Re: Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

0 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Robert M. Gary

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 1:48:42 PM2/21/06
to
Sounds like the guy hasn't done much research.

> But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the
> least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting.

True, in fact they did a really shitty job. They overspeed the planes
several times and had to circle around a couple times before they could
even find the very large targets.


> 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"
> struments.

They probably used a very simple straight forward method to address the
EFIS. They probably covered it up with duck tape. They weren't trying
to execute ILS approaches to mins here, they just flew (very poorly I
might add) the planes into giant targets. Some have speculated they may
have had Garmin 295's on them, making navigation about as difficult as
eating PopTarts.

-Robert

Miss L. Toe

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 2:06:03 PM2/21/06
to

"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977188B...@130.81.64.196...
> http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm
>
>
>
> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
> by Nila Sagadevan
>
> Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy
> aircraft.
>
> There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although
> proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the
> impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in
> flight simulators.

I agree - it was all a con - The twin towers are still there...


n00b

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 2:20:19 PM2/21/06
to

The aircraft were CIA operated remotedly piloted B757/B767s.

sfb

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 2:26:04 PM2/21/06
to
On a clear day, you could see the Twin Towers for miles from the west or
New Jersey side.

Miss L. Toe

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 2:31:36 PM2/21/06
to

"n00b" <n0...@n00b.n00b> wrote in message
news:dtfp5b$h3$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> The aircraft were CIA operated remotely piloted B757/B767s.

Are the CIA clever enough to pilot themselves remotely out of an envelope
full of white powder ?

Chad Irby

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 2:50:30 PM2/21/06
to
In article <gPJKf.969$gh4.231@trnddc06>, "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote:

> On a clear day, you could see the Twin Towers for miles from the west or
> New Jersey side.

I saw them quite clearly as a passenger while landing at Newark airport.
That's nine or ten miles, on a not-particularly-clear day.

Bob Gardner

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 3:32:43 PM2/21/06
to
I have had the opportunity to fly both 737 and 747 simulators at the Boeing
Training Center and at Flight Safety. I have had no training in the
operation of heavy jets...I just applied the knowledge I had gained from
flying cabin twins. In these full-motion sims I have flown patterns to
ILS's. I have no problem with the possibility of the hijackers being able to
do what they obviously did.

Bob Gardner


"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977188B...@130.81.64.196...
> http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm
>
>
>
> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
> by Nila Sagadevan
>
> Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy
> aircraft.
>
> There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although
> proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the
> impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in
> flight simulators.
>

> What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because
> I've heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the
> Internet and the TV networks-invariably by people who know nothing
> substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.
>
> A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how "easy" it
> is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the
> objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the "open sky".


> But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the

> least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And
> if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of
> miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the
> challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.
>
> And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a
> Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton,
> high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.
>
> For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage,
> a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and
> disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even
> remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or
> even the software versions available for home computers.
>
> In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill,
> one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled
> instrument-rated one to boot - and be thoroughly familiar with the actual
> aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary
> between aircraft.
>
> The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to
> approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight
> simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these
> phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched
> out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving
> past. Take-offs-even landings, to a certain degree-are relatively "easy",
> because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist "outside" the
> cockpit.
>
> But once you've rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a
> simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant
> destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the
> situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external
> visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of
> complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues
> (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)


>
> 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.
>
> And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because
> that's all you have!
>
> The corollary to Rule #1: If you can't read the instruments in a quick,
> smooth, disciplined, scan, you're as good as dead. Accident records from
> around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots -
> I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots - who 'bought the farm'
> because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.
>
> Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men
> were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 - an
> elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around
> the patch on a sunny day. A student's first solo flight involves a simple
> circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a
> landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.
>
> Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary
> exercise by himself.
>
> In fact, here's what their flight instructors had to say about the
> aptitude of these budding aviators:
>
> Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."
>
> Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our
> standards."
>
> Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited English and
> incompetence at the controls."
>
> Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons."
>
> Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were
> even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still
> to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could
> not fly at all."
>
> Now let's take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker
> Hani Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously
> fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain
> Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow
> manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to
> achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke
> and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that
> this would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a box
> cutter-Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had
> flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that
> rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have
> instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken
> his neck when he hit the floor. But let's ignore this almost natural
> reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.
>
> Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew,
> removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain's
> seat. Although weather reports state this was not the case, let's say
> Hanjour was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And
> Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the
> windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see,
> 35,000 feet -- 7 miles -- below him, a murky brownish-grey-green
> landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was
> now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence,
> at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).
>
> In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that
> day), he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the
> ground he was traversing. With this kind of "situational non-awareness",
> Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or
> Japan-he wouldn't have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.
>
> After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there's
> little point in looking outside-there's nothing there to give him any
> real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little
> Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the
> comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange,
> eerily unsettling environment indeed.
>
> Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his
> attention to his instrument panel, where he'd be faced with a bewildering
> array of instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret his
> heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays
> before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less
> where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position!
>
> After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the
> target.
>
> It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground
> reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these
> incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a
> daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn't have
> known where to begin.
>
> But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things beyond all
> plausibility and say that Hanjour-whose flight instructor claimed
> "couldn't fly at all"-somehow managed to figure out their exact position
> on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they
> traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown
> by themselves before.
>
> Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out
> where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing
> position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he
> cannot see with his eyes-remember, our ace is flying solely on
> instruments).
>
> In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to
> be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what
> a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug
> information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV
> (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official
> story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots
> while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible)
> terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated
> instruments.
>
> To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these
> men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This
> still wouldn't relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let's
> assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew
> the aircraft to its intended-and invisible-target on instruments alone
> until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have
> necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to
> Washington DC. (This portion of Flight 77's flight path cannot be
> corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is
> said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let's
> not mull over that little point.)
>
> 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.
>
> The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in
> the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively
> low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at
> 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one
> mile.
>
> Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street
> light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were
> snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat
> trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is
> known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes
> of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles
> (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20
> above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of
> the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines
> buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.
>
> At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically
> impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash
> sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices,
> simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than
> approximately one half the distance of its wingspan-until speed is
> drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal
> landings.
>
> In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could
> not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a
> maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with
> high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and
> Cruise missiles-and the Global Hawk.)
>
> The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced
> the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too,
> would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps,
> too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their
> "final approach" maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible
> to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training
> aircraft.
>
> Conclusion
> The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the
> flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers "took control"
> of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in
> their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that
> these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the
> buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to
> the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner
> at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they'd realize
> the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.
>
> In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable
> difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into
> a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles
> away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over
> 500 MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.


irwell

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 4:11:48 PM2/21/06
to
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:32:43 -0800, "Bob Gardner" <bob...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns977188B...@130.81.64.196...
>> http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
>> by Nila Sagadevan
>>

Which leaves us with the question, if not the untrained
hi-jackers, then who?

Jim Macklin

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 4:33:33 PM2/21/06
to
AUTOPILOT


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977188B...@130.81.64.196...
| http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm
|
|
|
| The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without
Training
| by Nila Sagadevan
|

Jim Macklin

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 4:35:28 PM2/21/06
to
I thought Elvis was flying.

"Miss L. Toe" <missltoe...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:43fb6afb$0$48867$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...

Chad Irby

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 5:24:23 PM2/21/06
to
In article <jOednbF506x35Wbe...@comcast.com>,
"Bob Gardner" <bob...@comcast.net> wrote:

> I have had the opportunity to fly both 737 and 747 simulators at the Boeing
> Training Center and at Flight Safety. I have had no training in the
> operation of heavy jets...I just applied the knowledge I had gained from
> flying cabin twins. In these full-motion sims I have flown patterns to
> ILS's. I have no problem with the possibility of the hijackers being able to
> do what they obviously did.

Aiming a big, stable plane at a building over a thousand feet tall and a
couple of hundred feet wide isn't anything like a hard trick, and they
still almost screwed it up (note the severe bank when the second plane
hits, as the pilot tries to keep from missing).

John Carrier

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 6:08:16 PM2/21/06
to

"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
news:pQLKf.102992$4l5.29962@dukeread05...
> AUTOPILOT

Not. Autopilot is great for basic straight and level. Maneuvering for a
building collision would require hand flying the jet.

R / John


WaltBJ

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 6:11:00 PM2/21/06
to
Another strewer of BS. I have given many rpt many non-flyers rides in
T33s, TF102s, F104Bs up to and including the F4 (50,000 pounds) and
after a little coaching quite a few have done well, includig passable
barrel rolls. Herding one of those big transport beasts around the sky
is like driving a truck in 3 dimensions. Flying into a tall building is
something I estimate (learned guess) at least 3 of any 10 people could
do without much trouble. Mr. Sagadevan is wrong wrong wrong. And he
ignores the telephone calls from the passengers in his tortuous
reasoning Just another attention-seeker.
Walt BJ

Dave Stadt

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 6:18:15 PM2/21/06
to

"John Carrier" <jx...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VfCdnQqfo9n...@comcast.com...


Not if they were able to put lat. and long. of the WTC into the GPS and have
the autopilot fly to that location.


Jim Macklin

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 6:17:23 PM2/21/06
to
Let's see, they hijacked the planes at Boston and crashed at
NYC, looks like they hand flew just the last mile, judging
from the video that I have seen.

Autopilots have command steering, will do nice 25 bank
degree turns or you use the bug on the HSI to steer to a
precise heading. Altitude is also fully controlled by the
autopilot, dial in the desired altitude, arm the altitude
and start a descent with the CWS or whatever that model has.

The bigger the airplane, the easier I have always found it
to fly, as long as everything is working. Perhaps the FAA
could require partially defective airplanes so iltrained
hijackers couldn't fly them as a safety measure?

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"John Carrier" <jx...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VfCdnQqfo9n...@comcast.com...
|

Jim Macklin

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 6:25:26 PM2/21/06
to
An angry Democrat trying to blame it on Bush it seems. I
have no doubt that an few hours of training would allow any
adult to fly well enough to crash into a building. I took
my son up on a delivery flight for a BE %( Baron that was
going to the FAA in OKC. He was about three years old at
the time. He could not see out over the door sill, let
alone the panel, but there was a full set of co-pilot
instruments and he hand flew straight and level very well
from the right seat.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"WaltBJ" <walt...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1140563460.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Dave Stadt

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 6:29:49 PM2/21/06
to

"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
news:EeNKf.103018$4l5.62797@dukeread05...

> Let's see, they hijacked the planes at Boston and crashed at
> NYC, looks like they hand flew just the last mile, judging
> from the video that I have seen.
>
> Autopilots have command steering, will do nice 25 bank
> degree turns or you use the bug on the HSI to steer to a
> precise heading. Altitude is also fully controlled by the
> autopilot, dial in the desired altitude, arm the altitude
> and start a descent with the CWS or whatever that model has.
>
> The bigger the airplane, the easier I have always found it
> to fly, as long as everything is working. Perhaps the FAA
> could require partially defective airplanes so iltrained
> hijackers couldn't fly them as a safety measure?

Aren't those called Airbus?

Chris

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 6:37:11 PM2/21/06
to
Got your attention anyway

"WaltBJ" <walt...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1140563460.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Richard Lamb

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 8:18:51 PM2/21/06
to
Chad Irby wrote:

Consider how much worse it might have been if he had just caught the edge of
the building and sprayed a full load of flaming fuel and wreckage all over the
city.

Grim, me thinks.

Richard Lamb

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 8:23:37 PM2/21/06
to
Jim Macklin wrote:

> An angry Democrat trying to blame it on Bush it seems. I
> have no doubt that an few hours of training would allow any
> adult to fly well enough to crash into a building. I took
> my son up on a delivery flight for a BE %( Baron that was
> going to the FAA in OKC. He was about three years old at
> the time. He could not see out over the door sill, let
> alone the panel, but there was a full set of co-pilot
> instruments and he hand flew straight and level very well
> from the right seat.
>
>

Aw Jim, you bring back some sweet memories.
My daughter (3 years old) loved to stand on the seat (in my lap sorta)
and "fly" the 172. Strictly VFR as she could easily see the horizon.

Now my WIFE in the right seat damned near had a cat!


Richard

Jim Macklin

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 8:02:39 PM2/21/06
to
LOL
"Dave Stadt" <dhs...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:NnNKf.23400$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

Jim Macklin

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 8:23:52 PM2/21/06
to
Just imagine what would have happened if the passengers had
been armed and killed the hijackers as soon as they began
the hijacking?

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Richard Lamb" <cave...@Xearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%ZOKf.1505$F56...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Jim Macklin

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 8:29:23 PM2/21/06
to
BTW, typo... BE 58 Baron

It is easy to fly, doesn't take much strength, takes more
brains. Kids love to fly, it is like a giant roller-coaster
twenty miles long and a mile high that they can control,
they just have to "see" the rails.

"Richard Lamb" <cave...@Xearthlink.net> wrote in message

news:t2PKf.1506$F56...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

.Blueskies.

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 8:44:18 PM2/21/06
to

"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message news:R7PKf.103200$4l5.4044@dukeread05...

> Just imagine what would have happened if the passengers had
> been armed and killed the hijackers as soon as they began
> the hijacking?
>
>
>
> --
> The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
> But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
> some support
> http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
> See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
>


Exactly! And they still don't allow many to carry on board. Can't even bring on my pocket knife. No leadership...


John Gaquin

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 8:50:16 PM2/21/06
to

"John Carrier" <jx...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> Not. Autopilot is great for basic straight and level. Maneuvering for a
> building collision would require hand flying the jet.

Not so, John.


Newps

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 8:51:45 PM2/21/06
to

Richard Lamb wrote:


>
> Consider how much worse it might have been if he had just caught the
> edge of
> the building and sprayed a full load of flaming fuel and wreckage all
> over the
> city.

Worse? It would have been a hell of a lot better. That wouldn't have
killed hardly anybody.

Newps

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 8:53:11 PM2/21/06
to

.Blueskies. wrote:

Can't even bring on my pocket knife.

Yes, you can.

Matt Whiting

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 8:59:02 PM2/21/06
to
Jim Macklin wrote:
> Just imagine what would have happened if the passengers had
> been armed and killed the hijackers as soon as they began
> the hijacking?

The antigun crowd would have been decrying the violence of it...

Matt

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 10:11:04 PM2/21/06
to
TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm
>
> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
> by Nila Sagadevan
>
> Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy
> aircraft.
>
> There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although
> proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the
> impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in
> flight simulators.

Part of their training was actual in-flight training on Boeing
airliners.

mrtravel

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 10:21:59 PM2/21/06
to
TRUTH wrote:

> Conclusion
> The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe,

And what is the author's conclusion about what happened?

mrtravel

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 10:25:25 PM2/21/06
to

Trained pilots. They only went to flight school in the US to learn our ways.

mrtravel

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 10:26:49 PM2/21/06
to
John Carrier wrote:

Are you suggesting that AutoPilot can't steer the plane and make
altitude adjustments?

Jim Macklin

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 10:19:24 PM2/21/06
to
Yes, but then they prefer rape and mayhem to any
self-defense. Laws that prevent honest people from being
armed serve to reduce the possibility of incidences of
self-defense, which they then cite as a reason why
self-defense doesn't work and is ineffective.


"Matt Whiting" <whi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:GzPKf.6614$lb.5...@news1.epix.net...

Jim Macklin

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 10:35:32 PM2/21/06
to
I said that an autopilot can and probably was used. In
fact, most Boeings are flown by the crew using the autopilot
controls, for 99.5% of the flight.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--

The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"mrtravel" <mrtr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ZRQKf.15517$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

Ian MacLure

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 10:38:01 PM2/21/06
to
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:43FBD648...@comcast.net:

And-uh I'll bet she has no clue what the state of the art
in Airline Flight Simulators is.

IBM

_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

cjcampbell

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 11:13:52 PM2/21/06
to

TRUTH wrote:
> http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm
>
>
>
> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
> by Nila Sagadevan
>
> Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy
> aircraft.

It would be interesting to see if the real Nila Sagadevan really has
these qualifications and actually believes this garbage. I would go so
far as to say that if he really holds the certificates claimed and he
believes this idiocy then it is time for a formal flight review. Could
anyone possibly think that cross-posting this to a pilots' forum is
going to get anything but a lot of derision from real pilots?

The hijackers were indeed capable of more than just piloting a Cessna
around the field. The OP offers no evidence that the hijackers were as
incompetent as described. In fact, they did train in simulators -- not
just toy PC simulators, but the the full size mockups that are used to
train all airline pilots. We know when and where they did this.

The OP suggests that the planes were IFR. They were not.

The OP suggests that it requires some sort of superhuman precision to
hit a building the size of the WTC. It does not.

Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, the facts simply are not
what they say they are.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, conspiracy theorists have no interest
in facts whatsoever.

george

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 11:30:42 PM2/21/06
to

I was told by some-one that after the big deal security checks they
boarded the aircraft and the meal was served with metal knife, fork and
spoon :-)

TRUTH

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 12:48:25 AM2/22/06
to
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...

khobar

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 1:21:49 AM2/22/06
to

"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97728BD...@130.81.64.196...
> 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.

As the article states,

"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."

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

Grumman-581

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 1:22:17 AM2/22/06
to
"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977188B...@130.81.64.196...

Hmmm... Looks like someone left the door open to the padded cell again...
Don't ya' just hate it when they get out and forget to wear their tin hats?
I wonder if Verizon would cancel his account because he's too stupid to be
allowed on a computer...

You're an idiot and your tin foil hat is on backwards...

Normally, I only killfile the anonymous cowards, but for you, I'll make and
exception... Congradulations, you're the first person that I ever killfiled
just for being an idiot...

<bitch-slap>
<plonk>


Message has been deleted

TRUTH

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 1:33:09 AM2/22/06
to
"khobar" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:


On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?

TRUTH

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 1:35:17 AM2/22/06
to
"khobar" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:apTKf.4201$Sp2.2506@fed1read02:

>

The government's version of 9/11 is not established fact... not to those
who can read between the lines :)

Pooh Bear

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 1:34:37 AM2/22/06
to

TRUTH wrote:

> 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.

They weren't *flying blind*.

Quite the reverse. it was a lovely day with great visibility.

> 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."

Hence not applicable. It was VFR weather.


> "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 " precise diving turn " is simply someone's imagination. Probably the
reporter's version of events. It makes for more 'compelling' copy.


> "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.”"

That's because they don't normally see commerical planes flown like that ! It
doesn't mean it can't be done. Commercial flights have regard to passenger
sensitivities.


> "And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
> Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."

Typical journalist hype. The journalist wan't there on the flight deck was he
so how does he or anyone else know what Hanjour *saw* ?

Etc.

Yawn.

Graham

Pooh Bear

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 2:06:17 AM2/22/06
to

TRUTH wrote:

> "khobar" <no...@nowhere.com> 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


mrtravel

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 2:10:42 AM2/22/06
to
TRUTH wrote

> On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
> cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?

Why couldn't they see the ground?

OH yeah, I know... the tall buildings blocked their view.

What do YOU think really happened?
You know soooooooo much about what "didn't happen".

TRUTH

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 2:36:55 AM2/22/06
to
Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:43FC0D69...@hotmail.com:

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

mrtravel

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 4:44:37 AM2/22/06
to
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.

Thomas Borchert

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 5:00:07 AM2/22/06
to
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

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 5:00:06 AM2/22/06
to
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)

Pooh Bear

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 5:06:30 AM2/22/06
to

TRUTH wrote:

> Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:43FC0D69...@hotmail.com:
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> "khobar" <no...@nowhere.com> 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.

Actually they use their instruments all the time. Some conditions make them
rather more important though. If the hijackers had needed to fly in IFR, that
would have needed more skill.


> So if they're not
> instrument trained, aren't they really "flying blind"? (I know I would
> be:))

No.


> The flight instructors said they couldn't fly. That's been reported all
> over the news the past few years.

No it hasn't. I recall they were generally considered to be poor pilots but
someone had already done the tricky take-off for them and the aircaft was
already at cruise altitude. Not a tricky task to crash it into a building.


> 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?

Perfectly realistic.


> 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

TRUTH

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 5:27:15 AM2/22/06
to
Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:43FC37A6...@hotmail.com:

>
> 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?

TRUTH

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 5:35:10 AM2/22/06
to
Thomas Borchert <borcher...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:VA.00006d1...@hotmail.com:

> 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.

mrtravel

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 5:40:28 AM2/22/06
to
TRUTH wrote:

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

Jim Macklin

unread,
Feb 21, 2006, 11:34:24 PM2/21/06
to
And the airlines provide nunchucks for every passenger on
every flight.


"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:1140582642.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Dylan Smith

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 6:05:06 AM2/22/06
to
On 2006-02-22, TRUTH <TR...@nospam.com> wrote:
> But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
> Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?

A turn as you described it is not a precision manoevre. It's a turn. The
plane can practically fly that itself with that degree of precision with
almost no pilot input.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

TRUTH

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 6:09:03 AM2/22/06
to
mrtravel <mrtr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:9oWKf.23912$_S7...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> TRUTH wrote:

>>
>> 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?


They did not hijack the airplanes. There were no Arab names on the
manifests. Do you remember hearing in the news that the "hijackers" had
their living expenses paid for by the FBI? The government needed their
assistance, even if they were too stupid to do the attacks themselves.

An offical Zogby poll from Aug 2004 showed that half of NYC residents
believe the government knew about the attacks and consciously failed to
act.

Most people (in the US) still don't know this, but there is ample
evidence at this time that shows the government actually orchestrated the
attacks themselves.

The airplanes must have been flown remote control. (I doubt any American
pilot would fly a suicide mission.) Whatever hit the Pentagon could not
have been a 757. According to the wreckage, it must have been a much
smaller military aircraft.

Remember the large number of stock "put" options purchased on the two
airlines that were used for the attacks? Someone must have knew something
was going to happen, and that the stock values were going to drop.

I'm sure we all remember that the entire bin Laden family was visiting
Washington DC on 9/11. Also, Osama was visited in a hospital in the
Middle East shortly before 9/11 by the CIA. Is he really the enemy?


AFA the WTC collapses... I'll get into that later.

>
> 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.


Please.. show me the evidence. I'd like to see it.


Are you *qualified* to debunk the article, may I ask?

As far as flight 93 in PA, that plane was obviously shot down. The debris
field was way too large for it to have simply crashed. And besides that,
Rumsfeld admitted (accidentally, I would assume) that it was shot down.

The cell phone calls were faked. There's evidence suggesting this as
well.

Message has been deleted

Jim Macklin

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 6:13:46 AM2/22/06
to
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" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97728BD...@130.81.64.196...

| densely populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied

Jim Macklin

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 6:16:20 AM2/22/06
to
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" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Xns97721B2...@130.81.64.196...

Jim Macklin

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 6:19:52 AM2/22/06
to
Big airplanes move and seem to be precise.


"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9772380...@130.81.64.196...

Jim Macklin

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 6:28:50 AM2/22/06
to
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" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9772395...@130.81.64.196...

mrtravel

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 6:59:29 AM2/22/06
to
TRUTH wrote:


> Are you *qualified* to debunk the article, may I ask?

What "expertise" is required? Do you expect there aren't any experts
around that can debunk this fabrication?
It doesn't take a genus to understand that steering a plane into a
building 1400 feet tall and hundreds of feet wide would be possible with
some training? You do realize, of course, that non-pilots have actually
landed some aircraft in emergencies? Of course they weren't 757's, but
that doesn't mean someone with training couldn't have steered one into
the WTC.


You are stating a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon. Are you
suggesting that all of the people who stated it was a 757 actual saw a
F-14 and got mixed up? Do you think the 757 that normally flies with
that flight numeber took off and landed at a secret base and the
passengers didn't die at the Pentagon?

Thomas Borchert

unread,
Feb 22, 2006, 7:31:30 AM2/22/06