Building 7 was the most obvious example of the 3 that fell

Let's cut this chunk off, since it's ridiculous in it's own right. Can you tell me what "problems" Hani had when flying the Cessna? Can you quote something, anything? Do you have any evidence to back this up? I think if you looked it up, you'd find that >>IF<< Hani had any problems, it was with landing and\or taking off. Guess what he wasn't doing in this situation?

Also, he didn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the outcome of the plane. He didn't care if it was damaged, or broken, or anything. His intent was to destroy it, which made his flying style even more eratic.

It wasn't magic, in fact several pilots have stated that him taking that approach just went to show exactly how bad of a pilot he was. You're wrong.

Evidence? Source? Why was it heavily guarded? Why would you say that? What defenses did they have? It was a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing building, not an air base. There was an airport less than 10 miles away.

Because no truther anywhere has the ability, or evidence to provide that is worthwhile. You'll find debunkers drift off on random small things because the bulk of 9/11 has been debunked ad nauseum. Sometimes people just want to learn more, so they discuss it with other professionals or people that have the ability to do research.

 

but physical evidence proves it did not happen that way. the official story is so (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.

 

BULSH!. All you have done is, posted a video attempting to compare how a planes wing would impact a solid 1200lb telephone pole vs. a 400lb hollow, breakaway light pole....and then claim its an apple to apples comparison.

It's not, you failed and you have nothing else to back up your absurd claims. Plus, you would still have to explain why the eyewitnesses claim what they saw and explain how those pole happened to be found the way the were.

You have failed on all issues of your Nutter claim. You're just too dishonest to admit it.

 

How 'hard' is it to crash a plane?

 

If a pilot has difficulty in landing or takeoff, it is indicative that Advanced Maneuvers ( such as a cork screw descent at maximum cruise speed) are far less likely to occur, in fact many pilots have stated that it would be impossible for such a novice pilot.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

Where as you have ZERO proof that any pilot criticized Hani's approach, ZERO.

Further proof that Hani was a terrible pilot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html

Information regarding the massive anomalies during 9/11/01

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-12-16/discussion-miles-kara-about-911-air-defense

 

That has already been debunked.

In fact its irrelevant because YOUR particle physicist after hours of diligent ciferin, ciferred the FORCE TO BE ONE MILLION POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH AGAINST THE WING then multiply that by the number of square inches that comes out to be about 19"x9"x1,000,000 or 170 MILLION POUNDS OF FORCE WAS EXERTED against the wing.

Proving of course that either scotty put the shields up just in the nick of time or osama bin laden installed his secret antiforcity device preventing those wings from being sliced clean off like the real plane in the documetnary.

- - - Updated - - -

but you have physical evidence which trumps bull(*)(*)(*)(*) in any court I know of.

 

Moving around 400,000 pounds of aircraft in the wrong direction at high rates of speed with very little training 30 minutes after the 2nd plane hit the WTC should make it VERY difficult to fly such an aircraft straight into the nation's capital. But you wanna believe that your government is a reflection of yourself without ever questioning the evils that bedevil power in every individual or nation who has ever wielded it. Nothing lines up, even the aftermath and wars that followed, the execution of Bin Laden and the only witnesses, the seals that were killed in an ambush that took out the largest amount of spec ops operatives in history. Whose Black boxes were washed away in a flash flood to where Saddam Hussein's WMDs were apparently located.

 

All these shenanigans prove why there was no one to stop the Nazi's, because the people of Germany were too damn invested into German pride and a booming economy to CARE about the facts and atrocities happening around them. Then after the war no one can figure out were all the Nazi's went....

 

Hani Hanjour did not make any such maneuver. He did a long descending curve, not a 'corkscrew', and not at maximum cruise speed.

Keep burnin' those straw men.

 

Sorry about that meant to quote Originally Posted by LoneStrSt8

- - - Updated - - -

but you have physical evidence which trumps bull(*)(*)(*)(*) in any court I know of.

 

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Posted in the database on Monday, February 20th, 2006 @ 18:09:55 MST (12880 views)
by Nila Sagadevan Physics 911


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&#8217;ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks&#8212;invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.

A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how &#8220;easy&#8221; 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 &#8220;open sky&#8221;. 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 &#8212; 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&#8212;even landings, to a certain degree&#8212;are relatively &#8220;easy&#8221;, because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist &#8220;outside&#8221; the cockpit.

But once you&#8217;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 &#8220;hard&#8221; 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 &#8220;blind&#8221;, 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&#8217;t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as &#8220;IFR&#8221;, or Instrument Flight Rules.

And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that&#8217;s all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can&#8217;t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you&#8217;re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots &#8212; I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots &#8212; who &#8216;bought the farm&#8217; 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 &#8212; an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student&#8217;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&#8217;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: &#8220;He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.&#8221;

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.&#8221;

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&#8217;m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.&#8221;

Now let&#8217;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&#8212;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&#8217;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&#8217;s seat. Although weather reports state this was not the case, let&#8217;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 &#8220;situational non-awareness&#8221;, Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan&#8212;he wouldn&#8217;t have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.

After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there&#8217;s little point in looking outside&#8212;there&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;t have known where to begin.

But, for the sake of discussion let&#8217;s stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour&#8212;whose flight instructor claimed &#8220;couldn&#8217;t fly at all&#8221;&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8217;t relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let&#8217;s assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended&#8212;and invisible&#8212;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&#8217;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&#8217;s not mull over that little point.)

According to FAA radar controllers, &#8220;Flight 77&#8221; 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 &#8220;Hanjour&#8221; 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&#8217;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&#8217;Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, &#8220;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.&#8221;

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&#8217;t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his &#8220;missile&#8221; was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon&#8212;and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8212;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&#8212;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 &#8220;final approach&#8221; 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 &#8220;took control&#8221; 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&#8217;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 &#8212; and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.

 

Salon's "Ask the Pilot":

As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the (*)(*)(*)(*)ty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060916...mith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/index_np.html/

 

Salon. An establishment propaganda Diarrhea hole, with a bunch of non sense vagueries such as "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

Right!!! a person's skills at a specific objective are not relevant to carrying out said objective.

BRILLIANT

edit: thank you for my new sig.!!

 

He was an accredited pilot. Tragically, his last flight ended in a crash.

 

None of those things applied on 9/11.

sorry to burst your bubble,there,kid...(okay,I'm NOT sorry)

 

First off, you have no evidence that Hanjour was TRYING to pull off that maneuver. He was after 1 thing, to crash into the Pentagon, he was doing whatever he could to crash into the buildings. Secondly, every pilot in the world states that once you are in the air flying is not as complicated as it sounds. Especially when you don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the plane. Also, in regards to how "terrible a pilot" Hani is, here are a few flight instructors that don't agree with you. You know, you, the person that has no expertise in this field at all. Here are what PROFESSIONALS say:

Chevrette said that the school's student, Hani Hanjour, lacked adequate English skills to gain his pilot's license. An FAA official responded to her concerns by suggesting that Hanjour could use an interpreter even though mastery of English is a requirement for a pilot.

Says he has bad English skills, which doesn't matter as he wasn't trying to speak English during his suicide flight. She sure makes it clear that she knew it was him, and that she knew he could pull it off.

Hey! Here's another one:

Little more:

More:

And look at this, one guys says that there being no plane at the Pentagon makes it even MORE difficult than the claim you make!

You can find it all here. All sourced, all factual.

So you were saying I have ZERO? This is the point where you get to taste what your, I'm assuming, loafers taste like, let me know how that goes. See, those people are experts in the field. That's where rational people get their information from, those that know. Oh, and what do we have here? It actually appears that he took a couple of test flights!

Same link.

Uh yeah, I decimated that link, so you can save it. Pilots 4 truth are nuttier than squirrel (*)(*)(*)(*).

Yeah, that's where you said it. Tell how that crow tastes.

LoL, sorry debunked. Plus, you're taking an article from 2002, that wasn't even a year after the accident. The investigation was still going on, which is what truthers do. Use information that got released during the fog of war to try and make their case. That's almost...dishonest.

Like anyone cares about 911 blogger, that site is garbage.

 

Yeah, cause American pride and our booming economy are at an all time peak right now.

Strawman

 

Just more made up BS...don't you ever get tired of making stuff up?

 

Welcome to the attack team's "official" shill pit of propaganda and targeted disinformation. I find your responses refreshing and very valid. Keep them going! Maybe you'll have better luck in shill land than I did.

 

YOUR the particle physicist that did the math so you are saying that not only troughers but you too are full of (*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

LoL you can wrap lies in whatever wrapper you want, but they're still lies.

 

yeh lot of people found that out the hard way.
​

 

Hey look, 'Fraud embraces yet another 'no-planer'!

No surprise, really.

 

We know. That's why the shills have to fight so hard to maintain control over a bunch of kooks in a disinformation forum. The whole "official" fairy tale is a lie. We know.