Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

On 2006-02-22, Newps 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

Hey, let's talk about TWA 800 instead...

How could a 747 with most of its nose removed (and the accompanying rearward CG shift) maintain level flight and climb for 5000'? Where is the autopilot located in a 747?

"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

In article ,
TRUTH 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)

In article ,
TRUTH 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.

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.

Level flight and climb are mutually excluded. But wings
level and climb is very possible. The weight of the node
section being gone would cause the rapid climb and there was
no roll input since the wings were attached.

Could it have been shot down by a missile? Or attacked by a
UFO? Or maybe it was hijacked? Sure those are very slight
possibilities, but the FBI and FAA seem to have put a pretty
good case for the fuel tank explosion theory.



"Chris Wells"
wrote in message
...
|
| Hey, let's talk about TWA 800 instead...
|
| How could a 747 with most of its nose removed (and the
accompanying
| rearward CG shift) maintain level flight and climb for
5000'? Where is
| the autopilot located in a 747?
|
|
| --
| Chris Wells

Pooh Bear wrote:
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.

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

Chad Irby writes:

In article ,
TRUTH 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, , 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/

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