In need of help debunking this debunker's paper, Debunking a Pilot Options

[SwingDangler]

While debating on the the govt loyalist site forum, this link and paper were posted http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf
The author describes himself as an experienced pilot and spends his entire paper rebutting this concept: The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

I'm not an experienced pilot but I've found some things that appear to be wrong or uninformed or just plain bad logic.
1. The pilot refers to the 9/11 Commission throughout the rebuttal. One point of emphasis...from page 9 of the rebuttal: how did the 9/11 Commission determine the hijackers used the autopilot feature?

2. Would the autopilot have been used to steer back to relative location of the point of origin?


Any help would be appreciated combing through the rest of the information.

[rob balsamo]

Hi SD, good to see ya.

I love it when the "Duh-Bunkers" try to use this piece, I always like to remind them of the statement/summation/conclusion made on page 12.

In my opinion
mr. Hanjour was very lucky in his nefarious endeavour, because a pilot of his
experience, allowed to try multiple instances of the same manoeuvre, would
have a very high failure rate.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth agree. Although we dont automatically assume it was Hanjour by blindly following govt word as gospel. We make the statement "If it was Hani.... he was very lucky... etc".

It seems these "19 hijackers" were very lucky all morning on Sept 11, 2001. That is, if you believe what the govt is telling us. Too bad their own data does not support their own story.

As for your questions:

1. The FDR shows AP usage. However, for someone who couldnt control a 172, im surprised they knew how to turn on the thing, let alone steer the aircraft by it. Again, thats if one buys the govt story. (Note to pilots: The AP doesnt disconnect with full abrupt deflection of the yoke on UA93 FDR Animation provided by NTSB)

2. It could.

The interesting thing to note about the 9/11 Commission Report is the fact it sources and footnotes the "NTSB Flight Path Study" for time of impact, speed, and position of 330 degree maneuver initiation. Only one problem, the 9/11 Commission numbers do not match the NTSB Flight Path Study. The very study in which they claim is the source conflict with the numbers they published. Feel free to quote me.

[amazed!]

I would say it's not IMPOSSIBLE for a private pilot to "fly" a Boeing, but it sure is extremely unlikely that one could pull the maneuver done at the Pentagon.

This man's statements is an insight into how desperate their argument is. They are reduced to advancing hypotheticals not based on reality. No surprise there--defending the indefensible is a tall order.

[rob balsamo]

I would say it's not IMPOSSIBLE for a private pilot to "fly" a Boeing, but it sure is extremely unlikely that one could pull the maneuver done at the Pentagon.

Exactly. And this has been the position of P4T since day one. It appears their "Another Expert" agrees, he just words it differently by saying "very lucky" and "high failure rate if repeated". He automatically assumes it was Hani flying the airplane. Why is it that these people call themselves "critical thinkers", yet when anything comes across their desk which supports the govt story, their critical thinking skills cease to exist, not to mention they actually make up excuses for all the conflicts. Many of which are impossible.

The "Duh-Bunkers" have suggested/made excuses for the FDR data. When shown their numbers are impossible, they delete their own post content... lol