides,
for it to happen three times in one day (WTC and Pentafgon) is not very
realistic
>   You are stating a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon. Are you
> suggesting that all of the people who stated it was a 757 actual saw a
> F-14 and got mixed up? Do you think the 757 that normally flies with
> that flight numeber took off and landed at a secret base and the
> passengers didn't die at the Pentagon?
Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) definitely did NOT crash into the Pentagon, and
one does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that. Just looking at
the pictures, news video clips, testimony, fake government information,
and knowing the suspicious comments and behavior made by Rumsfeld and
others, makes it pretty clear.
The government claims they identified all the passangers from DNA
samples. But DNA samples would not have been available at a scene where a
757 vaporized into nothingness!
Where's the airplane? Where's the tail section? Where's the wings?
Did a 757 actually "vaporize into nothingness"? And if it did, what was
wreckage from a military aircraft doing there?
How did a 757 crash into the FIRST FLOOR of the Pentagon without
scorching the green lawn?
The "missing" passengers on Flight 77 did not die at the Pentagon
>Are you *qualified* to debunk the article, may I ask?
He's only qualified for a one-way trip to the nuthouse.
You're dealing with an insane troll/netkook/psychopath who has
been harassing and stalking people on usenet for two decades.
Best thing to do is to report him to his local police and ignore him.
Responding to him only gets him more sexually excited and makes
him troll and harass more.
Usenet Public Message
The "mrtravel" psycho:
- is a 47 year old unemployed loser, alcoholic, drug addict/dealer
- has been trolling usenet and flooding newsgroups for TWO DECADES
- has been harassing and stalking usenet posters for TWO DECADES
- is a known criminal, in trouble with the law since he was a teenager
- has no life outside usenet, is online trolling/harassing/stalking 24/7
- is such a loser he often responds to posts within one or two minutes
- is a known liar and bullshitter, lies about everything
- was fired by Cisco in early 2005 for doing all of the above from work
- likes to make death threats
- is a known pedophile and child sexual predator
- is a known importer of Russian whores looking for fast cheap green cards
If you are one of his victims, report him to Scotts Valley police:
Michael D. Voight, aka "mrtravel"
111 Bean Creek Rd, No. 118
Scotts Valley,  CA  95066-4148
(831) 438-2485
Scotts Valley PD
One Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
(831) 440-5670
Police Chief Steve Lind
s l i n d @ s c o t t s v a l l e y . o r g
http://www.scottsvalleypd.com
Also contact the Scotts Valley mayor:
Paul Marigonda
m a r i g o n d @ p a c b e l l . n e t
About the "mrtravel" psycho - FAQ
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/f207022ace08c90c
More info on the psycho
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/25a7ed8ad9d9d920
mrtravel's drug abuse
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.general/msg/f0c64751c93c3e2c
mrtravel's wife left him
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.air/msg/6828ed1eb3843662
>Are you *qualified* to debunk the article, may I ask?
  He's not debunking your article, he's already stated that pilots who cannot
see the ground are flying under IFR.  What he is debunking is your theory that
the hijackers could not see the ground on a perfectly clear day
Truth,
> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are any of
> you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any Aeronautical
> Engineers here who have the education and training to debunk the article
> scientifically?
>
Hey, WAKE UP! It's 2006. Do you really, honestly think no one has addressed
those "issues" since 9/11/2001? Everybody and his brother have - in the
first MINUTES after the incident. Search the internet, pull the TV "news"
tapes. You're way behind in your "fact finding"...
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
TRUTH wrote:
> Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:43FC0D69.7825EC80@hotmail.com:
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
> >>
> >> > At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the
> >> > established facts as to what happened that day are completely
> >> > consistent with what the article claims. Oops.
> >> >
> >> > Paul Nixon
> >>
> >> On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
> >> cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?
> >
> > The pilot clearly *could* see the ground ( it was a lovely clear day
> > ).
> >
> > There is no evidence AFAIK that the pilots couldn't use instruments
> > either.
> >
> >
> > Graham
>
>
> The point is that the article's author says that pilots use their
> instruments when flying at that high altitude.
Actually they use their instruments all the time. Some conditions make them
rather more important though. If the hijackers had needed to fly in IFR, that
would have needed more skill.
> So if they're not
> instrument trained, aren't they really "flying blind"? (I know I would
> be:))
No.
> The flight instructors said they couldn't fly. That's been reported all
> over the news the past few years.
No it hasn't. I recall they were generally considered to be poor pilots but
someone had already done the tricky take-off for them and the aircaft was
already at cruise altitude. Not a tricky task to crash it into a building.
> And at least one of them couldn't even
> spell. How on earth could they pilot 757/767s? How is it realistic to
> think that they could?
Perfectly realistic.
> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are any of
> you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any Aeronautical
> Engineers here who have the education and training to debunk the article
> scientifically?
I have flown light aircraft. It's easier than you might think. It's also not
such a big deal to fly big jets when you simply just want to crash them.
Graham
TRUTH wrote:
>
>
>> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are
>> any of you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any
>> Aeronautical Engineers here who have the education and training to
>> debunk the article scientifically?
>
> I have flown light aircraft. It's easier than you might think. It's
> also not such a big deal to fly big jets when you simply just want to
> crash them.
>
> Graham
>
>
But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
TRUTH wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are
>>>any of you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any
>>>Aeronautical Engineers here who have the education and training to
>>>debunk the article scientifically?
>>
>>I have flown light aircraft. It's easier than you might think. It's
>>also not such a big deal to fly big jets when you simply just want to
>>crash them.
>>
>>Graham
>>
>>
>
>
>
> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
OK... Tell us what you think REALLY happened?
But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
A turn as you described it is not a precision manoevre. It's a turn. The
plane can practically fly that itself with that degree of precision with
almost no pilot input.
--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
Ø On 2006-02-22, TRUTH <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote:
>> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
>> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
>
> A turn as you described it is not a precision manoevre. It's a turn. The
> plane can practically fly that itself with that degree of precision with
> almost no pilot input.
>
It was a 360 degree diving precision maneuver. Do you have qualifications
to refute the aeronautical engineer who quote the article may I ask please?
>> A turn as you described it is not a precision manoevre. It's a turn. The
>> plane can practically fly that itself with that degree of precision with
>> almost no pilot input.
>
> It was a 360 degree diving precision maneuver. Do you have qualifications
> to refute the aeronautical engineer who quote the article may I ask please?
Aeronautical engineers don't define precision flying any more than
chickens define how eggs are cooked. Pilots define what is precision
flying. A 360 degree descending flight path is something any student
pilot can accomplish with a high degree of accuracy. I have done
probably hundreds of these so-called 'precision maneuvers' myself. A 360
degree descending turn is a *basic* manuever, regardless of what any
aeronautical engineer might say, just as in a hard boiled egg is a basic
way to cook an egg, no matter what a chicken might think.
--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
A turn as you described it is not a precision manoevre. It's a turn. The
>>> plane can practically fly that itself with that degree of precision with
>>> almost no pilot input.
>>
>> It was a 360 degree diving precision maneuver. Do you have qualifications
>> to refute the aeronautical engineer who quote the article may I ask please?
>
>Aeronautical engineers don't define precision flying any more than
>chickens define how eggs are cooked. Pilots define what is precision
>flying. A 360 degree descending flight path is something any student
>pilot can accomplish with a high degree of accuracy. I have done
>probably hundreds of these so-called 'precision maneuvers' myself. A 360
>degree descending turn is a *basic* manuever, regardless of what any
>aeronautical engineer might say, just as in a hard boiled egg is a basic
>way to cook an egg, no matter what a chicken might think.
  As for a precision maneuver, how Ernst Udet about picking up a hankerchief
sitting on a runway, using a wingtip, to win a bet with Hollywood starlet Mary
Pickford. :)
  Compared to that a 360 degree dive is a piece of cake.
On 2006-02-22, TRUTH <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> >> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
> >
> > A turn as you described it is not a precision manoevre. It's a turn. The
> > plane can practically fly that itself with that degree of precision with
> > almost no pilot input.
>
> It was a 360 degree diving precision maneuver. Do you have qualifications
> to refute the aeronautical engineer who quote the article may I ask please?
You mean to refuse *ONE* kook idiot ?
How about al the pilots who say it *wasn't* precision flying at all ?
Graham
It was a 360 degree diving precision maneuver.
Not really.  It was a 360 degree "hunt around until we find the target,
then almost miss, even though you can see it from dozens of miles away."
That's like calling running your car into a wall at 60 MPH a "precision
driving maneuver."
> Do you have qualifications to refute the aeronautical engineer who
> quote the article may I ask please?
So far, about half of the people who have been responding to this silly
bit of conspiracy theory have those qualifications, including private
pilots and ex-military fighter jocks.
In article <Xns97723FC4EC307truth@130.81.64.196>,
>  TRUTH <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> It was a 360 degree diving precision maneuver.
>
> Not really.  It was a 360 degree "hunt around until we find the target,
> then almost miss, even though you can see it from dozens of miles
away."
>
> That's like calling running your car into a wall at 60 MPH a "precision
> driving maneuver."
>
>> Do you have qualifications to refute the aeronautical engineer who
>> quote the article may I ask please?
>
> So far, about half of the people who have been responding to this silly
> bit of conspiracy theory have those qualifications, including private
> pilots and ex-military fighter jocks.
>
The government's version is a conspiracy theory, since there's no
evidence to back it up. Therefore anyone believing the government's
version is a conspiracy theorist. You think there's evidence? Prove it
Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> A turn as you described it is not a precision manoevre. It's a turn. The
> plane can practically fly that itself with that degree of precision with
> almost no pilot input.
Especially when the only real goal is to keep the plane intact until it
hits the target.  It doesn't matter how ugly and violent the turns are,
only that the plane continues to fly.  Even stress damage is
inconsequential if it's less than failure limits.
Students with zero stick time turn airplanes during the very first
lesson.  It's not very hard to do.
Skill only gets involved when one needs to keep passengers comfortable,
fly smoothly, fly in bad weather or tight conditions, or avoid breaking
an airplane.
These guys flew airplanes into targets that were visible from far away,
located in the middle of an area (the NYC skyline) that's visible from
_extremely_ far away, with a huge river that points right to it on a
perfect VFR day.
Even a non-pilot who's been a passenger, just once on a day that clear,
should be able to understand just how far away the NYC skyline is visible.
I'm a "real" pilot who has no doubt those guys flew those planes...
Big airplanes move and seem to be precise.
"TRUTH" <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977238043BB26truth@130.81.64.196...
| Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
in
| news:43FC37A6.AC67F0A6@hotmail.com:
|
| >
| > TRUTH wrote:
| >
|
| >
| >> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots?
If so, are
| >> any of you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)?
Are there any
| >> Aeronautical Engineers here who have the education and
training to
| >> debunk the article scientifically?
| >
| > I have flown light aircraft. It's easier than you might
think. It's
| > also not such a big deal to fly big jets when you simply
just want to
| > crash them.
| >
| > Graham
| >
| >
|
|
| But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a
757 at the
| Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
TRUTH wrote:
> Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:43FC37A6.AC67F0A6@hotmail.com:
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
>
> >> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are
> >> any of you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any
> >> Aeronautical Engineers here who have the education and training to
> >> debunk the article scientifically?
> >
> > I have flown light aircraft. It's easier than you might think. It's
> > also not such a big deal to fly big jets when you simply just want to
> > crash them.
> >
> > Graham
>
> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
It *wasn't* a precision manuevre. There's just a few clots who make out it
was in order to try and falsely bolster their silly 'argument'.
Graham
TRUTH wrote:
>>
>
>
>
> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
It wasn't a precision manuver.  He turned the airplane in a circle. Even
you could do that.
On 2006-02-22, Newps <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
> TRUTH wrote:
>> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
>> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
>
> It wasn't a precision manuver.  He turned the airplane in a circle. Even
> you could do that.
Don't confuse him with the facts, his mind is made up!
--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
In article <Xns977238043BB26truth@130.81.64.196>,
TRUTH <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote:
> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
"Precision," in this case, means hitting the largest office building on
the planet, yet almost 100 yards short of his initial aim point (the
courtyard in the middle of the building)
Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> writes:
> In article <Xns977238043BB26truth@130.81.64.196>,
>  TRUTH <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> > Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
>
> "Precision," in this case, means hitting the largest office building on
> the planet, yet almost 100 yards short of his initial aim point (the
> courtyard in the middle of the building)
Yeah, well, the Pentagon  is a much harder target than the two towers
were; anywhere in a thousand feet roughly was a "good hit" on them.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
In article <Xns977238043BB26truth@130.81.64.196>,
TRUTH <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote:
> Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:43FC37A6.AC67F0A6@hotmail.com:
>
> >
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are
> >> any of you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any
> >> Aeronautical Engineers here who have the education and training to
> >> debunk the article scientifically?
> >
> > I have flown light aircraft. It's easier than you might think. It's
> > also not such a big deal to fly big jets when you simply just want to
> > crash them.
> >
> > Graham
> >
> >
>
>
> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?
Translation: "I can't believe that a poorly-trained pilot could
*possibly* see that he was going to miss the tower unless he cranked the
aircraft hard *that* way."
Do you even know how to steer a bicycle?
TRUTH wrote:
>
>
> The point is that the article's author says that pilots use their
> instruments when flying at that high altitude.
He's blurring the lines.  Above 18,000 feet pilots are required to be on
an instrument flight plan.  That may or may not require them to use
their instruments for navigation.
  So if they're not
> instrument trained, aren't they really "flying blind"? (I know I would
> be:))
It is easy to teach a person to read a couple of instruments and get to
a certain place once you have already been placed in the air.
>
> The flight instructors said they couldn't fly.
Anybody can fly a plane once it's already in the air with minimal
instruction.  The skill comes in taking off and landing.
  That's been reported all
> over the news the past few years. And at least one of them couldn't even
> spell.
How is that even relavant?
  How on earth could they pilot 757/767s? How is it realistic to
> think that they could?
You make it sound like brain surgery.  Any dolt can fly a plane that's
already in the air.
>
>
> btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots?
Yep.
   Are there any Aeronautical
> Engineers here who have the education and training to debunk the article
> scientifically?
You don't need an engineer.  Anybody in the aviation industry reads that
and laughs.
In article <Xns97721B226A56Atruth@130.81.64.196>,
TRUTH <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote:
> Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:43FC0D69.7825EC80@hotmail.com:
>
> >
> >
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
> >>
> >> > At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the
> >> > established facts as to what happened that day are completely
> >> > consistent with what the article claims. Oops.
> >> >
> >> > Paul Nixon
> >>
> >> On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
> >> cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?
> >
> > The pilot clearly *could* see the ground ( it was a lovely clear day
> > ).
> >
> > There is no evidence AFAIK that the pilots couldn't use instruments
> > either.
> >
> >
> > Graham
> >
> >
>
>
>
> The point is that the article's author says that pilots use their
> instruments when flying at that high altitude.
This is because of FAA flight rules, not because of any problem with
seeing.
> So if they're not instrument trained, aren't they really "flying blind"?
> (I know I would be:))
If the weather is clear (and it was) you don't *need* instruments to
navigate even at the aircraft's service ceiling.
Pooh Bear wrote:
> TRUTH wrote:
>
> > "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
> > news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
> >
> > > At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the established
> > > facts as to what happened that day are completely consistent with what
> > > the article claims. Oops.
> > >
> > > Paul Nixon
> >
> > On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
> > cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?
>
> The pilot clearly *could* see the ground ( it was a lovely clear day ).
>
> There is no evidence AFAIK that the pilots couldn't use instruments either.
>
It was VFR and according to the flight training  they'd have done some
IFR training!
TRUTH is just an apologist for the mad muslims who murdered nearly 3000
innocent people on 9/11
TRUTH wrote:
>
>
>
> On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
> cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?
Problem is there wasn't a cloud in the sky that day, therefore they
weren't flying blind.
In article <Xns977210531D74Ftruth@130.81.64.196>,
TRUTH <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote:
> "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
>
> >
> > "TRUTH" <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >
> > "When flying "blind", I.e., with no  ground reference cues, it takes a
> > highly skilled pilot to interpret, and  then apply, this data
> > intelligently. If one cannot translate this  information quickly,
> > precisely and accurately (and it takes an  instrument-rated pilot to
> > do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL  AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot
> > wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in  relation to the earth. Flight
> > under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight
> > Rules."
> >
> > At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the established
> > facts as to what happened that day are completely consistent with what
> > the article claims. Oops.
> >
> > Paul Nixon
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
> cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?
The day was "severe clear" all over the East Coast, with 100 miles
visibility, dumbass! Henc, no "flying blind", etc., etc.
"khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
>
> "TRUTH" <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns97728BD8884Etruth@130.81.64.196...
>> Thank you for all the responses. It's nice to get other opinions.
>> There's a few things that weren't commented on though.
>>
>> For instance.....
>>
>> "In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an
>> EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of
>> six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted
>> "hard" instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system
>> and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation,
>> position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical
>> dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When
>> flying "blind", I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a
>> highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data
>> intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly,
>> precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to
>> do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot
>> wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight
>> under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight
>> Rules."
>>
>>
>> "According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops
>> up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn
>> at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at
>> the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh,
>> I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the
>> transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one
>> of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have
>> spelt the word if his life depended on it)."
>>
>> "The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
>> controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was
>> a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic
>> controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said,
>> "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all
>> thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic
>> controllers, that that was a military plane.""
>>
>> "And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
>> Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."
>>
>> "But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze
>> pilot. You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one
>> of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied
>> by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld.
>> Presumably in order to save these men's lives, he then executes a
>> sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the
>> opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the
>> Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations
>> that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction
>> workers in that wing who were killed; their work included
>> blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing)."
>>
>> "I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large
>> commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A
>> discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash
>> sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the
>> scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown
>> whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
>>
>> "Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a
>> 200,000- lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> According to the article, the alledged hijackers would have had to be
>> trained instrument pilots, and thoroughly familiar with the 757/767
>> six large screen LCD display in order to pilot the aircraft.
>
> As the article states,
>
> "When flying "blind", I.e., with no  ground reference cues, it takes a
> highly skilled pilot to interpret, and  then apply, this data
> intelligently. If one cannot translate this  information quickly,
> precisely and accurately (and it takes an  instrument-rated pilot to
> do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL  AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot
> wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in  relation to the earth. Flight
> under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight
> Rules."
>
> At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the established
> facts as to what happened that day are completely consistent with what
> the article claims. Oops.
>
> Paul Nixon
The government's version of 9/11 is not established fact... not to those
who can read between the lines :)
"TRUTH" <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977210AF492ADtruth@130.81.64.196...
> "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
>
> >
> > "TRUTH" <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns97728BD8884Etruth@130.81.64.196...
> >> Thank you for all the responses. It's nice to get other opinions.
> >> There's a few things that weren't commented on though.
> >>
> >
> > At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the established
> > facts as to what happened that day are completely consistent with what
> > the article claims. Oops.
> >
> > Paul Nixon
>
>
>
> The government's version of 9/11 is not established fact... not to those
> who can read between the lines :)
Obviously you are reading between the lines - literallly.
And I agree that the "Government's version" is not established fact - it's
merely consistent with established fact.
Paul Nixon
"khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:vm1Lf.4220$Sp2.802@fed1read02:
> "TRUTH" <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns977210AF492ADtruth@130.81.64.196...
>> "khobar" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:
>>
>> >
>> > "TRUTH" <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns97728BD8884Etruth@130.81.64.196...
>> >> Thank you for all the responses. It's nice to get other opinions.
>> >> There's a few things that weren't commented on though.
>> >>
>> >
>> > At no time were any of the aircraft flying blind, thus the
>> > established facts as to what happened that day are completely
>> > consistent with what the article claims. Oops.
>> >
>> > Paul Nixon
>>
>>
>>
>> The government's version of 9/11 is not established fact... not to
>> those who can read between the lines :)
>
> Obviously you are reading between the lines - literallly.
>
> And I agree that the "Government's version" is not established fact -
> it's merely consistent with established fact.
>
> Paul Nixon
>
>
>
Where are the facts? You point to ONE fact that shows flight 77 hit the
Pentagon.
TRUTH wrote:
> Thank you for all the responses. It's nice to get other opinions. There's
> a few things that weren't commented on though.
>
> For instance.....
>
> "In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an
> EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six
> large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard"
> instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight
> data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and
> progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with
> regard to time and speed as well. When flying "blind", I.e., with no
> ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and
> then apply, this data intelligently.
They weren't *flying blind*.
Quite the reverse. it was a lovely day with great visibility.
> If one cannot translate this
> information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an
> instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL
> AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in
> relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as
> "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules."
Hence not applicable. It was VFR weather.
> "According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up
> over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a
> rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end
> of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost
> forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in
> the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors
> later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the word if his
> life depended on it)."
The " precise diving turn " is simply someone's imagination. Probably the
reporter's version of events. It makes for more 'compelling' copy.
> "The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
> controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a
> commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers
> at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the
> maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar
> room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a
> military plane.""
That's because they don't normally see commerical planes flown like that ! It
doesn't mean it can't be done. Commercial flights have regard to passenger
sensitivities.
> "And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
> Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."
Typical journalist hype. The journalist wan't there on the flight deck was he
so how does he or anyone else know what Hanjour *saw* ?
Etc.
Yawn.
Graham
Truth,
> The consensus of the 9/11 Truth
> Movement
>
Ah, the 9/11 Truth Movement! Thanks for giving me the laugh of the day.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Truth,
> Yes! And I shall have the last laugh. Believe me.
>
Oh, it's all a matter of belief to you. Sorry, I won't discuss your
wacky religion. As for the facts, well, you're wrong. But you can
believe all you want.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
The whole point of the EFIS display is that a picture is
easier to understand than a few dozen dials.  There is no
secret anymore about transponders and the hijack codes,
turning the transponder off is SOP for a hijackers.  If the
transponder is on and the aircraft is maneuvering and
changing altitude faster than the refresh rate of the radar
sweep, it will blank on the screen and go into a coast mode.
The hard part of crashing into a particular spot is finding
the spot, the Pentagon is easy to see as were the WTC
towers, but just try to find the Wal-Mart store from 3,000
feet 15 miles away.
Atlantic Ocean, Long Island, Manhattan Island, easy to see
and they point to the WTC.
"TRUTH" <TRUTH@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97728BD8884Etruth@130.81.64.196...
| Thank you for all the responses. It's nice to get other
opinions. There's
| a few things that weren't commented on though.
|
| For instance.....
|
| "In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be
faced with an
| EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel
comprised of six
| large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of
assorted "hard"
| instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft
system and flight
| data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation,
position and
| progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions,
but also with
| regard to time and speed as well. When flying "blind",
I.e., with no
| ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to
interpret, and
| then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot
translate this
| information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it
takes an
| instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO
SITUATIONAL
| AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where s/he
was in
| relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is
referred to as
| "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules."
|
|
| "According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then
suddenly pops up
| over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise
diving turn at a
| rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500
ft/min, at the end
| of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level.
Oh, I almost
| forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the
transponder in
| the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of
his instructors
| later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the
word if his
| life depended on it)."
|
| "The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the
air traffic
| controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their
screen was a
| commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air
traffic controllers
| at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said,
"The speed, the
| maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in
the radar
| room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that
that was a
| military plane.""
|
| "And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour
finds the
| Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."
|
| "But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim
kamikaze pilot.
| You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards
one of the most
| densely populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied
by top military
| brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld.
Presumably in order
| to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping
270-degree turn
| and approaches the building from the opposite direction
and aligns
| himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was
virtually uninhabited
| due to extensive renovations that were underway (there
were some 120
| civilians construction workers in that wing who were
killed; their work
| included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing)."
|
| "I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying
a large
| commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400
MPH. A
| discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex
compression, downwash
| sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are
beyond the
| scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would
have blown
| whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
|
| "Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to
fly a 200,000-
| lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH."
|
|
|
|
| According to the article, the alledged hijackers would
have had to be
| trained instrument pilots, and thoroughly familiar with
the 757/767 six
| large screen LCD display in order to pilot the aircraft.
|
| Also, how did the alledged highjacker fly into the
Pentagon and make that
| expert maneuver? Where's the 757 wreakage? How did such a
large plane
| make such a small hole? What about Sagadevan's comments
about it not
| being physically possible to fly a 757 twenty feet above
the ground at
| 400MPH?
|
|
|
| To answer some of your questions... The consensus of the
9/11 Truth
| Movement is that the planes were flown remote control, and
that the
| passengers' voices were synthesized using a new
technology. (One piece of
| evidence for this is this cell phone call quote from a
passenger: "Hello
| mom, this is Mark Bingham." When was the last time your
called your
| mother and announced your last name?) Very weird...
TRUTH wrote:
>
> "In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an
> EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six
> large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard”
> instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight
> data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and
> progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with
> regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no
> ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and
> then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this
> information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an
> instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL
> AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in
> relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as
> “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules."
It was a clear sunny day so everything you said above is irrelavant.
Also it does not take an instrument rated pilot to do lok at the EFIS
and determine where you are.  It is much easier to tell where you are
BECAUSE of the EFIS.
>
>
> "According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up
> over Washington DC
The radar controller never said he popped up without warning.
  and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a
> rate of 360 degrees/minute
There was nothing incredibly precise about it, or did there need to be.
  while descending at 3,500 ft/min,
A descent of that rate is in the middle of the normal range for an airliner.
  at the end
> of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level.
He didn't level out, he crashed into the building.
  Oh, I almost
> forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in
> the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver
If you know where it is it's like turning off a light.
  (one of his instructors
> later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his
> life depended on it)."
He was a foreigner, spelling was not second nature.
>
> "The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
> controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a
> commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers
> at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the
> maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar
> room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a
> military plane.”"
Because it was unexpecte, not because it was difficult.
>
> "And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
> Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."
Have you seen a picture of the area from the air?  Antbody could pick
out the Pentagon.
>
> "But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot.
> You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most
> densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military
> brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld.
He wouldn't have any idea who occupied that part of the Pentagon.
  Presumably in order
> to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn
> and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns
> himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited
> due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120
> civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work
> included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing)."
He did that because he was going to miss the building on his first attempt.
>
> "I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large
> commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH.
Nothing impossible about it.
  A
> discussion on ground effect energy,
No such thing.
  tip vortex compression,
You're making shit up.
  downwash
> sheet reaction,
Now that's just funny.
  wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the
> scope of this article
Wake turbulence and jet blast affect aircraft behind the one making it.
  (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown
> whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
Sure, if the trucks were within a couple hundred feet and the aircraft
was sitting on the ground.  But a flying aircraft cannot blow any
vehicle over.
>
> "Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-
> lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH."
It's well within the capabilities of every airliner.
>
>
>
>
> According to the article, the alledged hijackers would have had to be
> trained instrument pilots,
No.
  and thoroughly familiar with the 757/767 six
> large screen LCD display in order to pilot the aircraft.
No.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:06:15 -0700, Newps <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
>> Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."
>
>Have you seen a picture of the area from the air?  Antbody could pick
>out the Pentagon.
  Can you recognize this building?
http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/17_pentagon_before800.jpg
  Picture taken from an altitude of 2,233,000 feet. <grin>
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:06:15 -0700, Newps <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>Have you seen a picture of the area from the air?  Antbody could pick
>>out the Pentagon.
>
>   Can you recognize this building?
> http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/17_pentagon_bef
> ore800.jpg
Here's what it would look like from about ~20k feet:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=washington+dc&ll=38.871456,-77.056732&spn=0.049383,0.10849&t=k
Pretty distinctive even from that altitude
Striker, listen, and you listen close: flying a plane is no different
than riding a bicycle, just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the
spokes."
Got your attention anyway
"WaltBJ" <waltbj01@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1140563460.637823.142880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Another strewer of BS. I have given many rpt many non-flyers rides in
> T33s, TF102s, F104Bs up to and including the F4 (50,000 pounds) and
> after a little coaching quite a few have done well, includig passable
> barrel rolls. Herding one of those big transport beasts around the sky
> is like driving a truck in 3 dimensions. Flying into a tall building is
> something I estimate (learned guess) at least 3 of any 10 people could
> do without much trouble. Mr. Sagadevan is wrong wrong wrong. And he
> ignores the telephone calls from the passengers in his tortuous
> reasoning  Just another attention-seeker.
> Walt BJ
Chad Irby wrote:
> In article <jOednbF506x35WbenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>  "Bob Gardner" <bobmrg@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I have had the opportunity to fly both 737 and 747 simulators at the Boeing
>>Training Center and at Flight Safety. I have had no training in the
>>operation of heavy jets...I just applied the knowledge I had gained from
>>flying cabin twins. In these full-motion sims I have flown patterns to
>>ILS's. I have no problem with the possibility of the hijackers being able to
>>do what they obviously did.
>
>
> Aiming a big, stable plane at a building over a thousand feet tall and a
> couple of hundred feet wide isn't anything like a hard trick, and they
> still almost screwed it up (note the severe bank when the second plane
> hits, as the pilot tries to keep from missing).
Consider how much worse it might have been if he had just caught the edge of
the building and sprayed a full load of flaming fuel and wreckage all over the
city.
Grim, me thinks

Truth's real name is  is James Feltzer he is not qualified to make the statements he makes nor has he ever flown a heavy lift commercial jet.  His personal attack on the on responder was to distract from the fact he lost the argument because he was fabricating information with his opinion.