9/11 Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity
Noah's Dove
Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity
by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)
The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to
prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically
make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a
world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11,
2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to
support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim
extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective
targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it
would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were.
Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in
mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings
were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of
elements in our government.
In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the
U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and
defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and
that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that
oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a
thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.
As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally
tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my
personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the
Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and
Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In
addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident
investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation
reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the
Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the
Vietnam conflict.
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed
nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible,
that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to
positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number
of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident.
This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft
have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if
any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure
would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and
passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a
distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the
maintenance operation and by another section called plans and
scheduling.
Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing
gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical
parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist
mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are
married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records
and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance
specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not
replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will
normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of
these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators ,
pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually
indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting
from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical
time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.
Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain
troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known
facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own
assessment of these facts.
United Airlines Flight 93
This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757
aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including
four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the
plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.
Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the
general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private
investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If
an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have
literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the
hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise
tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has
not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the
specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it
has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still
in operation.
American Airlines Flight 11
This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767,
registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs
who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed
into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.
Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a
few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to
positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one
engine would have been easy to find and identify.
United Airlines Flight 175
This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number
N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It
reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.
Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled
part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to
the identity of the specific airplane.
American Airlines Flight 77
This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA,
carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This
aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into
the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.
Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have
been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15
minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was
apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no
attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific
parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was
actually hidden from public view.
Conclusion
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the
morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than
3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has
been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four
aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence
was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would
have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus
security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately
following each tragic episode.
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any
unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757
did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the
evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful
that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and
certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that
allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy
aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been
produced that would add credence to the government's theoretical
version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings,
let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem
with the government's 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary
principle.
As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the
lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and
nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be
involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.
Footnote: It will soon be five years since the tragic events of 9/11/01
unfolded, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence
that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a
routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every
major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has
announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and
reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but
there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever
conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written.
st...@storkyak.com
>Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in
>mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings
>were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of
>elements in our government.
This is the most ridiculous logic ever. "Hello, we can't provide ten
million and one pieces of evidence that a plane flew into a building,
so, let's accept the 'simpler' assumption that the government had this
vast conspiracy that includes every bystander in downtown New York and
Washington DC."
>The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to
>support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim
>extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective
>targets on September 11 were as advertised
That's a total lie.
1) A video of Bin Laden admitting that he was behind it was discovered
after the USA invaded Afghanistan.
2) The terrorists left copies of the Koran and other Islamic crap in
their rented cars.
Stevel
st...@storkyak.com wrote:
> Stork replied to:
>
> >Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in
> >mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings
> >were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of
> >elements in our government.
>
> This is the most ridiculous logic ever. "Hello, we can't provide ten
> million and one pieces of evidence that a plane flew into a building,
> so, let's accept the 'simpler' assumption that the government had this
> vast conspiracy that includes every bystander in downtown New York and
> Washington DC."
No one denys that aircraft were involved.
Not one of your " ten million and one pieces of evidence"has been
produced to positivly identify the aircraft.
> >The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to
> >support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim
> >extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective
> >targets on September 11 were as advertised
>
> That's a total lie.
Sadly it is true.
> 1) A video of Bin Laden admitting that he was behind it was discovered
> after the USA invaded Afghanistan.
Proved to be fake!
> 2) The terrorists left copies of the Koran and other Islamic crap in
> their rented cars.
Easily planted so they prove nothing at all.
I don't think there is any doubt that Terrorists planned to hijack
aircraft
in the US to create a catastrophic event. However they were known about
and
controlled by rogue CIA operatives and set up as patsies to create the
Neocons PNAC
long desired "Pearl Harbor" event. The risk that they would be stopped
was
far to great for the Neocons to let them go on without help.
Every attempt by competant FBI agents to track and report on the
terrorists
was thwarted by higher officials.
No other explaination fits the known facts. Or were the "terrorists"
able to control
the US air defence system for two hours to prevent interception?
How did they know that multiple NORAD exercises were to take place on
9/11
to act as ideal cover?
How did Bushes secret service agents know that he was in no personal
danger
in Florida? Why did he not behave like the Commander in Chief when it
became
clear that America was "under attack"?
Stevel
Morton Davis
<st...@storkyak.com> wrote in message
news:1148115228.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Frank Arthur
No cross, no robe-nothing.
"Noah's Dove" <noah...@lightspeed.ca> wrote in message
news:1148112421....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Stevel
Yes at CIA associated and US Military flight schools. They were mostly
regarded as incapable and incompetant.
Stevel
si
wrote:
>Not a shred of evidence that Jesus ever lived.
>No cross, no robe-nothing.
So you're saying both jesus and the terrorist attacks were faked?
Seethis Pass
Once the government presented us with a false confession from an
actor who was not bin laden, all further confessions by other bin
ladens became highly suspect.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
The first bin laden tape was a definite fake. the others were too
helpful to the bush agenda to be taken seriously. false testimony is
probably followed by more false testimony where the government is
concerned.
The junk in the cars doesn't prove anything at all to me.
I don't know why you think it should.
I don't know who left what in what cars I only have the governments
word for it and they have renounced credibility in exchange for
propaganda and PsyOps.
Seethis Pass
wrote:
>Not a shred of evidence that Jesus ever lived.
>No cross, no robe-nothing.
It says he lived, in the Babble.
Don't you believe da' babble?
6,6,6 is bush day .
Matti Partonen
>
>>Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in
>>mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings
>>were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of
>>elements in our government.
>
> This is the most ridiculous logic ever. "Hello, we can't provide ten
> million and one pieces of evidence that a plane flew into a building,
> so, let's accept the 'simpler' assumption that the government had this
> vast conspiracy that includes every bystander in downtown New York and
> Washington DC."
You read his logic wrong. He says that as long as no positive evidence (just
one piece, not ten million) of the identities of the aircrafts involved is
produced, other possibilities must be kept open.
Just sanity and common sense.
>>The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to
>>support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim
>>extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective
>>targets on September 11 were as advertised
>
> That's a total lie.
>
> 1) A video of Bin Laden admitting that he was behind it was discovered
> after the USA invaded Afghanistan.
> 2) The terrorists left copies of the Koran and other Islamic crap in
> their rented cars.
Such things are easy to fake.
If the planes truly are identified to be the planes they are claimed to be,
there is no reason at all *not* to publish that data.
Matti P.
tban...@storkyak.com
>Such things are easy to fake.
No, you have to prove that they -were- faked.]
>You read his logic wrong. He says that as long as no positive evidence (just
>one piece, not ten million
There is positive evidence, that's the whole point.
John of Aix
No, that is a total lie. Prove the contrary if you can. Bin Laden has
NEVER claimed responsibility for the attacks, he just said once that it
was good thing from his point of view.
> 2) The terrorists left copies of the Koran and other Islamic crap in
> their rented cars.
What, no e-mail addresses?
Matti Partonen
<tban...@storkyak.com> wrote in message
news:1148145350.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Stork replied to:
>
>>Such things are easy to fake.
>
> No, you have to prove that they -were- faked.]
I don't have to prove anything. I just point out that some things that were
presented as evidence are easily faked.
>>You read his logic wrong. He says that as long as no positive evidence
>>(just
>>one piece, not ten million
>
> There is positive evidence, that's the whole point.
The question was about positive evidence of the identities of the planes
involved. Point me to a place where that positive evidence, i.e. the
identifications of some 9/11 aircrafts or their parts parts are published. I
can find no mention of these in the 9/11 Commission report.
Matti P.
tban...@storkyak.com
>The question was about positive evidence of the identities of the planes involved
>Point me to a place where that positive evidence
There's no question. Your "argument" is laughably absurd. Thousands
of people saw the planes crash. Flight recorders from the Pentagon
have been recovered, radar / transponder tracks. I already gave a web
site where engine parts corresponding to a Boeing 757 have been
identified for the 9/11 crash. In downtown New York, you have
literally -thousands- of people that saw it.
> 9/11 aircrafts or their parts parts are published.
Was not the scope of the report. You people are just making things up
to try and cash in off of 9/11. You are no patriots, you are only
trying to propagate your "conspiracy" so as to cash in on the notoriety
of doing so, and for that, you deserve to be executed.
tban...@storkyak.com
>No, that is a total lie. Prove the contrary if you can
John of Aix is a child molestor. Prove to the contrary, if you can.
tban...@storkyak.com
> No other explaination fits the known facts.
Do you have proof? No. All you have is an arbitrary rejection of
evidence to fit your "facts."
All of your other stuff is made up nonsense.
Matti Partonen
<tban...@storkyak.com> wrote in message
news:1148184655.3...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Stork replied to:
>
>>The question was about positive evidence of the identities of the planes
>>involved
>>Point me to a place where that positive evidence
>
> There's no question. Your "argument" is laughably absurd. Thousands
> of people saw the planes crash. Flight recorders from the Pentagon
> have been recovered, radar / transponder tracks. I already gave a web
> site where engine parts corresponding to a Boeing 757 have been
> identified for the 9/11 crash.
Not in this thread, please give the web site again.
When you say "the 9/11 crash," which one of the four do you mean?
> In downtown New York, you
> have
> literally -thousands- of people that saw it.
>
>> 9/11 aircrafts or their parts parts are published.
>
> Was not the scope of the report.
Probably not. Can you point me to a report in whose scope this would have
been?
And, in my opinion, there is one other matter that needs clarification: the
approach of the impacting object to Pentagon. For the approach, speeds like
500 MPH or 530 MPH are mentioned in public, allegedly extracted from the
"black box" of the plane. Passenger jets are designed to fly at such speeds
at the cruising altitudes, where air density is about 1/3 of the near-ground
density, not near the ground. Moreover, the ground effect at altitudes about
100 ft or lower is very strong at such speeds and tends to keep the plane
off the ground. My gut feeling, from a little flying experience, is that
executing the officially claimed approach to Pentagon requires a very
intimate knowledge as to how a fast-moving passenger jet behaves near the
ground. Any flying schools that impart such knowledge?
Do you know of any report that addresses this issue? Any competent
investigator would have addressed it.
> You people are just
> making things up
> to try and cash in off of 9/11. You are no patriots, you are only
> trying to propagate your "conspiracy" so as to cash in on the notoriety
> of doing so, and for that, you deserve to be executed.
Being or not being a patriot is beside the point. Only the truth matters.
"Conspiracy" to me is just a label word, with no useful content, used only
as an attempt to discredit others when you don't have arguments of
substance.
Matti P.
Stevel
> Stork replied to:
snip by "Stork" restored
Stevel "
> > No other explaination fits the known facts.
>
> Do you have proof? No. All you have is an arbitrary rejection of
> evidence to fit your "facts."
What "evidence" have I rejected?
If you mean the stuff found in the carpark that is not "evidence".
It is to easily contaminated.
> All of your other stuff is made up nonsense.
None of it is "made up". It is all from the public record and you have
shown you are unable to refute any of it. All you can do is snip. That
is what you do when you have no argument.
The only stuff made up is the "official" story.
Stevel
tban...@storkyak.com
> Not in this thread, please give the web site again.
Yes it has, because I posted it and you have not read it.
> ground. Any flying schools that impart such knowledge?
I used to do this in Flight Simulator all the time. And, in recent
times, the guys that accidentally flew that plane into the bridge in
the early 1990s did exactly as you claim to be impossible. The
implicit claim that aircraft cannot fly at 50 feet is ridiculous
anyway, because they do that every day when they take off and land.
> as an attempt to discredit others when you don't have arguments of
> substance.
No, it's not just a word. It points to people that use strawman
arguments to invent imagined conspiracies, make arguments based on
people doing things that they claim to be "impossible", while arguing
the even more ridiculous impossibility that the thousands of people
required to keep agree to and keep silent to make such a conspiracy
work can even exist.
Where is your direct evidence of the aircraft being ordered to crash
into the WTC? Where is your direct evidence of the CIA training arab
pilots as you claim? Where is your direct evidence of any of the
arguments you make? There isn't any, and there won't be any, because
you know and I know that what you are arguing is not true. Your
motivation is not the truth, it is to either make a buck, satisfy some
political agenda, or both. Therefor, the only course you have is to
try and discredit the obvious through the use of strawmen arguments and
questions based on lies, and then, argue that to your audience because
you claim to have discredited the obvious, or raised strawman questions
about it, that, therefor there must be a conspiracy.
There is no logic and no truth to what you argue. Which is easier to
do? Arrange a vast conspiracy among thousands of people, or for one
extremely motivated man to even perhaps get lucky and fly a plane low
to the ground for a few hundred yards? The latter is.
Stevel
tban...@storkyak.com wrote:
> Stork replied to:
>
> > Not in this thread, please give the web site again.
>
> Yes it has, because I posted it and you have not read it.
>
> > ground. Any flying schools that impart such knowledge?
>
> I used to do this in Flight Simulator all the time. And, in recent
> times, the guys that accidentally flew that plane into the bridge in
> the early 1990s did exactly as you claim to be impossible. The
> implicit claim that aircraft cannot fly at 50 feet is ridiculous
> anyway, because they do that every day when they take off and land.
You are a moron. No airliner can fly at 500mph 20 ft off the ground.
Ground effect will force it up.
Stevel.
tban...@storkyak.com
> Ground effect will force it up.
Ground effect is overrated and used by a conspiracy of the obvious. A
plane did fly at 500mph at near ground level, and hit the Pentagon.
Numerous people saw it, and all the parts recovered at the crash site
were entirely consistent with a Boeing 757.
George Washington Hayduke
>st...@storkyak.com wrote:
>> 1) A video of Bin Laden admitting that he was behind it was discovered
>> after the USA invaded Afghanistan.
>No, that is a total lie. Prove the contrary if you can. Bin Laden has
>NEVER claimed responsibility for the attacks, he just said once that it
>was good thing from his point of view.
That's true. The 9/11 Conspiracy Kooks certainly are profoundly
insane and given to mythology building, but this fact is true.
The Saudi Royal Family _applauded_ the destruction of the towers,
but they never admitted they did it.
---
But a monkeywrench can do a whole lot more.
Docky Wocky
"You are a moron. No airliner can fly at 500mph 20 ft off the ground.
Ground effect will force it up..."
_________________________________
That is one of the main reasons they have control surfaces, genius.
Stevel
Ground effect comes into play at a hight equivalent to the wingspan of
the aircraft.
For 757 that is about 125 ft. The normal approach speed is about 153
mph.
Try that at 500 mph and the aircraft will be forced up to at least
150ft.
If the pilot tries to force the nose down at that speed the aircraft
would become unstable.
I doubt that any human pilot could prevent the aircraft from plowing
into the ground.
If it was a 757 fying into the Pentagon you can be sure that no human
pilot
was at the controls least of all a man who could barely fly a Cessna.
The only image yet seen of the Pentagon plane shows the nose of an
aircraft apparently in parallel flight very close to the ground. No
normal 757 could fly like that.
There were many witnesses as you say but many described an aircraft
smaller than a 757 so the witness testimony is mixed and far from
consistant.
Matti Partonen
<tban...@storkyak.com> wrote in message
news:1148220680.6...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Stork replied to:
>
>> Not in this thread, please give the web site again.
>
> Yes it has, because I posted it and you have not read it.
I still cannot see it in any of your posts that are visible to me in this
thread. Is it a problem for you to post it again?
>> ground. Any flying schools that impart such knowledge?
>
> I used to do this in Flight Simulator all the time. And, in recent
> times, the guys that accidentally flew that plane into the bridge in
> the early 1990s did exactly as you claim to be impossible. The
> implicit claim that aircraft cannot fly at 50 feet is ridiculous
> anyway, because they do that every day when they take off and land.
Please do not ascribe to me things that I have not said. I did not say
"impossible", I said that the operation requires intimate knowledge of the
behaviour of that particular type of plane.
I did not claim, implicitly or explicitly, that an aircraft cannot fly at 50
feet. You will notice it if you read my post.
Ever been in an aircraft that attempts landing at the cruising speed? I wish
I never have to.
What can be done in Flight Simulator depends on what has been programmed
into it. You cannot use FS to support or refute any real world issues.
>> as an attempt to discredit others when you don't have arguments of
>> substance.
>
> No, it's not just a word. It points to people that use strawman
> arguments to invent imagined conspiracies, make arguments based on
> people doing things that they claim to be "impossible", while arguing
> the even more ridiculous impossibility that the thousands of people
> required to keep agree to and keep silent to make such a conspiracy
> work can even exist.
If something is a conspiracy or not means absolutely nothing to me.
Labelling something as "conspiracy" or anything else does not get anyone any
closer to anything.
Matti P.
tban...@storkyak.com
>Ground effect comes into play at a hight equivalent to the wingspan of
>the aircraft. [ground effect crapped snipped]
Well now, that is all bullshit. You can buy, here, footage of a B-58
Hustler flying near ground level at supersonic speeds.
http://www.johnjohn.co.uk/shop/video/coldwar_bomb.html
And, of course, the Spruce Goose "flew" quite a bit, and stably, due to
this uncontrollable ground effect.
And, finally, helicopter pilots deal with it all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect
In short, ground effect is quantifiable, measurable, reproducable, and
controllable, and, in case you didn't notice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour actually did have 500 hours
of flying time.
the big stink about "Hanjour not being able to safely fly" is a red
herring. Those guys had no intention of "safely flying!" They were
trying to smash planes into buildings and practicing reckless
manuevers.
Stevel
"Ground effect comes into play at a hight equivalent to the wingspan of
the aircraft.
For 757 that is about 125 ft. The normal approach speed is about 153
mph.
Try that at 500 mph and the aircraft will be forced up to at least
150ft.
If the pilot tries to force the nose down at that speed the aircraft
would become unstable.
I doubt that any human pilot could prevent the aircraft from plowing
into the ground.
If it was a 757 fying into the Pentagon you can be sure that no human
pilot
was at the controls least of all a man who could barely fly a Cessna.
The only image yet seen of the Pentagon plane shows the nose of an
aircraft apparently in parallel flight very close to the ground. No
normal 757 could fly like that.
There were many witnesses as you say but many described an aircraft
smaller than a 757 so the witness testimony is mixed and far from
consistant. "
> >Ground effect comes into play at a hight equivalent to the wingspan of
> >the aircraft. [ground effect crapped snipped]
>
> Well now, that is all bullshit. You can buy, here, footage of a B-58
> Hustler flying near ground level at supersonic speeds.
Well now you are comparing a B58 Hustler with a 757/200
One is an airliner not intended to fly aerobatic maneuvers
and the other is specificaly designed for low level attack at high
speed.
However I am not going to by a video that will probably not show me a
56ft wing span aircraft flying at lee than 20 ft at 700 mph
Do you have a clip?
> http://www.johnjohn.co.uk/shop/video/coldwar_bomb.html
>
> And, of course, the Spruce Goose "flew" quite a bit, and stably, due to
> this uncontrollable ground effect.
What at 500 mph!!?
> And, finally, helicopter pilots deal with it all the time.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect
>
> In short, ground effect is quantifiable, measurable, reproducable, and
> controllable,
Of course it is. Its effect on different types of aircraft will vary
according to the design parameters.Can you show me the design
performance figures for a 757/200 flying at 500mph at 20ft?
> and, in case you didn't notice:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour actually did have 500 hours
> of flying time. He had a commercial pilots licence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour:
"Arizona JetTech flight school managers reported him to FAA at least
five times because his English was inadequate in January 2001 for the
commercial pilot's license he had already obtained. It took him five
hours to complete an oral exam meant to last just two hours, said Peggy
Chevrette. Hanjour failed UA English classes with a 0.26 GPA and a
JetTech manager said "He could not fly at all.""
> the big stink about "Hanjour not being able to safely fly" is a red
> herring. Those guys had no intention of "safely flying!" They were
> trying to smash planes into buildings and practicing reckless
> manuevers.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-1694:
"1998: Hani Hanjour Attends Two More Arizona Flight Schools
In January 1998, hijacker Hani Hanjour and his friend Bandar Al Hazmi,
who are now renting an apartment together in Phoenix, Arizona, train
together at Arizona Aviation flight school. Hanjour supposedly receives
his commercial pilot rating while there. [US Congress, 10/26/2002]
Later in 1998, Hanjour joins the simulator club at Sawyer School of
Aviation in Phoenix. According to the Washington Post, Sawyer is
"known locally as a flight school of last resort." Wes Fults, the
manager of the flight simulator, says Hanjour has "only the barest
understanding what the instruments were there to do." After using the
simulator four or five times, Hanjour disappears from the school.
[Washington Post, 11/15/2001]
People and organizations involved: Hani Hanjour, Bandar Al Hazmi,
Sawyer School of Aviation, Wes Fults, Arizona Aviation flight school"
He would have had to navigate an aircraft he had never flown before and
perform aerobatic maneuvers that a real pilot would have found near
impossible without intensive training.
Finally please don't snip posts to which you are replying.
Stevel