Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

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 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,

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,

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)

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 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?

OK... Tell us what you think REALLY happened?

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...

Pilots fly IFR at high altitude, not because they can't see
and control the airplane, but because the FAA rules require
Instrument Flight Rules, not instrument flight.


"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
| 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 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

Big airplanes move and seem to be precise.


"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
| 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?

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.