official 9-11 thread

[KAZANI]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Then who do you think flew the airplane?

NOT a guy who couldn't fly a Cessna. So let's have a PROPER, WELL FUNDED and extensive investigation into this case and start getting meaningful answers. The official report is a sham and you bloody well know that!

 

[dphantom]

You still did not answer the question. If not Hani, then who? What is your opinion? Can you even think? Or is your idea of a discussion one where everyone but you has to provide an answer? Generally, there is an exchange of information in a conversation. All you are doing is throwing up idle, unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If 9-11 was carried out in order to give us an excuse then why didn't they do a better job tying Iraq to 9-11?

They can plan and carry out this massive operation, but they can't produce one piece of evidence that ties the attackers to Iraq?

Also, if congress had stood up to Bush per-invasion or if Saddam had done a better job working with the weapons inspectors Bush would have never been able to start the war.

Seems awfully risky to plan out this great big conspiracy in order to justify invading Iraq but then risk getting what you want by relying on congress or Saddam to act a certain way.

Also, Bush took office in January. Did he start the plan for 9-11 right away? Or was the plan already be worked on before he took over? Which makes you wonder why the people behind this would risk all their hard work only to have Al Gore win election and not invade Iraq or Bush to not invade Iraq either.

Finally... can you guys even take a guess at the number of people it would take to pull off this operation as you 'think' it happened?

They don't have to b/c when they tell us to go get duck tape b/c that's gonna protect us from anthrax, we go out and raid home depot....lol.

That's all I'm wanting. For the public to be more open and to question events that occurr and information that is fed. Instead of consuming everything that the media feeds like it's fillet minion.

Really? That's all you want? So you're not trying to push some bullshit conspiracy theory, you just want people to question things? Funny, because you said "The reason it happened was to sell the Iraq invasion." That's you saying that the US Government made 9-11 happen. Now, when confronted with some real questions, you back peddle and make up some lame excuse about just wanting people to be a little more open minded. Yea, ok.....:roll:

Edit - FYI, it's not "fillet minion", it's filet mignon.

Can you send me the feed that you received from the cockpit cam?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If 9-11 was carried out in order to give us an excuse then why didn't they do a better job tying Iraq to 9-11?

They can plan and carry out this massive operation, but they can't produce one piece of evidence that ties the attackers to Iraq?

Also, if congress had stood up to Bush per-invasion or if Saddam had done a better job working with the weapons inspectors Bush would have never been able to start the war.

Seems awfully risky to plan out this great big conspiracy in order to justify invading Iraq but then risk getting what you want by relying on congress or Saddam to act a certain way.

Also, Bush took office in January. Did he start the plan for 9-11 right away? Or was the plan already be worked on before he took over? Which makes you wonder why the people behind this would risk all their hard work only to have Al Gore win election and not invade Iraq or Bush to not invade Iraq either.

Finally... can you guys even take a guess at the number of people it would take to pull off this operation as you 'think' it happened?

They don't have to b/c when they tell us to go get duck tape b/c that's gonna protect us from anthrax, we go out and raid home depot....lol.

That's all I'm wanting. For the public to be more open and to question events that occurr and information that is fed. Instead of consuming everything that the media feeds like it's fillet minion.

Really? That's all you want? So you're not trying to push some bullshit conspiracy theory, you just want people to question things? Funny, because you said "The reason it happened was to sell the Iraq invasion." That's you saying that the US Government made 9-11 happen. Now, when confronted with some real questions, you back peddle and make up some lame excuse about just wanting people to be a little more open minded. Yea, ok.....:roll:

Edit - FYI, it's not "fillet minion", it's filet mignon.

Can you send me the feed that you received from the cockpit cam?

You've been asked several questions but you continually side step them, how about you answer the questions that you've been asked before you go off on some wild CT tangent mmkay?

 

[Fern]

IMHO (notice the "H", I don't normally use that 🙂 ) this forum is particularly ill-suited for this topic.

I mostly see questions about the plausibility of various aspects of the *official* 911 claims by government. Other than theories on motivation, or lack thereof, this forum is NOT suited to responsibly or professionally address questions regarding the aeronautical physics of flying a jetliner, civil engineering, or any of the other highly technical areas of question surrounding this matter.

I would think sincerely interested peeps would break this thing up into the various pieces and address them in the appropriate highly technical forums. No need to even announce it as 911 related. Would that not be more rational and productive?

Fern

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Fern
IMHO (notice the "H", I don't normally use that 🙂 ) this forum is particularly ill-suited for this topic.

I mostly see questions about the plausibility of various aspects of the *official* 911 claims by government. Other than theories on motivation, or lack thereof, this forum is NOT suited to responsibly or professionally address questions regarding the aeronautical physics of flying a jetliner, civil engineering, or any of the other highly technical areas of question surrounding this matter.

I would think sincerely interested peeps would break this thing up into the various pieces and address them in the appropriate highly technical forums. No need to even announce it as 911 related. Would that not be more rational and productive?

Fern

Of course it would, but as far as I know, all of those issues have been addressed and debunked in one form or another.

 

[Vic]

I doubt that would happen, Fern, as all the CT'ers would likely get laughed clean out of HT.

I can see the exchange right now:
- There's no way a guy who couldn't fly a Cessna could have flown a 757 into the Pentagon.
- Okay, that's interesting, but if not Hani, then who did?
- Keep an open mind, you sheep! :|
- 😕 :roll:

That kind of conversation is not going anywhere no matter which forum it's in.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Avionics in a 757 are not vastly different from a 737. Besides that, Hanjour had training manuals for the 7575 and 767 and used MS Flight Simulator to familiarize himself with the avionics layouts. So, thanks but no thanks. I will not leave it. You simply saying it doesn't count carries no weight whatsoever in the face of the evidence.

600 hours of flight on small aircraft was not enough for Hanjour to make him capable of flying a Cessna but somehow a manual and few hours playing a PC game rendered him up to the task of commanding a large airliner. I trust most people possess enough common sense to disregard such blatant absurdities.

Ah, the usual distorsion of the surrounding facts game that the CTs so love to play.

Hanour's problem with renting the Cessna was his shaky landing skills. Guess what? On 9/11 he didn't have to land the plane.

Bernard didn't have to pilot with Hanjour. He was the chief flight instructor at Freeway. It was his job to know how people wanting to rent the Freeway planes performed.

I merely implied that maybe the opinion of those who had first hand experience of Hanjour's flying would be more pertinet on this matter. You ignore the second and main part of my argument, which is that Bernard still refused to rent him an aircraft anyway.

As chief flight instructor he knows what he was talking about. He was directly briefed by the instructor that flew with Hanjour. So it's not as if Bernard was speaking from hearsay.

"Intrinsic maneuver." What the heck is that suppose to mean or imply?

from the pilotsfor911truth site:

...

So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed. So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later... Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.

...

So how were those maneuvers "instrinsic" other than being intrinsicly stupid? Do you know what instrinsic even means?

Fortunately a friend of mine is a commercial airline pilot so I called him up and read him the above. He said the guy writing that was FOS. He tries his best to make it sound like the maneuvers were difficult, something only an experienced pilot would pull off. But he overstates the case. Not only that, but it's full of assumptions concerning decent speed, turn rates, bank angles, etc and throws in a few attempts at technical jargon ("Vmo at sea level for a 757" is a meaningless statement) to attempt to sound as if he knows what he's talking about.

The simple answer is this. If the pilot of AA77 was experienced he wouldn't have overshot the Pentagon in the first place, nor would he have attempted to pull off the ridiculous diving turn that Hanjour did. Those manuevers alone demonstrate that a rookie was at the controls, not an experienced pilot.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Fern
IMHO (notice the "H", I don't normally use that 🙂 ) this forum is particularly ill-suited for this topic.

I mostly see questions about the plausibility of various aspects of the *official* 911 claims by government. Other than theories on motivation, or lack thereof, this forum is NOT suited to responsibly or professionally address questions regarding the aeronautical physics of flying a jetliner, civil engineering, or any of the other highly technical areas of question surrounding this matter.

I would think sincerely interested peeps would break this thing up into the various pieces and address them in the appropriate highly technical forums. No need to even announce it as 911 related. Would that not be more rational and productive?

Fern

Of course it would, but as far as I know, all of those issues have been addressed and debunked in one form or another.

well answer this. tell me what u think of this report:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

from what i remember reading of the fema report, they would select a sample to be taken from the field and then only to discover that the sample had been disposed of. a sample of wtc 7 steel was analyzed by fema. the nist did not have access too that steel. nist quoted that they had no steel from wtc 7. this goes into the whole thermite/thermate debate. and dont go sending me to frank greening either. i saw many holes in his theory.

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.

 

[event8horizon]

tlc- u never mentioned what u thought of danny lewin on flight 11 , the Israel Defence Force officer in Sayeret Matkal, an elite and secretive intelligence unit. do u know what they specialize in.

Sayeret Matkal (Hebrew: ????? ???"?, translation: General Staff Reconnaissance Unit) is an elite special forces unit of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). Its main roles are counter-terrorism, deep reconnaissance and intelligence gathering, but the unit is first and foremost a field intelligence-gathering unit, used to obtain strategically important intelligence far behind enemy lines.


one of his rabbi's described him as a good zionist.

Lewin was killed aboard American Airlines Flight 11 during the September 11, 2001 attacks, apparently toward the beginning of the hijacking. A 2002 FAA memo suggests he may have been killed by hijacker Satam al-Suqami after he attempted to foil the hijacking.[1] According to the FAA, Lewin was seated in business class in seat 9B, close to hijackers Mohammed Atta and Satam al Suqami (who was possibly seated behind him). It was first reported that he had been shot by al Suqami, which was later changed to being stabbed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_M._Lewin

another one of those guys the ex italian prez was talking about????

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc- u never mentioned what u thought...

Nor have you. I have debated you on a number of subjects in the past concerning 9/11. You already know what I think.

Nobody knows what you think about 9/11 though because you refuse to say anything.

I'm over your question box routine and attempts to engage on your terms only. Drop the interrogation mode and begin providing some answers of your own. You have continually failed to do so.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Regarding AA77

There are such things as autopilot

Plug in a location and the plane will fly to it.

Disengage the autopilot and you have control.

Disengage the autopilot a few seconds/minutes after planned location (because underestimating aircraft speed), then one has to perform manuevers (drastic) to get the plane to a physical visible target.

 

[OokiiNeko]

Drop the interrogation mode and begin providing some answers of your own. You have continually failed to do so.

No e8h, keep asking questions.
Keep asking how a series of gaffes, oversights and bad scheduling just happened to coincide to enable a disaster.

🙂

 

[OokiiNeko]

And speaking of questions, here`s one of mine from another thread.

YOU are the head of the President`s Secret Service detail in Florida on 9/11.
YOU receive word that the country is under attack from UNKNOWN forces.
The scope of the attack is also UNKNOWN at that time.
Regardless of what the President or his advisors say, what are you, as the head of the detail, sworn to do IMMEDIATELY?

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc- u never mentioned what u thought...

Nor have you. I have debated you on a number of subjects in the past concerning 9/11. You already know what I think.

Nobody knows what you think about 9/11 though because you refuse to say anything.

I'm over your question box routine and attempts to engage on your terms only. Drop the interrogation mode and begin providing some answers of your own. You have continually failed to do so.

tell me about that israeli security firm that was in charge of security at the airports on 9-11. how many airports did they serve. and if a gun was brought abord like the first FAA memo stated, then how did it get there.

we also really need to discuss the software that was on the computers and at the FAA to let this "blips" onto the screens. ptech had some shady people behind it. some tied to funding terrorism. ill find the articles later about the israeli security fims at the airports and about ptech guys funding terrorism. gotta do that work thing today.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc- u never mentioned what u thought...

Nor have you. I have debated you on a number of subjects in the past concerning 9/11. You already know what I think.

Nobody knows what you think about 9/11 though because you refuse to say anything.

I'm over your question box routine and attempts to engage on your terms only. Drop the interrogation mode and begin providing some answers of your own. You have continually failed to do so.

tell me about that israeli security firm that was in charge of security at the airports on 9-11. how many airports did they serve. and if a gun was brought abord like the first FAA memo stated, then how did it get there.

we also really need to discuss the software that was on the computers and at the FAA to let this "blips" onto the screens. ptech had some shady people behind it. some tied to funding terrorism. ill find the articles later about the israeli security fims at the airports and about ptech guys funding terrorism. gotta do that work thing today.

It has been demonstrated before and after, that ground personal have access to the system and bypass security. It took a network of support toget this setup - there could easily have been support within the ground personal at the origin points.

 

[KAZANI]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Hanour's problem with renting the Cessna was his shaky landing skills. Guess what? On 9/11 he didn't have to land the plane.

The folks at JetTech flight school in Phoenix reported Hanjour to the FAA 5 times due to his poor skills CBSnews. (It seems the FAA inspector who showed up to check on him was thinking -like that pilot friend of yours- everyone else in this world to be FOS and exaggerating things, because he didn't take any action against him.)

Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. ''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.'' NY Times

So how were those maneuvers "instrinsic" other than being intrinsicly stupid? Do you know what instrinsic even means?

The word I meant to use was "intricate". Just my bad english here.

Fortunately a friend of mine is a commercial airline pilot so I called him up and read him the above. He said the guy writing that was FOS. He tries his best to make it sound like the maneuvers were difficult, something only an experienced pilot would pull off.

At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...ional/main310721.shtml

"NIKKI LAUDA: ACTUAL FLIGHT EXPERIENCE ON BOEINGS WAS REQUIRED On the day after 9/11, two experienced German airline pilots, both veterans of many hours at the controls of Boeing 757s and 767s, agreed in the course of a September 12 prime time television broadcast that neither a real professional flight simulator and even less flight simulation software on a PC could ever suffice to impart the skills demonstrated by the supposed 9/11 suicide pilots. They were asked by host Guenter Jauch whether the hijackers could have flown the planes.

Captain Joerg Kujak?s evaluation: ?No. It?s not that simple,? whatever many laymen might think. ?That wouldn?t work. An amateur is not capable of steering a large commercial airliner anywhere with accuracy, neither with the automatic pilot, nor, with his hands on the controls. He would need training for that, and that does not necessarily have to last three years, the way normal pilot training in a flight school goes, but it has to go on for a certain amount of time. He needs basic training in the specific type of plane or on a jet in general, and through that he has to learn how to fly manually. With a PC you don?t get the same feeling, for example for the trim tabs, for the steering yoke, for the change of situations. If you put your foot on the gas, then a jet rears up, because it has itsengines under the wings, and that would be too much for an amateur, that can?t be done without training.?

Nikki Lauda, a legendary Formula One race driver, was a pilot and the founder of his own airline. He was asked by Jauch: ?Is it easy to learn, we?ve seen that a video was found in a car near the Boston airport, and people think that the car belonged to a kidnapper, who had used it to bone up in advance on what the inside of a cockpit looks like. Is it so simple, for example, to learn that with the help of a computer simulator??

Lauda judged that ?these gentlemen were properly trained to fly a plane like that.? In particular, he stressed that ?you have to know exactly what the turning radius of a plane like that is, if I am trying to hit the World Trade Center. That means, these had to be fully trained 767 or 757 pilots, because otherwise they would have missed. It certainly could not be the case that some half-trained pilot tries it somehow, because then he will not hit it. That?s not so easy, coming out of a curve?. If he?s coming out of a curve, then he has to know precisely the turning radius that derives from the speed of the plane in order to be able to calculate it, so that he will hit right there.?

Jauch asked which was harder to hit, the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. Lauda: ?Well, what impressed me is the organization of this whole operation, since without good weather it would have not been possible at all, because then you can?t see anything. These were visual flights, using VFR [visual flight rules] as we call them. And so the World Trade Center is relatively easy to find, because it is stands out so tall?. The Pentagon is another matter again, because it is a building that is relatively flat. That means, they had to be trained well enough that they had flown around in the air in the New York area, I would speculate, so they could see the scene from above of where the building is located and how you could best reach it.? To hit a flat building like the Pentagon is ?an even more difficult case? than the World Trade Center. Lauda: ?That means, to fly downwards out of a curve, and still hit the building in its core, I would have to be the best trained of all. I would speculate that a normal airline pilot would have a hard time with that, because you are simply not prepared for things like that. That means, they must have had some super-training to have been able to handle an airliner so precisely.?

Could this have been done with the best, most expensive professional flight simulator, asked Jauch. For Lauda, the flight simulator was only a prerequisite. ?I don?t think a simulator by itself would be enough to know all the New York landscapes, and to know exactly what angle to use to fly in there. I believe that these people had actually flown these airliners; they could have been pilots from some airline or the other, just to get this feeling for the plane ? in real flight, not on a simulator ? so they could then carry out this act of terror.? (Wisnewski 38-40) Of course, not even the FBI has ever ascribed such thorough training to the accused suicide pilots; practice on a 757 or 767 was not available at Huffman Aviation. " from the book "9/11 Synthetic Terror"

Not only that, but it's full of assumptions concerning decent speed, turn rates, bank angles, etc and throws in a few attempts at technical jargon ("Vmo at sea level for a 757" is a meaningless statement) to attempt to sound as if he knows what he's talking about.

Since NTSB hadn't yet released the flight data recorder analysis to the public, it was understandable that people doing their research would have to make some estimates. It was certainly not their fault when all they had to work with was the bogus official 9/11 report. Some follow up reading on the discrepancies between the two reports is in order. About the technical jargon, what exactly don't you find meaningfull?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Hanour's problem with renting the Cessna was his shaky landing skills. Guess what? On 9/11 he didn't have to land the plane.

The folks at JetTech flight school in Phoenix reported Hanjour to the FAA 5 times due to his poor skills CBSnews. (It seems the FAA inspector who showed up to check on him was thinking -like that pilot friend of yours- everyone else in this world to be FOS and exaggerating things, because he didn't take any action against him.)

Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. ''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.'' NY Times

Obviously he could fly since he took off in the Cessna, flew it, and landed it, though his landing skills were shitty. Then again, as I've said already, he didn't have to take off or land on 9/11. All he had to do was steer the plane into a building.

In addition, he must have had some piloting skills since the FAA granted him a commercial license.

So let's drop the pretense that Hanjour couldn't fly a plane. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

So how were those maneuvers "instrinsic" other than being intrinsicly stupid? Do you know what instrinsic even means?

The word I meant to use was "intricate". Just my bad english here.

Fortunately a friend of mine is a commercial airline pilot so I called him up and read him the above. He said the guy writing that was FOS. He tries his best to make it sound like the maneuvers were difficult, something only an experienced pilot would pull off.

At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...ional/main310721.shtml

"NIKKI LAUDA: ACTUAL FLIGHT EXPERIENCE ON BOEINGS WAS REQUIRED On the day after 9/11, two experienced German airline pilots, both veterans of many hours at the controls of Boeing 757s and 767s, agreed in the course of a September 12 prime time television broadcast that neither a real professional flight simulator and even less flight simulation software on a PC could ever suffice to impart the skills demonstrated by the supposed 9/11 suicide pilots. They were asked by host Guenter Jauch whether the hijackers could have flown the planes.

Captain Joerg Kujak?s evaluation: ?No. It?s not that simple,? whatever many laymen might think. ?That wouldn?t work. An amateur is not capable of steering a large commercial airliner anywhere with accuracy, neither with the automatic pilot, nor, with his hands on the controls. He would need training for that, and that does not necessarily have to last three years, the way normal pilot training in a flight school goes, but it has to go on for a certain amount of time. He needs basic training in the specific type of plane or on a jet in general, and through that he has to learn how to fly manually. With a PC you don?t get the same feeling, for example for the trim tabs, for the steering yoke, for the change of situations. If you put your foot on the gas, then a jet rears up, because it has itsengines under the wings, and that would be too much for an amateur, that can?t be done without training.?

Nikki Lauda, a legendary Formula One race driver, was a pilot and the founder of his own airline. He was asked by Jauch: ?Is it easy to learn, we?ve seen that a video was found in a car near the Boston airport, and people think that the car belonged to a kidnapper, who had used it to bone up in advance on what the inside of a cockpit looks like. Is it so simple, for example, to learn that with the help of a computer simulator??

Lauda judged that ?these gentlemen were properly trained to fly a plane like that.? In particular, he stressed that ?you have to know exactly what the turning radius of a plane like that is, if I am trying to hit the World Trade Center. That means, these had to be fully trained 767 or 757 pilots, because otherwise they would have missed. It certainly could not be the case that some half-trained pilot tries it somehow, because then he will not hit it. That?s not so easy, coming out of a curve?. If he?s coming out of a curve, then he has to know precisely the turning radius that derives from the speed of the plane in order to be able to calculate it, so that he will hit right there.?

Jauch asked which was harder to hit, the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. Lauda: ?Well, what impressed me is the organization of this whole operation, since without good weather it would have not been possible at all, because then you can?t see anything. These were visual flights, using VFR [visual flight rules] as we call them. And so the World Trade Center is relatively easy to find, because it is stands out so tall?. The Pentagon is another matter again, because it is a building that is relatively flat. That means, they had to be trained well enough that they had flown around in the air in the New York area, I would speculate, so they could see the scene from above of where the building is located and how you could best reach it.? To hit a flat building like the Pentagon is ?an even more difficult case? than the World Trade Center. Lauda: ?That means, to fly downwards out of a curve, and still hit the building in its core, I would have to be the best trained of all. I would speculate that a normal airline pilot would have a hard time with that, because you are simply not prepared for things like that. That means, they must have had some super-training to have been able to handle an airliner so precisely.?

Could this have been done with the best, most expensive professional flight simulator, asked Jauch. For Lauda, the flight simulator was only a prerequisite. ?I don?t think a simulator by itself would be enough to know all the New York landscapes, and to know exactly what angle to use to fly in there. I believe that these people had actually flown these airliners; they could have been pilots from some airline or the other, just to get this feeling for the plane ? in real flight, not on a simulator ? so they could then carry out this act of terror.? (Wisnewski 38-40) Of course, not even the FBI has ever ascribed such thorough training to the accused suicide pilots; practice on a 757 or 767 was not available at Huffman Aviation. " from the book "9/11 Synthetic Terror"

Not only that, but it's full of assumptions concerning decent speed, turn rates, bank angles, etc and throws in a few attempts at technical jargon ("Vmo at sea level for a 757" is a meaningless statement) to attempt to sound as if he knows what he's talking about.

Since NTSB hadn't yet released the flight data recorder analysis to the public, it was understandable that people doing their research would have to make some estimates. It was certainly not their fault when all they had to work with was the bogus official 9/11 report. Some follow up reading on the discrepancies between the two reports is in order. About the technical jargon, what exactly don't you find meaningfull?

[/quote]
Calling the 9/11 report "bogus" does not make it so. Nor does quoting anecdotal statements from a couple of pilots make their statements true. Many other commercial pilots claim it would have been n problem for Hanjour to crash the plane into the Pentagon. Of course, the troofer sites completely disregard any such statements that are contrary to their religiously fervent beliefs.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/qu...conspiracy/q0274.shtml

One of the most interesting quotes comes from Afework Hagos who commented on the plane see-sawing back and forth, suggesting that the pilot was struggling to keep the plane level in either pitch or roll or perhaps both. Hagos was stuck in traffic near the Pentagon when the 757 passed overhead. He reported, "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance." Another eyewitness named Penny Elgas also referred to the plane rocking back and forth while Albert Hemphill commented that, "He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just 'jinked' to avoid something." These observations were further confirmed by Mary Ann Owens, James Ryan, and David Marra who described the plane's wings as "wobbly" when it "rolled left and then rolled right" and the pilot "tilted his wings, this way and in this way."

This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

Everything points to Hanjour flying AA77 into the Pentagon. If you want to claim otherwise then please tell us who you believe was piloting the airplane.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc- u never mentioned what u thought...

Nor have you. I have debated you on a number of subjects in the past concerning 9/11. You already know what I think.

Nobody knows what you think about 9/11 though because you refuse to say anything.

I'm over your question box routine and attempts to engage on your terms only. Drop the interrogation mode and begin providing some answers of your own. You have continually failed to do so.

tell me about that israeli security firm that was in charge of security at the airports on 9-11. how many airports did they serve. and if a gun was brought abord like the first FAA memo stated, then how did it get there.

we also really need to discuss the software that was on the computers and at the FAA to let this "blips" onto the screens. ptech had some shady people behind it. some tied to funding terrorism. ill find the articles later about the israeli security fims at the airports and about ptech guys funding terrorism. gotta do that work thing today.

No. Tell me the answers to the questions I have asked of you previously. Until you begin providing answers to my questions you'll receive no answers to yours.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc- u never mentioned what u thought...

Nor have you. I have debated you on a number of subjects in the past concerning 9/11. You already know what I think.

Nobody knows what you think about 9/11 though because you refuse to say anything.

I'm over your question box routine and attempts to engage on your terms only. Drop the interrogation mode and begin providing some answers of your own. You have continually failed to do so.

tell me about that israeli security firm that was in charge of security at the airports on 9-11. how many airports did they serve. and if a gun was brought abord like the first FAA memo stated, then how did it get there.

we also really need to discuss the software that was on the computers and at the FAA to let this "blips" onto the screens. ptech had some shady people behind it. some tied to funding terrorism. ill find the articles later about the israeli security fims at the airports and about ptech guys funding terrorism. gotta do that work thing today.

No. Tell me the answers to the questions I have asked of you previously. Until you begin providing answers to my questions you'll receive no answers to yours.

I would have to agree with TLC. The discussion is pointless as both e8h and kazani simply cannot answer questions, only raise unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. And both move from topic to topic never making an assertion backed by facts, only questions. Questions that are invalid from an argumentative state since no one can answer them.

Just because the government report is inaccurate in a few cases and others have different opinions on certain matters does not a conspiracy make. Who flew the plane into teh pentagon is irreleveant - a plane did fly into the pentagon. Who and how the Israeli agent was killed is irrelevant. He was killed by one ofthe terrorists. Just because he was on a flight is meaningless in and of itself without faxctual context in which one could make an assertion there was Israeli involvement in 911.

Both of your arguments degenerate to the juvenile. While TLC may not be correct or eaglekeeper either, or I for that matter, at least all 3 of us offer sunbstantive arguments and data to back up our positions.

Once you start doing the same, perhaps the dialog can actually move forward.

 

[Genx87]

Flying an airplane isnt hard, especially when it is in flight. Put me behind the wheel of a 757 that is in flight and I can perform the same crash. Put in a 757 at the gate and Ill be lucky to turn on the lights.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Flying an airplane isnt hard, especially when it is in flight. Put me behind the wheel of a 757 that is in flight and I can perform the same crash. Put in a 757 at the gate and Ill be lucky to turn on the lights.

You are so right about the lights thing.

Flight Simulator has a few missions where the engines are not started yet and it is nearly impossible to figure out which buttons to switch to start them. Thank the lord of the 'start engine' shortcut.

And as others have pointed out, once you are in the air flying is a piece of cake. Just point the plane in the direction you want it to go. I have never driven an 18 wheeler, but put me behind the seat of one and I bet I could drive it across country with no training (other than how to change gears)

 

[digiram]

Someone should create or modify a flight sim, have a noob hop on the game, and have them attempt to fly the virtual plane into the virtual twin towers. That would certainly debunk the myth of noobs being unable to fly planes.

I bet my 3 yr. old son could do this on his first try.

 

[KAZANI]

Originally posted by: dphantom
I would have to agree with TLC. The discussion is pointless as both e8h and kazani simply cannot answer questions, only raise unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. And both move from topic to topic never making an assertion backed by facts, only questions.

Excuse me, but I have been answering every question directed at me personally throughout this thread. I am sorry that your tactic of trying to extort a "theory" so you can easily dismiss it as bullshit is failing. You are in essence blaming a detective for not having a murder suspect before he has completed gathering all the evidence. That is why some people are calling for a thorough investigation. In order to complete all the missing parts of this puzzle. So my advice to you: stop bemoaning those who put the time and effort to get this MUCH needed truth process into motion by questioning the official story and direct your fury towards those who spent investigating Clinton's sexual gambols 40 million dollar but only a shody 13 million for a cataclysmic event like the 9/11.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: dphantom
I would have to agree with TLC. The discussion is pointless as both e8h and kazani simply cannot answer questions, only raise unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. And both move from topic to topic never making an assertion backed by facts, only questions.

Excuse me, but I have been answering every question directed at me personally throughout this thread. I am sorry that your tactic of trying to extort a "theory" so you can easily dismiss it as bullshit is failing. You are in essence blaming a detective for not having a murder suspect before he has completed gathering all the evidence. That is why some people are calling for a thorough investigation. In order to complete all the missing parts of this puzzle. So my advice to you: stop bemoaning those who put the time and effort to get this MUCH needed truth process into motion by questioning the official story and direct your fury towards those who spent investigating Clinton's sexual gambols 40 million dollar but only a shody 13 million for a cataclysmic event like the 9/11.

Precisely my point. You admit you cannot provide a theory, but think it is a legitimate gambit to question an official report because of what??? You don't believe the government therefore they must be lying therefore they are covering it up therefore if they are covering it up it must be for someone really important, therefore that has to be someone (a government) wo could carry out such a plot, therefore it must be Israel because they are a government with resources to do that. ]

TADA!!! There's your theory.

pathetic.