Hello And A Question Options

[Faustina]

Just introducing myself. I live inside the beltway - the heart of government and government thinking.

I want first of all to say thanks for Pilots for 9/11 Truth for cosponsoring the forum in Virginia this month. I am new to looking at the evidence of what happened that day. I am still having problems getting my mind around this thing though. The work that you do and the CIT team do help A LOT because you have a scientific -investigative approach and can't be easily dismissed.

Also I have a question. I was listening to an interview on Veterans for 9/11 Truth with one of the Pilots.
He said that after the twin tower crashes, they tried to replicate the feet using a flight simulator and that it was very very hard - only after a number of attempts could they manage it.

If jets have to land precisely on a runway, why would it be hard to steer one into a skyscraper?

Thanks for all your work and your demonstrable love for this country.

[rob balsamo]

If jets have to land precisely on a runway, why would it be hard to steer one into a skyscraper?

Welcome to the forum Faustina!

To answer your question in the simplest of terms , imagine trying to park your car in your garage at about 150 mph without hitting the sides of the car on the opening of the garage.

Better example...

Ever been to a Jiffy Lube or similar place to get your oil changed? You drive in, stop. They change the oil... you keep driving straight to drive out.

Now imagine driving through that narrow opening at over 150 mph without scratching your car. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Landing speeds are about 5 times less than the speeds reported on 9/11 at the WTC. The interviewed pilots were able to impact the WTC as done on 9/11, on first attempt, at landing speeds, Its a whole different animal when attempting to do the same thing at more than 150+ Knots over Maximum Operating speed for the type aircraft. The slightest pressure (doesnt even have to be actual movement) on the "steering wheel" (yoke) will produce very large changes in aircraft direction.

Considering the best "hijacker pilot" was Hani Hanjour (according to the 9/11 Commission Report), and he wasnt allowed to rent a Cessna 172 single engine propeller driven aircraft due to the fact he couldnt control it at 65 Knots, its highly unlikely a pilot of less capability (Atta, al-Shehhi) could control a heavy jet at almost 10x the speed with about a 25 foot margin for error each side of wing tip... (Width of WTC is 208 feet, wingspan of a 767 is 156 feet), and zero training in type aircraft.

The govt wants us to believe these "hijacker pilots" got 3 aircraft completely inside an object with margins for error that did not exceed 33 feet (pentagon) or 25 feet (WTC) at over 400-500 knots. Sounds like a bad B Movie.

Also, not sure what interview you listened to, but you may want to check this one out... It was on Revolution Radio with Mike Swenson.



Once again, Welcome to the forum!

[Faustina]

Thanks for pointing these things out Rob!

That is the interview that I listened to by the way. For non-experts it can take a few tried before we just get the fact straight.

[forthetrees]

Better example...

Ever been to a Jiffy Lube or similar place to get your oil changed? You drive in, stop. They change the oil... you keep driving straight to drive out.

Now imagine driving through that narrow opening at over 150 mph without scratching your car.

Would it be correct to expand the example to include the following?

- You're a novice driver essentially still on a learner's permit with limited skills and driving experience to the point of recently having failed your license test because you couldn't properly identify the gauges and controls or safely operate the vehicle

- You've only ever driven small, low powered compacts

- And now you are hurdling towards the narrow Jiffy Lube opening at the controls of a fully loaded 18 wheeler, full bore, top speed, and you thread it through the opening flawlessly.

If you can envision someone doing that, you may be able to accept the official version of events.

[tnemelckram]

Rob's and FTT's answer has to be the most important difference, but I think there are probably others that make landing a lot easier. Take your pick from the following suggestions (because I don't know):

1. The runway is well marked.
2. Several secondary navigation aids to the pilot's eyesight.
3. Autopilot assist (partial?) (Backup?)
4. Ground control input (many eyes are better than one).
5. Somebody doing it in front of you as an example.
6. An established landing profile for each airport.
7. A landing profile that tells you what the critical things like course, speed and height should be every
second during the approach.
8. It's been done a zillion times before.
9. Co pilot backup and assist (two eyes are better than one).

[Obwon]

Would it be correct to expand the example to include the following?

- You're a novice driver essentially still on a learner's permit with limited skills and driving experience to the point of recently having failed your license test because you couldn't properly identify the gauges and controls or safely operate the vehicle

- You've only ever driven small, low powered compacts

- And now you are hurdling towards the narrow Jiffy Lube opening at the controls of a fully loaded 18 wheeler, full bore, top speed, and you thread it through the opening flawlessly.

If you can envision someone doing that, you may be able to accept the official version of events.

I remember my first time behind the wheel of a very old pontiac, the kind
with the Indian head hood ornament. My father had gone into the store
and left the engine running, so I slipped behind the wheel. I'd intended
to simply roll the car back a few feet, then roll it forward again. What
could possibly happen? I'd watched how engine idle made the car roll, so
I thought I knew exactly what I was doing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Surprise, surprise, I slipped it into reverse gear, released the brake and...
Nothing happened! It wasn't supposed to be like this, the car was supposed
to roll backwards using engine idle. Damn, so well, let me give it just a
little tiny bit of gas! Yeah I know I should leave it alone but, hey, I just
want a little roll, what harm could it do? So, I gingerly put my foot on
the accelerator and gave it the slightest tap. ZOOOOOM, the car lurched
backwards so fast, thank heavens I'd put my foot immediately on the brake.
I stopped the car just a foot short of some lady passing behind the car
some ten feet or so away. I put the car back in drive and mercifully it
rolled forward. Put it back in park and got back into the passenger seat
before Dad got back, and thankfully the woman who I'd startled just
walked away. I sat there sweating, vowing never to touch the wheel
ever again. But, as luck would have it, Dad noticed the car had been
moved. He gave it a mild mention, thank heavens he didn't get wind
of the horrible accident I'd almost caused.

So, I can easily imagine just how flustered any such hijacker would have
become, if even the tiniest bit of control, did not produce exactly the
expected results. Worse yet, they wouldn't even know what the results
were, that they were supposed to expect. I mean, all they would have
had to tell them, what the plane was doing, would not be a simple
look out a window, to reference buildings and trees, etc. but a
bewildering array of dials, gauges and digital read outs. Not one of
which, on it's own, tells you much of anything you need to know, by
itself. But only when it's read in it's relation to other information, on
other dials, gauges and digital read outs.

With time and training, you can eventually put these quantities together
easily. You know what you're looking for, you know the feel, you
know what you should expect and, more importantly, you know
what you don't want to see and what to do about it.

These guys didn't have enough training or time in the seat, to even
know what they didn't want to have happen. So, how could they
know that anything they were doing was good?

Thus, without knowing what was either good or bad, right or wrong,
they might just as well have been trying to drive that 18 wheeler,
through that Jiffy Lube station, at 150 miles per, with a blindfold
on. Because as their speed went over vmo (is that the right term?)
even a trained pilot would be pretty much flying in the dark.
But at least a trained pilot would know what to try to do about it.
The skyjackers wouldn't have a clue!

I think what these pilots here are trying to tell us lay people is, that
there are lots of little things that can be done, to fatally upset the
aircraft, while there are very many things that must be done to
prevent fatal upsets. The skyjackers being unaware of either, would
most likely result in them crashing, without ever reaching their targets.

Obwon

[rob balsamo]

Read more here......

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18090
(Be sure to scroll down the above linked thread after viewing the video linked)

[albertchampion]

HELLO ROB.

HAPPY B-DAY.

I GOT YOUR EMAIL.

DON'T KNOW WHY I CANNOT RESPOND. YOUR SYSTEM SAYS THAT YOU DON'T EXIST.

SO IT GOES.