Hello. I am new here. Excuse my ignorance, and please forgive me for asking questions which may have been asked many times before.
Did any of the hijackers have any experience flying jets like the ones hijacked on 9/11? Did they have any time in simulators? If not, how likely is it that experience in other aircaft would translate into the kind of flying they performed that day?
Also, if one takes control of an aircraft and suddenly turns the plane around, how does one find ones way to an intended target? How do you navigate towards NYC or Washinton DC from hundreds of miles away and miles up in the air? I'm sure there is a simple answer to this question, but would it have been easy for these guys?
Thank you
Full Version: Hijackers' Piloting Abilities
QUOTE (confused @ Apr 1 2008, 10:31 PM) 
. . .
If not, how likely is it that experience in other aircaft would translate into the kind of flying they performed that day?
. . .
If not, how likely is it that experience in other aircaft would translate into the kind of flying they performed that day?
. . .
Welcome to the forum.
In answer to your question: Zero percent likely.
Imagine that you've never driven a car in your life or that maybe you'd had just a little experience but not much or had driven a car in the equivalent of a video game. Ok, so you hijack this big grey-hound bus, turn it around from where ever it was heading and, with the pedal to the floor, make a run back down the highway, where, without a map -- using visual landmarks only -- you find the courthouse and either drive around a city block first or just dive right into it killing everyone aboard including yourself.
Now, magnify any difficult you might imagine with that scenario by a factor of about a thousand or so -- remember this is the FIRST and only time you've actually been in a 7x7 cockpit. Include in it this mental calculation the chances of not being intercepted by national air defense that is trained and fully funded and equipped to do precisely that.
Four hijacks all on the same day. Three to completion.
Chances?
Again, Zero is not an exaggeration. Yeah, strange things do happen but there are limits -- and 9/11 goes way beyond those limits in so many directions, it isn't funny. At all.
Iīve allways hated when people start making comparissons between driving cars or trucks or buses and flying airplanes.
It simply is not right. I know itīs a sort of ĻnaturalĻ way of trying to explain differences, but to me is not correct and is UNFAIR.
Being on the ground and moving on it, having traction and going at completely different speed makes driving, totally another thing than flying a plane. All the driving you do on a plane when you taxi out for take off or in for parking allready is done in a very different manner than driving any car or truck. You steer using your feet, or one hand on a very tiny wheel which is to one side of you, responds totally in another manner to a car wheel. To slow down you use both your feet, no gears, itīs a whole other world.
Now, as far as the flying skills of the hijakers, I would like to say a couple of things. The maneuvers that have been discussed and found "impossible" by many, I insist, are not that difficult. But you have to put your mind in the same "mind set" as those people.
For a commercial pilot trying a maneuver like this in a simulator, this presents a degree of difficulty greater than on the airplane.
What I want to point out here is, that in a simulator, you have only a "PARTIAL" view angle, even in the advanced sims. the airlines have today, you donīt get a complete view angle as in the real world. (They have that on advanced military sims.)
With that "complete view" in a clear day, with Manhattan clearly in sight and the WTC clearly in your view, I donīt find that the trajectory would be too hard to acomplish. As I have said earlier, what you need is this crazy "determination" those people use, because they are very much aware also, that they will die.
Question for Rob Balsamo, about PB chapter 2. Why is dutch roll discussed and shown so extensively? I would thing this is an issue that would not have come up in any of the hijacked aircraft unless there had been a "yaw damper" failure in one or more. And even yaw damper would not be an issue at low altitude.
It simply is not right. I know itīs a sort of ĻnaturalĻ way of trying to explain differences, but to me is not correct and is UNFAIR.
Being on the ground and moving on it, having traction and going at completely different speed makes driving, totally another thing than flying a plane. All the driving you do on a plane when you taxi out for take off or in for parking allready is done in a very different manner than driving any car or truck. You steer using your feet, or one hand on a very tiny wheel which is to one side of you, responds totally in another manner to a car wheel. To slow down you use both your feet, no gears, itīs a whole other world.
Now, as far as the flying skills of the hijakers, I would like to say a couple of things. The maneuvers that have been discussed and found "impossible" by many, I insist, are not that difficult. But you have to put your mind in the same "mind set" as those people.
For a commercial pilot trying a maneuver like this in a simulator, this presents a degree of difficulty greater than on the airplane.
What I want to point out here is, that in a simulator, you have only a "PARTIAL" view angle, even in the advanced sims. the airlines have today, you donīt get a complete view angle as in the real world. (They have that on advanced military sims.)
With that "complete view" in a clear day, with Manhattan clearly in sight and the WTC clearly in your view, I donīt find that the trajectory would be too hard to acomplish. As I have said earlier, what you need is this crazy "determination" those people use, because they are very much aware also, that they will die.
Question for Rob Balsamo, about PB chapter 2. Why is dutch roll discussed and shown so extensively? I would thing this is an issue that would not have come up in any of the hijacked aircraft unless there had been a "yaw damper" failure in one or more. And even yaw damper would not be an issue at low altitude.
carlos,
could you fly a 757 at more than 100 knots over Vmo and get a 44 foot high target into a 77 high target completely without over shooting, and/or bouncing off the lawn on your first try?
If you can, then why are you still flying dinosaur?
If you say you cant, then how did someone who had zero time in type, couldnt control a 172 at 65 knots, "barely knew what the instruments where there for.." was able to do it on his first run?
If you say he was "lucky", i say you're in denial, as the "hijackers" should have played the lotto on Sept 11 they got so "lucky" all day long...
Dutch roll isnt discussed at all in "PB Chapter 2". Research problem?
It is discussed in a radio interview on Revolution Radio with FAA Check Airman Dan Gavotos who tried to duplicate the attacks on the WTC with his line pilots in a 737 sim and couldnt do it due to dutch roll at those speeds (Dan eventually was able to do it).
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=6819
By the way, what happens when you disconnect the AP carlos? Does your YD dump as well? Or perhaps you think the "Hijackers" let the AP take them to the WTC 78 and 84th floors? There are such theories....
Carlos, im beginning to think you arent who you say you are...
could you fly a 757 at more than 100 knots over Vmo and get a 44 foot high target into a 77 high target completely without over shooting, and/or bouncing off the lawn on your first try?
If you can, then why are you still flying dinosaur?
If you say you cant, then how did someone who had zero time in type, couldnt control a 172 at 65 knots, "barely knew what the instruments where there for.." was able to do it on his first run?
If you say he was "lucky", i say you're in denial, as the "hijackers" should have played the lotto on Sept 11 they got so "lucky" all day long...
QUOTE
Question for Rob Balsamo, about PB chapter 2. Why is dutch roll discussed and shown so extensively? I would thing this is an issue that would not have come up in any of the hijacked aircraft unless there had been a "yaw damper" failure in one or more. And even yaw damper would not be an issue at low altitude.
Dutch roll isnt discussed at all in "PB Chapter 2". Research problem?
It is discussed in a radio interview on Revolution Radio with FAA Check Airman Dan Gavotos who tried to duplicate the attacks on the WTC with his line pilots in a 737 sim and couldnt do it due to dutch roll at those speeds (Dan eventually was able to do it).
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=6819
By the way, what happens when you disconnect the AP carlos? Does your YD dump as well? Or perhaps you think the "Hijackers" let the AP take them to the WTC 78 and 84th floors? There are such theories....
Carlos, im beginning to think you arent who you say you are...
Thanks Rob. This really isnīt about ME. If I CAN or CANīT do something. The issue is, IS IT POSSIBLE? And if someone is willing to try it in a simulator, which Iīm sure many have tried, (donīt know the rate of success they may have achieved), they should try it in SAME TIPE. That to me would be an ABSOLUTE requierement. Dutch roll at high speed and (I assume) low alt. on the 737, appears to be another problem these guys would have had to deal with, but does it happen on the 57 or 67?
You know, I was thinking that an interesting investigation could be attempted to shed some light on this dificulty to perform these maneuvers. A flight school should get a group of recently graduated comercial, multi engine, ifr. rated pilots. Give them 2 or 3 hours to try their hands on a 757 sim. trying to replicate "the mission". (Cause we canīt rule out the possibility these guys didnīt buy some sim time somewhere), and then have them try to do it, and meassure the rate of success that is achieved.
Something that Iīve mentioned before is that, they didnīt need good english, didnīt need to taxi, take off, fly an ILS, or any procedures whatsoever, they only needed to get to a "waypoint" (donīt see any problem there), and from there, simply maintain a trajectory to kill themselves. To me this is actually BELIEVABLE.
Sorry about mistaking PB chap. 2 with the radio interview, but what I saw is a clip, and I guess the radio int. was edited into this clip where a small twin is shown doing demonstration of dutch roll and one hears the instructor (Iīm guessing) talking about it.
You know, I was thinking that an interesting investigation could be attempted to shed some light on this dificulty to perform these maneuvers. A flight school should get a group of recently graduated comercial, multi engine, ifr. rated pilots. Give them 2 or 3 hours to try their hands on a 757 sim. trying to replicate "the mission". (Cause we canīt rule out the possibility these guys didnīt buy some sim time somewhere), and then have them try to do it, and meassure the rate of success that is achieved.
Something that Iīve mentioned before is that, they didnīt need good english, didnīt need to taxi, take off, fly an ILS, or any procedures whatsoever, they only needed to get to a "waypoint" (donīt see any problem there), and from there, simply maintain a trajectory to kill themselves. To me this is actually BELIEVABLE.
Sorry about mistaking PB chap. 2 with the radio interview, but what I saw is a clip, and I guess the radio int. was edited into this clip where a small twin is shown doing demonstration of dutch roll and one hears the instructor (Iīm guessing) talking about it.
QUOTE
The issue is, IS IT POSSIBLE?
No one said it was "impossible". We went over this before carlos. Is your memory failing? "Highly unlikely" was the phrased used. Some choose the word "lucky", mostly those who take the govt at their word.
Would the kind of flight training the supposed hijacker pilots of flights 77 and 93 had have included the use of
of the radio navigation, flight computers and autopilot systems of the 757s as detailed in the NTSB reports on this?
Would just a few hours in a simulator be enough to learn how to program the flights all the way from the hijack point to the last few
moments when they supposedly took over manual control?
They appear to have had plenty of state-of-the-art airliner technical knowledge even if they could not fly a Cessna very well.
of the radio navigation, flight computers and autopilot systems of the 757s as detailed in the NTSB reports on this?
Would just a few hours in a simulator be enough to learn how to program the flights all the way from the hijack point to the last few
moments when they supposedly took over manual control?
They appear to have had plenty of state-of-the-art airliner technical knowledge even if they could not fly a Cessna very well.
Thanks again Rob. And it may have not been you of course, but many have said "impossible", "zero chance", "it just canīt be done", etc, phrases like that all over. Highly unlikely seems more reasonable to me. You make no mention of my comment on the "view angle" that you have in real flight, vs the limited angle on a simulator. Neither on the dutch roll issue on 757īs and 767īs.
Now Iīd like to run another idea by you, I hope not to be a "pain....".
If you went through the trouble of "altering" or "covering up" some how, the truth at a certain time.
Wouldnīt you say it should be obvious that FDR data should "MATCH EXACTLY" with the official account of events? "the official truth?"
It just doesnīt seem logical that anybody or any organization, after going through all the INMENSE work required to "hide", "alter", "cover up", "fake", "deceive", etc. would let things like that get by. I mean, they could even have said, "sorry, the data or the recorder was damaged beyond any possibility of any use", and thatīs it.
Now Iīd like to run another idea by you, I hope not to be a "pain....".
If you went through the trouble of "altering" or "covering up" some how, the truth at a certain time.
Wouldnīt you say it should be obvious that FDR data should "MATCH EXACTLY" with the official account of events? "the official truth?"
It just doesnīt seem logical that anybody or any organization, after going through all the INMENSE work required to "hide", "alter", "cover up", "fake", "deceive", etc. would let things like that get by. I mean, they could even have said, "sorry, the data or the recorder was damaged beyond any possibility of any use", and thatīs it.
Pinnacle, hi.
I would say, the needed knowledge that you speak of, about radio and navigation, isnīt really that far out there. In fact, those subjects are available on flight simulator game programs that one can get very familiar with in the comfort of home. For what we know these guys could have been actual "experts" on the matter, but poor on their flying skills, or they just "faked" that. Or got some additional very needed training that isnīt known about.
I would say, the needed knowledge that you speak of, about radio and navigation, isnīt really that far out there. In fact, those subjects are available on flight simulator game programs that one can get very familiar with in the comfort of home. For what we know these guys could have been actual "experts" on the matter, but poor on their flying skills, or they just "faked" that. Or got some additional very needed training that isnīt known about.
confused
Valid questions all, that you present, and well answered. Welcome to the forum.
Carlos
I've been instructing people to fly since 1969, and there is indeed a correlation between driving other machines and flying airplanes.
Eye-hand coordination is a big part of the skill. That's why they can test for good pilot candidates--the skills are predictable.
Of all my students, those who operated machinery for a living, for example, were always excellent learners.
Valid questions all, that you present, and well answered. Welcome to the forum.
Carlos
I've been instructing people to fly since 1969, and there is indeed a correlation between driving other machines and flying airplanes.
Eye-hand coordination is a big part of the skill. That's why they can test for good pilot candidates--the skills are predictable.
Of all my students, those who operated machinery for a living, for example, were always excellent learners.
Good point "amazed". Yes I would agree that if you are good driving, or operating certain type of machines, you may be a good candidate for piloting an airplane. (But it isnīt a fixed rule.) I know good pilots who suck as car drivers. About coordination is where I think the comparisons are more frequently drawn. Itīs just something that I find annoying. Like when a pax. asks if you "drive" the plane???
About the "tasks" these guys (the hijackers) had to perform, I would like to clarify cause I think my previous comment sounds too simplistic.
Understand, that "very little" was what they needed to know. They didnīt have to be experienced airline captains. Theirs was a one time only chance and success meant death. (But also "paradise").
I insist that programming a waypoint, getting there, with the help of autopilot and highly automated systems, recognizing your target, in weather that could not have been any better, and diving into it didnīt require the highest level of skill or profficiency, which is what we are used to judge.
About the "tasks" these guys (the hijackers) had to perform, I would like to clarify cause I think my previous comment sounds too simplistic.
Understand, that "very little" was what they needed to know. They didnīt have to be experienced airline captains. Theirs was a one time only chance and success meant death. (But also "paradise").
I insist that programming a waypoint, getting there, with the help of autopilot and highly automated systems, recognizing your target, in weather that could not have been any better, and diving into it didnīt require the highest level of skill or profficiency, which is what we are used to judge.
A pilot who has time in the actual aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 and over 30,000 hours. Capt Russ Wittenburg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQv99gQukKU
He is also a core member..
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
And to answer your question carlos, a 75/76 dutch roll is more pronounced than a 73.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQv99gQukKU
He is also a core member..
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
And to answer your question carlos, a 75/76 dutch roll is more pronounced than a 73.
QUOTE (carlos727 @ Apr 5 2008, 03:11 PM)
Wouldnīt you say it should be obvious that FDR data should "MATCH EXACTLY" with the official account of events? "the official truth?"
It just doesnīt seem logical that anybody or any organization, after going through all the INMENSE work required to "hide", "alter", "cover up", "fake", "deceive", etc. would let things like that get by. I mean, they could even have said, "sorry, the data or the recorder was damaged beyond any possibility of any use", and thatīs it.
It just doesnīt seem logical that anybody or any organization, after going through all the INMENSE work required to "hide", "alter", "cover up", "fake", "deceive", etc. would let things like that get by. I mean, they could even have said, "sorry, the data or the recorder was damaged beyond any possibility of any use", and thatīs it.
So the world according to Carlos is :-
1. No FDR data - understandable, it could have been damaged.
2. FDR data absolutely matching OCT flight path - understandable, proves plane hit Pentagon as they say.
3. FDR data not matching OCT flight path - understandable as if they were faking the data they would have made sure it was correct.
Makes me wonder what would make you suspicious????
QUOTE (carlos727 @ Apr 8 2008, 09:11 PM)
Wouldnīt you say it should be obvious that FDR data should "MATCH EXACTLY" with the official account of events? "the official truth?"
It just doesnīt seem logical that anybody or any organization, after going through all the INMENSE work required to "hide", "alter", "cover up", "fake", "deceive", etc. would let things like that get by. I mean, they could even have said, "sorry, the data or the recorder was damaged beyond any possibility of any use", and thatīs it.
It just doesnīt seem logical that anybody or any organization, after going through all the INMENSE work required to "hide", "alter", "cover up", "fake", "deceive", etc. would let things like that get by. I mean, they could even have said, "sorry, the data or the recorder was damaged beyond any possibility of any use", and thatīs it.
The events of 9-11 are rife with such apparent contradictions.
However, no matter how well organized and planned the operation was initially, maybe subsequent speed-bumps, like what to do about a FOIA request, were not handled so well. Maybe the people that were handling the FOIA request were not aware that the black box data would not match the official story. Maybe people on the inside who might have concerns about the data didn't imagine the P4T team would have the patience and resources to rigorously analyse the data (the software needed to read the data is very expensive). Maybe there was someone on the inside who wanted the information to get out. Maybe, do to the oversight regarding local air pressure (as reflected in the NTSP animation and noted in PB1) and the difficulties in plotting the entire flight route, the perpetrators thought they were safe. Maybe this is yet another case of "open complicity" to leave certain participants' @sses hanging out a tiny bit to insure loyalty. (There is an exellent documentary on the net titled 'Open Complicity' with puts forth this hypothesis to explain such anomolies as the dancing Israelis, the uncollected put-option profits, and Larry Silverstein's "pull-it" comment...) Or, maybe they just screwed up. Things are always complicated like that, and since we have no idea what goes on behind the scenes one can only speculate ... but I can think of a slew of reasons why FDR data which didn't exactly support the official story might have gotten out. What I DO know for certain is that the FDR data WAS released, WAS represented as the black box data from AA77, and doesn't match the official account. How one decides to try and reconcile that is up to the individual ... and, without confirming proof or a confession by a whistleblower, somewhat meaningless.
Thanks Rob for the clip. My regards to Capt. Wittenburg and all my respect.
Thereīs a point that he makes that I think very valuable, because in the view of a conscientious and professional pilot, these maneuvers should be considered "dangerous", "temerary", irresponsible", "crazy", "trying to tear the plane appart". Which I think is part of the problem, because we look at this from a point of view of a responsible pilot who looks out for his plane and tries to allways be within the "envelope". Only, none of this views would be on this hijackerīs minds. (Iīm not saying Capt. Wittenburg is wrong, he may be right.)
I have a question about the FDR info. from the aircraft involved in 911, specially AA77.
How much exactly (if it is known) is the allowable error in each data parameter due to callibration, and what exactly is the tollerance for each? Sorry if I am posting a question that has been dealt with before, but I havenīt been able to find this info.
Thereīs a point that he makes that I think very valuable, because in the view of a conscientious and professional pilot, these maneuvers should be considered "dangerous", "temerary", irresponsible", "crazy", "trying to tear the plane appart". Which I think is part of the problem, because we look at this from a point of view of a responsible pilot who looks out for his plane and tries to allways be within the "envelope". Only, none of this views would be on this hijackerīs minds. (Iīm not saying Capt. Wittenburg is wrong, he may be right.)
I have a question about the FDR info. from the aircraft involved in 911, specially AA77.
How much exactly (if it is known) is the allowable error in each data parameter due to callibration, and what exactly is the tollerance for each? Sorry if I am posting a question that has been dealt with before, but I havenīt been able to find this info.
Carlos, for the professional pilot you claim to be, i am a bit disapoointed you do not know how to look up the regs for FDR parameter limitations and allowances.
FAR Part 121 Appendix M
ED-55
TSO-124
Look it up.
We also have interviews on our front page with a representative from L3 Communications.
By the way, Capt Wittenburg wasnt talking about "dangerous", "temerary", irresponsible", "crazy", "trying to tear the plane appart" [sic], he was talking about the "possiblity" from a highly experienced perspective having thousands of hours in type. Capt Wittenburg expressed his experienced opinion which holds much more weight than yours (or even mine) considering he has time in type. We have several other 75/76 Capts within our organization who feel the same way.
Im truly beginning to think you arent who you claim to be and im getting a bit tired of holding your hand through your research. Forgive me if i seem to ignore any further posts from you.
Regards
FAR Part 121 Appendix M
ED-55
TSO-124
Look it up.
We also have interviews on our front page with a representative from L3 Communications.
By the way, Capt Wittenburg wasnt talking about "dangerous", "temerary", irresponsible", "crazy", "trying to tear the plane appart" [sic], he was talking about the "possiblity" from a highly experienced perspective having thousands of hours in type. Capt Wittenburg expressed his experienced opinion which holds much more weight than yours (or even mine) considering he has time in type. We have several other 75/76 Capts within our organization who feel the same way.
Im truly beginning to think you arent who you claim to be and im getting a bit tired of holding your hand through your research. Forgive me if i seem to ignore any further posts from you.
Regards
(Sorry if I misspell some words, english is not my first language.)
Thank you Rob. Sorry for being such a "pain..." to you. Somehow I feel I have to deffend myself from you, when all Iīm doing is expressing my opinions in a civil way. Capt. Wittenburg as I expressed earlier as well as all the other experienced pilots like him, have my greatest respect. Only thing I was trying to make a point about is the "focus" that commercial pilots in "our" culture, would have about flying like that. Itīs something that no "sane" pilot would attempt to do. And thus, the difficulty of annalyzing it from the "terrorist" perspective, which is completely different. He has no knowledge watsoever about airplane limitations, doesnīt care, he doesnīt follow procedures, doesnīt have to use the radio, etc..., his mission is to crash.
Somehow I feel I have to deffend myself from you, when all Iīm doing is expressing my opinions in a civil way. Like you asking me if I think I could do the same thing. What does that have to do with it? If I told you I could, then what? If I tell you I canīt, then Iīm not qualified to talk about it?
Thanks for the info on FARīs, Iīll look it up. I have some idea about FDR data having a certain margin of error, but Iīm not an expert on the issue.
And there you go again, puting me down because I donīt know that. Why should I know that? Iīm not an accident investigator. I would bet you didnīt have that knowledge yourself up until you got involved in all the investigative work.
Please, you can ignore future posts from me, I wonīt complain.
Thank you Rob. Sorry for being such a "pain..." to you. Somehow I feel I have to deffend myself from you, when all Iīm doing is expressing my opinions in a civil way. Capt. Wittenburg as I expressed earlier as well as all the other experienced pilots like him, have my greatest respect. Only thing I was trying to make a point about is the "focus" that commercial pilots in "our" culture, would have about flying like that. Itīs something that no "sane" pilot would attempt to do. And thus, the difficulty of annalyzing it from the "terrorist" perspective, which is completely different. He has no knowledge watsoever about airplane limitations, doesnīt care, he doesnīt follow procedures, doesnīt have to use the radio, etc..., his mission is to crash.
Somehow I feel I have to deffend myself from you, when all Iīm doing is expressing my opinions in a civil way. Like you asking me if I think I could do the same thing. What does that have to do with it? If I told you I could, then what? If I tell you I canīt, then Iīm not qualified to talk about it?
Thanks for the info on FARīs, Iīll look it up. I have some idea about FDR data having a certain margin of error, but Iīm not an expert on the issue.
And there you go again, puting me down because I donīt know that. Why should I know that? Iīm not an accident investigator. I would bet you didnīt have that knowledge yourself up until you got involved in all the investigative work.
Please, you can ignore future posts from me, I wonīt complain.
Your whole premise of insane terrorist pilots is based on the assumprion that there actually were hijackers on the airliners. There is no record of any of them having tickets, having boarded, nor being on the passenger lists.
So first, you have to do something the government has not done. Prove that there actually were hijackers.
Did you know that on the top twenty FBI wanted foreign terrorists, not one is wanted in connection with 9/11. Not even Osama bin Laden. Don't believe me? Go to fbi.gov and look it up.
So first, you have to do something the government has not done. Prove that there actually were hijackers.
Did you know that on the top twenty FBI wanted foreign terrorists, not one is wanted in connection with 9/11. Not even Osama bin Laden. Don't believe me? Go to fbi.gov and look it up.
Carlos
I agree completely that programming waypoints could be done by a monkey, as long as he is familiar with the unit he is using. If not, even the smartest monkey will have difficulty ESPECIALLY UNDER PRESSURE programming waypoints. Not being an airline pilot, I would be curious as to whether or not all Delta, American or United aircraft types have the same equipment onboard.
In any event, after the waypoint is found and entered and navigated to, comes the hard part--putting the aircraft over the waypoint, or in this case INTO the waypoint, in the proper configuration.
That is the part that I am so skeptical about--the abilities of rookie pilots to precisely fly an airplane they've never been in before. Frankly, I don't think it's possible.
I agree completely that programming waypoints could be done by a monkey, as long as he is familiar with the unit he is using. If not, even the smartest monkey will have difficulty ESPECIALLY UNDER PRESSURE programming waypoints. Not being an airline pilot, I would be curious as to whether or not all Delta, American or United aircraft types have the same equipment onboard.
In any event, after the waypoint is found and entered and navigated to, comes the hard part--putting the aircraft over the waypoint, or in this case INTO the waypoint, in the proper configuration.
That is the part that I am so skeptical about--the abilities of rookie pilots to precisely fly an airplane they've never been in before. Frankly, I don't think it's possible.
Carlos,
As for the skills needed to pull of such a highly unprobable maneuvre
for H. Hanjour:
Besides the fact that HH wasn't even capable of controlling
a 172, he also missed the main pre-condition to fly AA77 into the pentagon:
He didn't have a ticked at all.
As for the comparism to cars and grounded vehicles:
The comparism isn't that much about the pilot's/driver's skills -
It is more about basic laws of physics:
The maneuvre that AA77 alledgedly executed is indeed comparable
with a greyhound bus in a way that one has to believe that a
greyhound bus could be driven around any given formula one
circuit with the same results as a McLaren or Ferrari and without
overturning in the very first corner... It is simply impossible.
If you would put your resistance away for a second and assume
the unthinkable, namely that 9/11 was not was we were told
by the media, but indeed an inside job, then suddenly everything
can be put back into logic and common sense.
But as long as you only accept answers that can back up the prooven
impossible official fairy tale, you are only getting nowhere fast.
Try to open your mind, maybe for just one day, and look around in the
scientific evidence that ia all over the net.
To start with a conclusion and work your way back during the
"analysis" by cherry picking fractions of the reality that can lead to the
pre-set conclusion is anti-science and you won't accept it from nobody
in a criminal investigation, would you?.
There are so much conclusive documentaries out there, I would love to
hear your opinion about them. I am from Europe and this is a 9/11 doc from
here with our way of looking at things. Do me the favour and whatch it and
make your point about it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=40...46293&hl=de
As for the skills needed to pull of such a highly unprobable maneuvre
for H. Hanjour:
Besides the fact that HH wasn't even capable of controlling
a 172, he also missed the main pre-condition to fly AA77 into the pentagon:
He didn't have a ticked at all.
As for the comparism to cars and grounded vehicles:
The comparism isn't that much about the pilot's/driver's skills -
It is more about basic laws of physics:
The maneuvre that AA77 alledgedly executed is indeed comparable
with a greyhound bus in a way that one has to believe that a
greyhound bus could be driven around any given formula one
circuit with the same results as a McLaren or Ferrari and without
overturning in the very first corner... It is simply impossible.
If you would put your resistance away for a second and assume
the unthinkable, namely that 9/11 was not was we were told
by the media, but indeed an inside job, then suddenly everything
can be put back into logic and common sense.
But as long as you only accept answers that can back up the prooven
impossible official fairy tale, you are only getting nowhere fast.
Try to open your mind, maybe for just one day, and look around in the
scientific evidence that ia all over the net.
To start with a conclusion and work your way back during the
"analysis" by cherry picking fractions of the reality that can lead to the
pre-set conclusion is anti-science and you won't accept it from nobody
in a criminal investigation, would you?.
There are so much conclusive documentaries out there, I would love to
hear your opinion about them. I am from Europe and this is a 9/11 doc from
here with our way of looking at things. Do me the favour and whatch it and
make your point about it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=40...46293&hl=de
QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 4 2008, 01:32 PM)
Carlos
I agree completely that programming waypoints could be done by a monkey, as long as he is familiar with the unit he is using. If not, even the smartest monkey will have difficulty ESPECIALLY UNDER PRESSURE programming waypoints. Not being an airline pilot, I would be curious as to whether or not all Delta, American or United aircraft types have the same equipment onboard.
In any event, after the waypoint is found and entered and navigated to, comes the hard part--putting the aircraft over the waypoint, or in this case INTO the waypoint, in the proper configuration.
That is the part that I am so skeptical about--the abilities of rookie pilots to precisely fly an airplane they've never been in before. Frankly, I don't think it's possible.
I agree completely that programming waypoints could be done by a monkey, as long as he is familiar with the unit he is using. If not, even the smartest monkey will have difficulty ESPECIALLY UNDER PRESSURE programming waypoints. Not being an airline pilot, I would be curious as to whether or not all Delta, American or United aircraft types have the same equipment onboard.
In any event, after the waypoint is found and entered and navigated to, comes the hard part--putting the aircraft over the waypoint, or in this case INTO the waypoint, in the proper configuration.
That is the part that I am so skeptical about--the abilities of rookie pilots to precisely fly an airplane they've never been in before. Frankly, I don't think it's possible.
and by all means, put up a pic of the 75/76 flight decks. tell me what novice could jump into those seats after committing homicide and do what would have had to have been done.
the flight decks and instruments of these birds are very intimidating.
of course, i don't think that there is any proof that there were any hijackers on that day.
the flight decks and instruments of these birds are very intimidating.
of course, i don't think that there is any proof that there were any hijackers on that day.
well, for some reason my comments got erased. but renewing them...
some bits
1st bit: if you have ever been in the flight deck of a 757/767, i think that you would find it quite intimidating on your first exposure to it. if there had been any hijackers, novice pilots, i don't think that they would have been prepared for the reality of that environment, especially if there were dead men in the flight deck.
2nd bit: i recall some years ago, on some board, when i was challenged, by some disinfo agent i think, about the skills and training that would be required to take command of the flight deck of any commercial airliner. that individual likened the piloting of any commercial airliner to the task of driving an automobile[i.e., it takes no special skills to pilot a commercial airliner. any bumpkin could/can do it].
either that indicates how "dumbed" down the citizenry is, or that indicates the multitude of "disinformation" agents that lurk to try and discredit all those who question the state's "conspiracy theories concerning the events of 11/09/01.
3rd bit: there is some correlation to piloting skills and driving. but not driving as so many perform that act - tuned into lemming-like, cruise-controlled, point a-point b transits.
my favorite illustration of real piloting skills and their correlation to real driving skills was a guy i used to know in central ohio. danny was a naval aviator in korea. one of the first jet jocks. i think he earned "ace" status.
he was a remarkable pilot. a remarkable athlete. after he left the navy, i don't think he ever flew again. but he did take up sports car racing. and what a career he had. from d production in a lotus to formula atlantic, dan was a winner. into his '70's.
i think that what made him a good fighter jock and a good race car driver was phenomenal concentration, depth perception, and athleticism. oh, and a high degree of intelligence and lots of practice[training].
as good as dan was/may still be, i don't think that he could have commanded any one of those airliners on that day sitting in the flight deck for the first time in his life.
4th bit: even driving today isn't as simple, as easy as one might think it to be. i collect benzes. especially the analog ones. the simple ones. no computers. no lcd screens. no programming.
my collection has ranged from 1973 - 1997. particularly the sonderklasse. if you knew one, you knew all the others. jump in and drive.
all that changed with the 2000 model year. for the first time, i had to read a manual.
i refuse to accept new benzes. suffice it to say, none of the post-2000 teutonic wundercars can be commanded without lots of pre-flight time. benz, bmw, audi are all nightmares for the pilot. in my experience, one will not be able to even get one out of the parking lot without spending an hour with the owner's manual. and even then, god help you if some kind off "glitch" is encountered.
i think that the latest sonderklasse benz illustrates the complexity of 2001 commercial airliners. the manual is 700 pages. every aspect of the vehicle operation requires a computer programming. since the manual borders on the clarity of those the japanese write, the benz dealer does most of the programming, for a fee, for the acquirers of these vehicles.
5th bit: there were no hijackers on that day.
some bits
1st bit: if you have ever been in the flight deck of a 757/767, i think that you would find it quite intimidating on your first exposure to it. if there had been any hijackers, novice pilots, i don't think that they would have been prepared for the reality of that environment, especially if there were dead men in the flight deck.
2nd bit: i recall some years ago, on some board, when i was challenged, by some disinfo agent i think, about the skills and training that would be required to take command of the flight deck of any commercial airliner. that individual likened the piloting of any commercial airliner to the task of driving an automobile[i.e., it takes no special skills to pilot a commercial airliner. any bumpkin could/can do it].
either that indicates how "dumbed" down the citizenry is, or that indicates the multitude of "disinformation" agents that lurk to try and discredit all those who question the state's "conspiracy theories concerning the events of 11/09/01.
3rd bit: there is some correlation to piloting skills and driving. but not driving as so many perform that act - tuned into lemming-like, cruise-controlled, point a-point b transits.
my favorite illustration of real piloting skills and their correlation to real driving skills was a guy i used to know in central ohio. danny was a naval aviator in korea. one of the first jet jocks. i think he earned "ace" status.
he was a remarkable pilot. a remarkable athlete. after he left the navy, i don't think he ever flew again. but he did take up sports car racing. and what a career he had. from d production in a lotus to formula atlantic, dan was a winner. into his '70's.
i think that what made him a good fighter jock and a good race car driver was phenomenal concentration, depth perception, and athleticism. oh, and a high degree of intelligence and lots of practice[training].
as good as dan was/may still be, i don't think that he could have commanded any one of those airliners on that day sitting in the flight deck for the first time in his life.
4th bit: even driving today isn't as simple, as easy as one might think it to be. i collect benzes. especially the analog ones. the simple ones. no computers. no lcd screens. no programming.
my collection has ranged from 1973 - 1997. particularly the sonderklasse. if you knew one, you knew all the others. jump in and drive.
all that changed with the 2000 model year. for the first time, i had to read a manual.
i refuse to accept new benzes. suffice it to say, none of the post-2000 teutonic wundercars can be commanded without lots of pre-flight time. benz, bmw, audi are all nightmares for the pilot. in my experience, one will not be able to even get one out of the parking lot without spending an hour with the owner's manual. and even then, god help you if some kind off "glitch" is encountered.
i think that the latest sonderklasse benz illustrates the complexity of 2001 commercial airliners. the manual is 700 pages. every aspect of the vehicle operation requires a computer programming. since the manual borders on the clarity of those the japanese write, the benz dealer does most of the programming, for a fee, for the acquirers of these vehicles.
5th bit: there were no hijackers on that day.
QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Apr 5 2008, 05:07 PM)
Your whole premise of insane terrorist pilots is based on the assumprion that there actually were hijackers on the airliners. There is no record of any of them having tickets, having boarded, nor being on the passenger lists.
So first, you have to do something the government has not done. Prove that there actually were hijackers.
Did you know that on the top twenty FBI wanted foreign terrorists, not one is wanted in connection with 9/11. Not even Osama bin Laden. Don't believe me? Go to fbi.gov and look it up.
So first, you have to do something the government has not done. Prove that there actually were hijackers.
Did you know that on the top twenty FBI wanted foreign terrorists, not one is wanted in connection with 9/11. Not even Osama bin Laden. Don't believe me? Go to fbi.gov and look it up.
I have to say, you have a very good point "oceans".
I believe in the voice recorder of UA93 as the proof of there being hijackers on that day.
Perhaps the hijackers were different people than what weīve been told. Thereīs that possibility!
And maybe these other guys wer not identified and they had good flying skills.
Perhaps the hijackers were different people than what weīve been told. Thereīs that possibility!
And maybe these other guys wer not identified and they had good flying skills.
The key point is that the truth was not told. So what do we believe after that.
As I recall, the only persons allowed to listen to the CVR on 93 were the families of the "victims".
My guess is that they are in on the ruse.
But wait! They made a TV movie about 93, so therefore it simply MUST be true.
My guess is that they are in on the ruse.
But wait! They made a TV movie about 93, so therefore it simply MUST be true.
Carl. Thank you for changing your tone. As for the clip that you kindly asked me to see, it really doesnīt say much to me. I donīt know the people that appear in it, or if they are "experts" in any of the issues that they talk about. But I did CATCH them in a couple of "WRONG ASSUMPTIONS". And to me, that should disqualify that videoclip, just as there are so many, all over the place.
Please check my latest post on "demolition theories" info. in the "Projection of Steel and Concrete" thread. A paper written by EXPERTS.
About the "wrong assumptions" the guys in the clip, make, one that really caught my attention, was the man in the cream colored suit, talking about the air traffic controller, and speaking on this, clearly sugesting HE COULD HAVE CAUSED the crashes of those airplanes!!! And giving as a reference the fact that the same controller was responsible on the EGIPT AIR crash on the Atlantic some time before 911. This statement shows me this person has NO IDEA what he is talking about, and as ANY PILOT on this Forum will tell you, the work of an air traffic controller CAN BE related under some circumstances to an aviation accident, but there is NO WAY, the controllers work, had anything to do with the EGIPT AIR crash or with the 911 crashes. On other parts of the clip they speak about the "demolition theories" which I would say are clearly "debunked" on the paper mentioned above.
Thank you.
Please check my latest post on "demolition theories" info. in the "Projection of Steel and Concrete" thread. A paper written by EXPERTS.
About the "wrong assumptions" the guys in the clip, make, one that really caught my attention, was the man in the cream colored suit, talking about the air traffic controller, and speaking on this, clearly sugesting HE COULD HAVE CAUSED the crashes of those airplanes!!! And giving as a reference the fact that the same controller was responsible on the EGIPT AIR crash on the Atlantic some time before 911. This statement shows me this person has NO IDEA what he is talking about, and as ANY PILOT on this Forum will tell you, the work of an air traffic controller CAN BE related under some circumstances to an aviation accident, but there is NO WAY, the controllers work, had anything to do with the EGIPT AIR crash or with the 911 crashes. On other parts of the clip they speak about the "demolition theories" which I would say are clearly "debunked" on the paper mentioned above.
Thank you.
QUOTE (carlos727 @ Apr 7 2008, 12:06 AM)
Carl. Thank you for changing your tone. As for the clip that you kindly asked me to see, it really doesnīt say much to me. I donīt know the people that appear in it, or if they are "experts" in any of the issues that they talk about. But I did CATCH them in a couple of "WRONG ASSUMPTIONS". And to me, that should disqualify that videoclip, just as there are so many, all over the place.
Please check my latest post on "demolition theories" info. in the "Projection of Steel and Concrete" thread. A paper written by EXPERTS.
About the "wrong assumptions" the guys in the clip, make, one that really caught my attention, was the man in the cream colored suit, talking about the air traffic controller, and speaking on this, clearly sugesting HE COULD HAVE CAUSED the crashes of those airplanes!!! And giving as a reference the fact that the same controller was responsible on the EGIPT AIR crash on the Atlantic some time before 911. This statement shows me this person has NO IDEA what he is talking about, and as ANY PILOT on this Forum will tell you, the work of an air traffic controller CAN BE related under some circumstances to an aviation accident, but there is NO WAY, the controllers work, had anything to do with the EGIPT AIR crash or with the 911 crashes. On other parts of the clip they speak about the "demolition theories" which I would say are clearly "debunked" on the paper mentioned above.
Thank you.
Please check my latest post on "demolition theories" info. in the "Projection of Steel and Concrete" thread. A paper written by EXPERTS.
About the "wrong assumptions" the guys in the clip, make, one that really caught my attention, was the man in the cream colored suit, talking about the air traffic controller, and speaking on this, clearly sugesting HE COULD HAVE CAUSED the crashes of those airplanes!!! And giving as a reference the fact that the same controller was responsible on the EGIPT AIR crash on the Atlantic some time before 911. This statement shows me this person has NO IDEA what he is talking about, and as ANY PILOT on this Forum will tell you, the work of an air traffic controller CAN BE related under some circumstances to an aviation accident, but there is NO WAY, the controllers work, had anything to do with the EGIPT AIR crash or with the 911 crashes. On other parts of the clip they speak about the "demolition theories" which I would say are clearly "debunked" on the paper mentioned above.
Thank you.
so, carlos 727........
it says that you are a student pilot in mexico.
where are you taking your lessons?
what aircraft are you and your instructor using for your training?
what is the name of your fbo? your instructor?
how many hours do you have?
being in mexico, what resources have you used to inform you as to the events of 11/09/01?
how old are you and what do you do for a living? if you have a university degree, from what university?
have you ever flown in the USA?
have you ever flown from mexico into the usa? and back again? please tell us how that worked?
tell me carlos727, do you have a US passport?
why do you think it was that joe albaugh's fema was prepositioned in manhattan for that day in september? an operation known as operation tripod[1,2,7].
do you think it criminal that no normal aircraft accident investigations occurred concerning those aviation accidents? as you should know, that was the first time that has occurred in the post WW2 era in the USA.
do you think it criminal that airliner debris was removed and destroyed instead of being retained for forensic investigation? after all, there were major aircraft components recovered in manhattan that could have been identified with aircraft registration numbers. but, the potus did not want that to happen, so that evidence was destroyed. by exec order. can you tell us why you think that the potus subverted that investigation?
how much jetA do you think was on board the aircraft that purportedly collided with the wtc 1,2?
why do you think that any of these aircraft were hijacked?
what do you think caused the freefall collapse of wtc7?
why do you think that the sam sites surrounding dc and west point were prevented from launching?
why do you think that interceptor aircraft that could fly at a flank speed of 1700kph flew at less than 400kph that day? and why have those pilots been quoted as saying that they flew as if they were "scalded apes"?
better still, carlos727, do you really think that 93 augured into the ground and disappeared? for the first time in aviation history, a collision with terrain with no evidence. you have an explanation for that?
and that causes me to conclude with the aa77 at the pentagram. carlos, do you know of any aircraft accident where the aircraft vaporized? where there was nothing remaining?
and better still, tell us how it could be that the aircraft could vaporize and yet bodies would remain to be autopsied by the us military. and explain that, please. legally, any autopsies of decedents would be required to be examined by civilian entities. who was it, the potus, that ordered military autopsies?
and that would indicate a cover-up, in my view. that was the same misprision of a felony that lbj ordered in november 1963 when jfk was taken to bethesda for an autopsy that legally should have been conducted at parkland in dallas.
carlos, i think you are a troll.
it says that you are a student pilot in mexico.
where are you taking your lessons?
what aircraft are you and your instructor using for your training?
what is the name of your fbo? your instructor?
how many hours do you have?
being in mexico, what resources have you used to inform you as to the events of 11/09/01?
how old are you and what do you do for a living? if you have a university degree, from what university?
have you ever flown in the USA?
have you ever flown from mexico into the usa? and back again? please tell us how that worked?
tell me carlos727, do you have a US passport?
why do you think it was that joe albaugh's fema was prepositioned in manhattan for that day in september? an operation known as operation tripod[1,2,7].
do you think it criminal that no normal aircraft accident investigations occurred concerning those aviation accidents? as you should know, that was the first time that has occurred in the post WW2 era in the USA.
do you think it criminal that airliner debris was removed and destroyed instead of being retained for forensic investigation? after all, there were major aircraft components recovered in manhattan that could have been identified with aircraft registration numbers. but, the potus did not want that to happen, so that evidence was destroyed. by exec order. can you tell us why you think that the potus subverted that investigation?
how much jetA do you think was on board the aircraft that purportedly collided with the wtc 1,2?
why do you think that any of these aircraft were hijacked?
what do you think caused the freefall collapse of wtc7?
why do you think that the sam sites surrounding dc and west point were prevented from launching?
why do you think that interceptor aircraft that could fly at a flank speed of 1700kph flew at less than 400kph that day? and why have those pilots been quoted as saying that they flew as if they were "scalded apes"?
better still, carlos727, do you really think that 93 augured into the ground and disappeared? for the first time in aviation history, a collision with terrain with no evidence. you have an explanation for that?
and that causes me to conclude with the aa77 at the pentagram. carlos, do you know of any aircraft accident where the aircraft vaporized? where there was nothing remaining?
and better still, tell us how it could be that the aircraft could vaporize and yet bodies would remain to be autopsied by the us military. and explain that, please. legally, any autopsies of decedents would be required to be examined by civilian entities. who was it, the potus, that ordered military autopsies?
and that would indicate a cover-up, in my view. that was the same misprision of a felony that lbj ordered in november 1963 when jfk was taken to bethesda for an autopsy that legally should have been conducted at parkland in dallas.
carlos, i think you are a troll.
QUOTE (albertchampion @ Apr 8 2008, 08:58 PM)
carlos, i think you are a troll.
carlos is so close to jarg he might as well be jarg
(only carlos will get that if he is indeed jarg)
(only carlos will get that if he is indeed jarg)
QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Apr 8 2008, 11:09 PM)
carlos is so close to jarg he might as well be jarg
(only carlos will get that if he is indeed jarg)
(only carlos will get that if he is indeed jarg)
I'm afraid we won't have carlos to play with any more.
QUOTE (painter @ Apr 9 2008, 04:12 PM)
I'm afraid we won't have carlos to play with any more.
Painter is probably right...
But, anyway, Carlos:
Thank you for showing up
and helping us with staying sharp,
farewell Carlos, and all he best to you from: Carl
I spoke to a pilot here, in Russia, who worked for Tupolev aircraft and flew Boeing-757s. Here is a direct quote regarding the AA77 maneuver:
"Such maneuvers can be performed during test flights, and only at higher altitudes. This is a big stress for the aircraft, and the maneuver itself is very challenging for the pilot, unless he is a test pilot."
So I find a test pilot and ask him the same question. Here is his reply:
"The G-force of such a maneuver exceeds 1.5g. Civil aviation allows for the maximum bank of 30 degrees with G-force being about 1.3g. The bank on the described maneuver would be around 55 degrees - this is way over the limit for a civil aircraft... To hit a ground target for an experienced pilot is an unachievable task!"
"Such maneuvers can be performed during test flights, and only at higher altitudes. This is a big stress for the aircraft, and the maneuver itself is very challenging for the pilot, unless he is a test pilot."
So I find a test pilot and ask him the same question. Here is his reply:
"The G-force of such a maneuver exceeds 1.5g. Civil aviation allows for the maximum bank of 30 degrees with G-force being about 1.3g. The bank on the described maneuver would be around 55 degrees - this is way over the limit for a civil aircraft... To hit a ground target for an experienced pilot is an unachievable task!"
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.