Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

I got it in a slightly different form, but only a slight
change made it fit TRUTH.


Hope everybody enjoys the joke.


"george" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| One day at school, a fourth grade teacher ask the
students
| what their daddy did for a living. All the kids said
the
| usual stuff. Doctor, lawyer, butcher, car mechanic,
banker,
| carpenter..... One little girl said her daddy was an
exotic
| dancer in a gay bar. He took his clothes off and danced
for
| men. If he was offered money, he'd even go home with
the
| customers and have sex with them.
|
| The teacher was shocked and stopped the "lesson" and
sent
| the other kids out to play. The teacher then asked the
| child if what was said was TRUE. The child said, "No,
he is
| a blogger pushing the theory that 9/11 was a conspiracy
by
| the US government and I was to embarrassed to say so.
|
| To you sir, the ears and the tale
| ROTFL
|

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

"khobar" wrote in
news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:


"TRUTH" 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.

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

"khobar" 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 point is, dumbass, that the author doesn't know what in hell he is
writing about! End of story!



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?


It doesn't take much talent to steer the plane, after all the hard work
of configuring the plane has been done. They didn't have to know ho to
operate the gear, flaps, etc. All they had to know was which direction
to fly and how to disconnect the autopilot.


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?

Yes -- a "real pilot" since 1959. I have about fifty close friends who
either fly or have flown for the airlines and they all would say that
you are full of ****.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:09:03 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

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.

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

"khobar" 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.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:51:33 -0000, Dylan Smith wrote:

On 2006-02-22, TRUTH 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.

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.

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:


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?

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:06:15 -0700, Newps 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/gisresp..._before800.jpg

Picture taken from an altitude of 2,233,000 feet. grin

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:06:15 -0700, Newps 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/gisresp...7_pentagon_bef
ore800.jpg

Here's what it would look like from about ~20k feet:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...83,0.10849&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."