Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

Truth,

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham





At 30,000 feet it does


No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to be
legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Truth,

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham





At 30,000 feet it does


No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to be
legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.



Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do know is
what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly large
aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

TRUTH wrote:

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham

At 30,000 feet it does

No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to be
legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.

Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do know is
what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly large
aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )

http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/

Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an instrument
rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large aircraft ?

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:

TRUTH wrote:

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham
At 30,000 feet it does
No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to be
legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do know is
what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly large
aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )

http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/

Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an instrument
rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large aircraft ?

Graham



He won't because the obvious has eluded him all along assuming he's
ever flown in a commercial airliner. At 30 kilofeet on a clear day you
can look down from your passenger seat and recognize landmarks. It would
disturb him to have to actually admit another flaw in his "logic."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote in news:GeZLf.27395$Ug4.14004@dukeread12:

Pooh Bear wrote:

TRUTH wrote:

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
clear skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham
At 30,000 feet it does
No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )

http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/

Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
aircraft ?

Graham



He won't because the obvious has eluded him all along assuming he's
ever flown in a commercial airliner. At 30 kilofeet on a clear day you
can look down from your passenger seat and recognize landmarks. It
would disturb him to have to actually admit another flaw in his
"logic."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




oh give it up already!

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:GeZLf.27395$Ug4.14004@dukeread12:

Pooh Bear wrote:
TRUTH wrote:

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
clear skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham
At 30,000 feet it does
No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )

http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/

Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
aircraft ?

Graham


He won't because the obvious has eluded him all along assuming he's
ever flown in a commercial airliner. At 30 kilofeet on a clear day you
can look down from your passenger seat and recognize landmarks. It
would disturb him to have to actually admit another flaw in his
"logic."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




oh give it up already!

You can't see the ground from an airliner on a clear day like the
rest of us? Why not?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dan" wrote in message
news:gEoMf.53315$Ug4.38641@dukeread12...
TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:GeZLf.27395$Ug4.14004@dukeread12:

Pooh Bear wrote:
TRUTH wrote:

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
clear skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham
At 30,000 feet it does
No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )

http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/

Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
aircraft ?

Graham


He won't because the obvious has eluded him all along assuming he's
ever flown in a commercial airliner. At 30 kilofeet on a clear day you
can look down from your passenger seat and recognize landmarks. It
would disturb him to have to actually admit another flaw in his
"logic."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




oh give it up already!

You can't see the ground from an airliner on a clear day like the
rest of us? Why not?

I understand that a bad case of cranial rectumitis can result in severe
vision impairment... :O|

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that
there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
clear skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham

At 30,000 feet it does

No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.

Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )

http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/

Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
aircraft ?

Graham






Thanks Graham, I bookmarked that link. Will take a look later on

"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that
there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
clear skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham

At 30,000 feet it does

No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.

Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )

http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/

Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
aircraft ?

Graham

Thanks Graham, I bookmarked that link. Will take a look later on

How about looking at it NOW before you continue to make a ****ing ass of
yourself?

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Truth,

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham





At 30,000 feet it does


No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to be
legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.



Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do know is
what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly large
aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

He isn't. Neither does his name show up in the US pilot data base
(conclusion: He is a fraud).

So, why don't you accept the assessment of other, more experienced
engineers and pilots?