You mean like amateur investigators?
You mean like amateur investigators?
You must be joking; if not your ideas on this one are a joke.
No Swing, I accidentally when too fast real low one day, and over reacted and caught my copilots hand in the throttle quadrant ant; as I slapped back the throttles to slow down, so we would not catch the SR-71 who was in front of us.
The first Plane was few feet off the deck as was the second. You have lost this one, and if you support 9/11 truth conclusions, you will loose them all.
BTW swing, the only plane near the deck in a flying attitude was flight 77 and his final pitch angle was 4 to 6 degrees, that is a steep landing attitude that would never get you past your check ride if you are an airline pilot. Sorry, there were no level next to the ground flights on 9/11, you have fallen for the fisheye lens stupid group of 9/11 dolts who say ground effect is a factor; WRONG. But you go get some pilots who agree with you, and I can beat you 1000 to 1 easy, and it is at over 1,000,000 to 1 in the world against your ground effect idea only held by some fringe nut case 9/11 truth people who do not have enough knowledge to understand flying.
You must be joking; if not your ideas on this one are a joke.
OH swing, I fly the first aircraft, albeit with old weak engine, and it was so easy to over speed the damn thing even with my old J57 engines; that plane was at the max speed he was allowed to go, and believe me, he could have done the same pass as fast as the terrorist, but when you bring your plane back with skin missing the guys who repair it are upset.
No Swing, I accidentally when too fast real low one day, and over reacted and caught my copilots hand in the throttle quadrant ant; as I slapped back the throttles to slow down, so we would not catch the SR-71 who was in front of us.
The first Plane was few feet off the deck as was the second. You have lost this one, and if you support 9/11 truth conclusions, you will loose them all.
BTW swing, the only plane near the deck in a flying attitude was flight 77 and his final pitch angle was 4 to 6 degrees, that is a steep landing attitude that would never get you past your check ride if you are an airline pilot. Sorry, there were no level next to the ground flights on 9/11, you have fallen for the fisheye lens stupid group of 9/11 dolts who say ground effect is a factor; WRONG. But you go get some pilots who agree with you, and I can beat you 1000 to 1 easy, and it is at over 1,000,000 to 1 in the world against your ground effect idea only held by some fringe nut case 9/11 truth people who do not have enough knowledge to understand flying.
You must be joking; if not your ideas on this one are a joke.
Pay attention Zen.
This thread obviously addresses the claim that "ground effect" would make the flight of AA77 near the Pentagon impossible.
If you want to address a completely different point (surprise surprise!) claiming that "amateur pilots" couldn't have pulled it off then you're welcome to start another thread. I'm sure no one here has ever heard, or addressed, that claim before.
Well Zen, I am glad you asked this question. I have let total never flown people fly a real big plane, and they did better than the terrorists. If you notice the terrorist flying 77 did the worst turn around 360 degree turn. His bank varied, his pitch varied, not one thing was under control. Oh, believe me a plane flown like 77 looks fine on the outside, but if Hani was on a check ride, he would be graded low, graded as if he was someone who never flew. He sucks. That being said, it looked okay to you, a rank flying amateur, you thought it was done by a professional or something but you missed it, his flying was crap. Next time ask a pilot, I will tell you.
Hani's pitch in the final minutes ranged from 4 degrees to 6 degrees or worse; I know pilots who could have set a pitch and held it right to the runway target (real pilots do not crash into building, real pilots can hit a target the size of a dime; Hani needed the largest office building in the WORLD; the same goes for his idiot friends on 11 and 175). Hani's bank angle was always moving around, his aim was always being worked on. But any kid off the street Could hit the Pentagon without training, you must be one of those who can not chew gum and walk if you think someone can not fly a modern jet into a building. Anyone can.
I have a big plane, like the first one, and I have taken virtual amateurs at 145 knots, and 550 knots and .9 MACH, and they flew like experts. Do not tell anyone flying is easy, those guys up front are almost asleep, straight and level flying is too easy. It is so easy even I passed flying high performance supersonic jet aircraft training. And I am just a poor boy from GA. Zen, you could be a pilot.
Zen, your ideas on this are amateur.
Mancman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
What a good point. An inexperienced pilot would certainly crash the plane if flying at that altitude.
Oh. Wait.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Thanks, Gravy!
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
I probably shouldn't admit this, but I have flown that approach in simulators a number of times! It's not really hard after the first time or two...
My formal flight training was 35 years ago in an Aeronca Champion when I was ten. (My Dad was a flight instructor.)
So, do I qualify as an amateur?
My formal flight training was 35 years ago in an Aeronca Champion when I was ten. (My Dad was a flight instructor.)
So, do I qualify as an amateur?
Outstanding. reheat has been down lower and faster, and if not, his fellow 111 guys have.
But that one airliner, was almost able to pick up a ribbon, he was only 10 feet or less. A few of those planes were at or slightly over their max airspeed for being low. But 355 knots is kind of fast. Good job, thanks for sharing this flying stuff.
Poor boneheads will never be able to do this, they know it is impossible. When you fly low, you need to remember what you are flying, and how much lower the engines are than you are sitting at the top of the 300,000 pound tricycle.
Last edited:
IMST
If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger, There'd Be a W
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 6,326
[slight derail, sorry]Did anyone else notice how hard it was to see the windows on the planes in these flybys on internet quality video until they were right in front of the camera? Did the NWO only manage to fake the windows on these obviously non-planes for a couple of frames? Or is that particular part of the CT out of date?[/slight derail, sorry]
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
there goes zen, ignoring the fact that the hijackers crashed at the end of thier flights anyway.
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
The difference between the experts and novices is that the experts can do this without crashing. If one is trying to crash, one need not be an expert.
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
Yeah sure that's all they had to do. Crash the plane. They didn't need to change or turnoff transponders, turn the plane around, navigate, change altitude, fly at breakneck speeds, nothing like that. What they did is exactly the same as flying around an airfield a couple of times and crashing into no particular target. Right?
Oh and that guy who crashed into the pentagon?
Wouldn't this be him?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B63
A Trainee Noted for Incompetence
JIM YARDLEY
Published: May 4, 2002
Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.
Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.
Records show a Hani Hanjour obtained a license in 1999 in Scottsdale, Ariz. Previous and sometimes contradictory reports said he failed in 1996 and 1997 to obtain a license at other schools.
''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''
Oh and that guy who crashed into the pentagon?
Wouldn't this be him?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B63
A Trainee Noted for Incompetence
JIM YARDLEY
Published: May 4, 2002
Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.
Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.
Records show a Hani Hanjour obtained a license in 1999 in Scottsdale, Ariz. Previous and sometimes contradictory reports said he failed in 1996 and 1997 to obtain a license at other schools.
''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Don't forget he had to keep the plane in the air also. I can't figure how he did that, that plane weighed almost 100 ton.
ihaunter
Undead Skeptic
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 380
Yeah, I was thinking that this was also a good video for anyone complaining about discrepancies in eyewitness descriptions of the planes. Shows that there wasn't a lot of time to get a good detailed look at a fast moving, low flying plane.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Zen, what is your experience with flight-training or the use of flight-simulators? I have had the chance to fly a 727 in a flight-school simulator (not just a PC software program), and I can assure you that everything you listed (turn off transponder, turn, fly at high speed, etc.) is very easy. Heck, I managed to land the damn thing on the first try. Unless you have actual experience with what is or is not required to fly a commercial aircraft, all you have left is one giant argument from incredulity.
Try to concentrate on the topic at hand. That would be the ground effect on fast-moving, low-flying airplanes, in case you forgot.
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
Hmmm, I don't know, I don't think Zen has the skills to crash a jet...
Similar story here. For my 16th birthday (many moons ago) my dad got me time in a honest-to-goodness 737 simulator. Got to do some approaches and landings... and I got it on the ground each time. I even matched the proper glide slope fairly well (I was flying in by eye, no ILS).
Last edited:
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
I flew a kite once. Does that count? But then again I'm not the only one questioning the hijacker skills. Some of the people from the schools where the hijackers received their training apparently found it hard to believe also.
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
Task difficulty rating: Easy.
(They are a myriad of ways to crash. Stall too close to the ground, stall and enter a spin, misjudge a landing approach, engine failure at a critical point, fly deliberately into the ground, etc.)
Task difficulty rating: Easy.
(All you need to do is know where the switch is located).
Task difficulty rating: Easy.
(All you need to do to turn is bank the wings a little and the aircraft will turn. If you want a co-ordinated turn you use some rudder. If you want a hard turn, use a lot of bank and pull back on the stick.)
Task difficulty rating: Medium.
(Navigating would require some knowledge of the aircraft's navigation system, but this knowledge is not hard to acquire. Computer flight sim programs will teach you the basics.)
Task difficulty rating: Easy.
(To descend, just reduce power. The aircraft will slowly descend. If you want a faster descent, keep the power up and lower the nose a little. You'll descend plenty. Climbing, just pull back on the stick and you'll climb — just don't pull back on the stick too much or you'll stall.)
Task difficulty rating: Medium.
(Getting up to a high speed is easy — just push the throttles to maximum and the aircraft will accelerate. If you want to build up speed even more quicky, pitch the nose downwards. Operating at a high speed is slightly more difficult, as you need to be aware of how the aircraft will react to such higher speeds. But it is not more than medium difficulty. Just be gentle on the controls at high speed and you should be fine.)