Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

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


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


"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
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

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)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Truth,

The consensus of the 9/11 Truth
Movement


Ah, the 9/11 Truth Movement! Thanks for giving me the laugh of the day.




Yes! And I shall have the last laugh. Believe me.

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.


"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
| Thomas Borchert wrote in
| :
|
| Truth,
|
| The consensus of the 9/11 Truth
| Movement
|
|
| Ah, the 9/11 Truth Movement! Thanks for giving me the
laugh of the day.
|
|
|
|
| Yes! And I shall have the last laugh. Believe me.

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)

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Yes! And I shall have the last laugh. Believe me.

....while wearing the nice white coat with the long sleeves that buckle
in the back.

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" wrote in message
...
| 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 **** 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.