See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Flight 77 Maneuver/Hanjour Flying Skills
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_C ... Forum/index.php?showtopic=3550
Published: Feb 8, 2007
Author: NK-44
Post Date: 2007-02-08 18:49:35 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 872
Comments: 68
Part One Hanjour's flying skills However, when Hanjour went on three test runs in the second week of August He had trouble controlling and landing a single engine Cessna 172. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3550 The best compilation of evidence concerning Hani Hanjour's flying skills I have read.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-18) not displayed.
.
.
.
#19. To: SKYDRIFTER (#18)
(Edited)
Depending on how close exactly the radar actually was, possibly. However I'd expect a lot of clutter and background noise if the transponder was off.
Bozo List: (1) Angle
I think this pretty much says it all: Part two: Didn't realize it was a 2 parter.
We'll never convince the 9-11 truth deniers [StateInc believers] no matter what you show them. This was an impossible feat for an untrained expert and the evidence doesn't add up to a 757 hitting the building. Plain and simple. But the deniers refuse to look at evidence.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell Did you ever watch that video? I see youtube is having trouble serving up the embedded video at the moment, but if you go to youtube, watch it. It is interesting stuff.
I've seen it 3 times. And so have my kids.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell oh, ok cool. :)
According to the NTSB,the flight path is based on the data recovered from the flight data recorder from Flight 77.
See vid above about the NTSB altimeter [MSL altimeter setting and actual AGL altitude] goof in their animation. :) These government guys must not be very smart.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell I did find it interesting that the NTSB claimed they were releasing the recovered data from the FDR, but neglected to release the radio altimeter data which is a parameter that the FAR's require the equipment to record. The radio altimeter gives the height of the bottom of the aircraft to the ground in feet.
Funny you should mention that. I was just going to ask you a question about that since you seem to know your chit. OK, they adjusted the altimeter on the way up through 18,000, by they I mean the flight crew, yes? So now some dimbulb hijacker is supposed to have taken over and flown the plane to DC and he is going to vaporize himself by flying into the pentagon... Is he going to remember to reset the altimeter on the way back down past 18,000ft? Is he going to remember to do that under the stress involved in knowing he's going to be vaporizing himself. And how would he know the correct barometric pressure to adjust the altimeter? Would he call Dulles on the radio? Or is that something that is just broadcast from an airport continuously?
While I don't purport to be an expert on flight data recorders, to my knowledge they don't deal with measurements of the aircraft's location - only of various operating factors.
Bozo List: (1) Angle
If one wants to take the data seriously, it must be assumed that the altimiter setting would be immaterial to the events ahead, during the descent. Normally, the crew would tune into an automated broadcast (ATIS), to get the local altimeter setting. The flight data should indicate the GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) warnings, based on the radar altimeter. Funny, there is no mention of that! (Get the picture, huh???)
Thats for the heads up. He is done here.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Appendix M to Part 121 - Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-M-APPX.shtml Parameter 39- Lattitude and Longitude
Sky, I know you are familiar with the information in my comments below,I am adding them to expand on your point that the setting is immaterial. The FDR records pressure altitude,Parameter 2.The altimeter setting is unrelated to the measurement of pressure altitude. To use the recorded pressure altitude to determine height above mean sea level (MSL), a correction is applied based on the local altimeter setting. As far as the pressure altitude parameter recorded by the FDR,it simply does not matter what altimeter setting is set on the altimeter.
Yes.
Correct; I was addressing the pilots procedures. The FDR is a very sophisticated recording device. It should be added that the navigation units have an emergency cache of position data, also. That can be accessed independently - if it survives.
And how would he know the correct barometric pressure to adjust the altimeter? Would he call Dulles on the radio? Or is that something that is just broadcast from an airport continuously? Dumb dumb hijacker about to vaporize himself and not used to flying above FL180, would probably not KNOW to reset altimeter from 29.92 back to current barometric pressure when crossing 18,000 feet, if he did he would have had to listen to an automated ATIS broadcast to get the reading [or just monitor ATC]...and furthermore he would NOT be the least bit concerned with doing so. Obeying regulations when your about to die??? In the vid, the missile...ahh I mean the hijacker did NOT bother resetting the altimeter which means the alledged NTSB info about altitude is a lie and the aircraft was really a few hundred feet higher AGL [above the ground], which is what I believe the video exposes. [Crossing from higher pressure to lower pressure without resetting your altimeter will cause the altimeter to read higher than you really are above the ground [AGL] and vice versa. So if one descends from 29.92 to an area of higher pressure without resetting, the altimeter will read lower than you really are which means you will really be higher AGL. In others words as the pressure increases, if you do not reset the altimeter, you will have been steadily getting higher above the ground.] For example, if one were making an non-precision instrument approach in poor conditions, and the decision height is posted as 5000 MSL [200 AGL..so the airport runway is at 4800 ft] from 29.92 to the correct LOWER actual pressure of say 28.99, the aircaraft altimeter reading will be higher than you really are..decision height will NOT really be at 200ft above the ground but your airplane will be much LOWER...and then much likely resulting in obstacle or ground contact short of the runway. You just got your first free ground school lesson :) As per pilots for 911 truth, and testimony from instructors, these dummies would have been able to look at an altimter and know to set it to whatever ATC tells them to, but they didn't have any earthly idea as to WHY. The above info must be explained, depending on which question the examiner decides to ask, on the verbal exam before the Instrument Rating checkride, and also on the Commercial. It depends on the examiner. It's also on the written exam for BOTH.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-M-APPX.shtml Parameter 39- Lattitude and Longitude OK, then if you want to accept the NTSB report there is really nothing that would require any high-level flying skills. Some of the stories out there allege the aircraft made a "270 degree precision turn" requiring the skills of a "crack fighter pilot." However, according to the NTSB, the maneuver was a 330 degree descending turn that started at 7,000 feet @ 9:34 and ended at 2,000 feet @ 9:37. So the pilot had 3 minutes to lose 5,000 feet and line up for the Pentagon, which was only 3.5 miles from the beginning, and 4 miles from the end, of the turn. The flight path shows that Reagan Airport was always straight ahead of the plane before the final maneuvers started. So the NTSB report makes it appear the pilot used the autopilot to navigate straight towards Reagan Airport, disconnected the autopilot when he acquired his target visually, went down to 7,000 feet until he was within 5 miles, then took 3 minutes to lose 5,000 feet and line up for the final impact. I don't see anything terribly complicated in any of that. Safe landings are the most complicated part of flying any aircraft. BTW, I used to subscribe to a number of aviation safety publications including Aviation Safety and the NTSB Reporter. There were several articles about how sometimes experienced airline pilots do poorly on flight tests with smaller aircraft, because the smaller planes are not as automated and more susceptible to various environmental factors such as wind and turbulence. So the stories about Hanjour not being able to pilot a Cessna 172 too well, may not be any indication of how well he could have done taking over a larger passenger aircraft through the air without attempting any landing.
I regularly fly Boeing jets into some of the most challenging airports in the world.I've been flying for over 20 years. Flying consistently at less than 50 feet AGL over irregular terrain avoiding numerous obstacles at over 400 knots for over a half of a mile is beyond my skill level.
i haven't heard one pilot anywhere claim the skill level supposedly executed by supposed Flight 77 into the pentagon.
BUT - where did it end up? I believe that all four are somewhere at the bottom of the Atlantic.
Why not try it on a simulator sometime? I'm sure you'd have a substantial ground effect working to keep you airborne. And at 460 knots, you'd cover that half mile in under 4 seconds.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
I'm sure you'd have a substantial ground effect working to keep you airborne. And at 460 knots, you'd cover that half mile in under 4 seconds. Loading the FDR data from Flight 77 into a 757 simulator and replaying the profile would be a worthwhile endeavor. Hopefully it will be done one day. And at 460 knots, you'd cover that half mile in under 4 seconds. On a Category III approach flown to minimums, the time from the point you can see the runway until touchdown is about four seconds.It seems like a very short time period but precise control inputs are required to accomplish a safe landing at about 150 knots.In my view, very precise control inputs would have been required to compensate for the effects of striking five light poles and not hitting the ground or climbing above the height of the 50 ft light poles.
That's where, in my opinion, ground effect comes in. When you're landing, you have your gear and flaps down and lots of drag from them. The Flight 77 aircraft was coming in clean there wasn't much drag to interfere with ground effect. I'd think you'd have to really push hard on the controls to make it go down any further.
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp? project=911_project Radar data shows Flight 77 crossing the Capitol Beltway and headed toward the Pentagon. However, the plane, flying more than 400 mph, is too high when it nears the Pentagon at 9:35 a.m., crossing the Pentagon at about 7,000 feet up. [CBS News, 9/21/2001; Boston Globe, 11/23/2001] The plane then makes a difficult high-speed descending turn. It makes a “downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn is so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there [is] no fight for control going on.” [CBS News, 9/21/2001] It gets very near the White House during this turn. “Sources say the hijacked jet ... [flies] several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House.” [CBS News, 9/21/2001] Entity Tags: Pentagon Category Tags: All Day of 9/11 Events, Flight AA 77 http://911review.com/cache/error s/pentagon/abcnews1024 01b.html Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed … I had literally a blip and nothing more." O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he saw it too. "I said, 'Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House,'" recalls Howell. "I was yelling … 'We've got a target headed right for the White House!'" At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol. "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," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away, says O'Brien, "and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west … Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started relaying to them the information, [that] we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles west." Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker. White House staff members were told to run away from the building. "And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien. But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver. http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timel ine/2001/abcnews102401 .html At the Dulles tower, Danielle O'Brien also saw the TV pictures from New York and headed back to her post, now to help other planes quickly land. Ms. O'BRIEN: We started moving the planes in as quickly as we could. Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles moving at a very high rate of speed. I had literally a blip and nothing more. I slid over to the controller on my left, Tom Howell, and I asked him, 'Do you see an unidentified plane there southwest of Dulles?' And his response was, 'Yes. Oh, my gosh, yes! Look how fast he is.' Mr. TOM HOWELL: And then I said, 'Oh, my, god. It looks like he's headed to the White House.' I started yelling, 'John! John! We've got a target headed right for the White House.' ROSS: (VO) A representation of the FAA radar scope, based on information obtained by 20/20, shows the plane headed straight for what is known as P-56, Prohibited Air Space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol, at a speed of about 500 miles an hour with no radio contact whatsoever. (OC) Was he on a normal flight approach of any kind? Ms. O'BRIEN: Not at all. ROSS: Full throttle. Ms. O'BRIEN: Full out. ROSS: How far out was that plane? Ms. O'BRIEN: Between 12 and 14 miles. John, our supervisor, relayed verbatim. 'OK, he's 12 miles west, he's moving very fast eastbound http://911research.wtc7.net/plan es/attack/flight77.htm l The NTSB report on Flight 77 describes the plane's maneuvers in detail. It began to turn to the south at 8:55, and by 9:00 it was headed east. Shortly thereafter it began to descend from its altitude of 35,000 feet. The autopilot was engaged and disengaged multiple times. At 9:29 the plane was 35 miles west of the Pentagon flying at 7,000 feet. At 9:34 it was about 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and started a 330-degree descending right turn, bringing it to an altitude of about 2000 feet four miles southwest of the Pentagon. 3 http://911review.com/errors/pentag on/aerobatics.html 'Pentagon Attack Maneuvers Preclude a 757' A fact frequently cited as evidence that the aircraft that attacked the Pentagon on 9/11/01 was not Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is that the aircraft tracked by air traffic controllers made a spectacular spiral dive, loosing 7000 feet and turning 270 degrees in about 2.5 minutes -- a maneuver alleged to be impossible for a 757. A September 12, 2001 CBS News report described the maneuver: Radar shows that Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. Air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien told ABC News that the maneuver was not one expected of a jetliner: 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. 1 However, the fact that the plane was being flown in a manner not typical for a jetliner does not mean it was not a jetliner. A 757 is capable of rather extreme maneuvers: It is capable of taking off on one engine, and can execute pitch accelerations of over 3.5 Gs (gravities) as demonstrated by the following incident report of an IcelandAir 757-200: REPORT 7/2003 - Date: 22 January 2003 serious incident to icelandair BOEING 757-200 at oslo airport gardermoen norway 22 january 2002 ... 1.1.14.5 At this time the First Officer called out PULL UP! - PULL UP!. The GPWS aural warnings of TERRAIN and then TOO LOW TERRAIN were activated. Both pilots were active at the control columns and a maximum up input was made. A split between left and right elevator was indicated at this time. It appears the split occurred due to both pilots being active at the controls. The pilots did not register the aural warnings. During the dive the airspeed increased to 251 kt and the lowest altitude in the recovery was 321 ft radio altitude with a peaked load factor of +3.59 gs. 2 How does this apply to the 2.5 minute 270- degree spiral turn? The G forces produced by such a turn can be calculated using the following formula. RCF = 0.001118 * r * N^2 where RCF = Relative Centrifugal Force (gravities) r = rotation radius (meters) N = rotation speed (revolutions per minute) If the plane were traveling at 400 miles per hour it would travel 16.666 miles, or 26,821 meters, in 2.5 minutes. Assuming it was traveling in a circular arc, it would trace out 3/4ths of a circle with a 35,761-meter circumference, giving a rotation radius of 5,691 meters and rotation speed of 0.3 rotations per minute. Plugging those values into the above equation, we obtain a centrifugal force of 0.5726 Gs -- hardly a problem for a 757 whose rated G limits are over two. Final Approach Also cited as evidence against 757 involvement in the attack is the shallow descent angle of the aircraft as it made its final approach of the Pentagon. Photographs show no signs of gouging of the lawn by a 757's low-hanging engines, even though direct impact damage was limited to the first and second floors of the building. How could such a large aircraft be flown so close to the ground, and with such precision? Two distinct questions are implicit in the previous one. Were alleged hijackers capable of piloting the airliner through the maneuvers? Could a 757-200 perform the maneuvers? Hani Hanjour may not have been up to the task, but a 757's flight control computer seems sufficient. It's equipped with radar altimeters and accurate GPS monitors for precise altitude and position tracking. It can analyze and respond to conditions hundreds of times per second. Examples of the extreme capabilities of fly-by-wire systems are reverse swept-wing aircraft, which are inherently unstable and require rapid adjustment of the plane's control surfaces. ----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- References 1. Air Traffic Controllers Recall Sept. 11, 10/24/01 [cached] 2. Aircraft Incident Report, Norwegian Accident Investigation Board, 1/22/02 page last modified: 2007-01-21 Copyright 2004 - http://2007,91 >http://1Review.co mPOSSIBLY, the FAA radar could have picked up an aircraft as a "primary return" - no transponder
#20. To: AGAviator (#19)
(Edited)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#21. To: Critter, skydrifter (#20)
77 never hit the Pentagram....
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#22. To: IndieTX (#21)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#23. To: Critter, REDPANTHER (#22)
(Edited)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#24. To: IndieTX (#23)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#25. To: AGAviator (#16)
Plus, they had their transponders off, which begs the question of how exactly the NTSB could come up with a precise flight path of any sort.
#26. To: honway, critter, skydrifter (#25)
According to the NTSB,the flight path is based on the data recovered from the flight data recorder from Flight 77.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#27. To: IndieTX (#26)
(Edited)
#28. To: IndieTX, skydrifter, honway (#26)
See vid above about the NTSB altimeter
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#29. To: honway (#25)
According to the NTSB,the flight path is based on the data recovered from the flight data recorder from Flight 77.
#30. To: Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#28)
#31. To: angle (#11)
#32. To: AGAviator (#29)
While I don't purport to be an expert on flight data recorders, to my knowledge they don't deal with measurements of the aircraft's location - only of various operating factors.
#33. To: SKYDRIFTER (#30)
If one wants to take the data seriously, it must be assumed that the altimiter setting would be immaterial to the events ahead, during the descent. Normally, the crew would tune into an automated broadcast (ATIS), to get the local altimeter setting.
#34. To: Critter (#28)
Or is that something that is just broadcast from an airport continuously?
#35. To: honway (#33)
#36. To: Critter (#28)
(Edited)
Is he going to remember to reset the altimeter on the way back down past 18,000ft? Is he going to remember to do that under the stress involved in knowing he's going to be vaporizing himself.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#37. To: honway (#32)
Appendix M to Part 121 - Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications
#38. To: AGAviator (#37)
So the stories about Hanjour not being able to pilot a Cessna 172 too well, may not be any indication of how well he could have done taking over a larger passenger aircraft through the air without attempting any landing.
#39. To: honway (#38)
Flying consistently at less than 50 feet AGL over irregular terrain avoiding numerous obstacles at over 400 knots for over a half of a mile is beyond my skill level.
#40. To: SKYDRIFTER (#18)
Flight 77 is a total fake, as to the crash.
#41. To: honway (#38)
Flying consistently at less than 50 feet AGL over irregular terrain avoiding numerous obstacles at over 400 knots for over a half of a mile is beyond my skill level.
#42. To: lodwick (#40)
The entire Pentagon event is a trap. There are so many conflicting accounts from air speed, flight path, impact times, body counts, were there hijackers on board, was there an aircraft, etc....It is not worth "debating".
#43. To: AGAviator (#41)
Why not try it on a simulator sometime?
#44. To: honway (#43)
It seems like a very short time period but precise control inputs are required to accomplish a safe landing at about 150 knots. In my view, very precise control inputs would have been required to compensate for the effects of striking five light poles and not hitting the ground or climbing
#45. To: christine (#39)
The final portion of the flight path of Flight 77 as reported by the NTSB
http://debunk911myths.org/topics /images/b/b3/Aa77_dc_f light_path.jpg
Conflicting flight paths.
http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/small/911- flights.htm
More conflicting flight paths.
Mark
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#46. To: Kamala (#42)
It's not to me: if there real hi-jackers they would have used Dulles, Reagan, JKF, or several other near-by airports to do their thing - even then they could not have made the towers fall or that impossibly small hole in the pentagon and "vaporized" a 757.
It is not worth "debating".
#47. To: honway (#43)
Loading the FDR data from Flight 77 into a 757 simulator and replaying the profile would be a worthwhile endeavor.
#48. To: christine (#39)
It is one of the most significant mysteries concerning the entire 9/11 event. It would have been helpful if the NTSB had released a complete transcript from the cockpit voice recorder.Normally a transcript would include the aural warnings recorded by the voice recorder. Consider the precision required to accomplish the maneuver at the same time numerous aural warnings would have been blaring in the ears of the pilot. The speed flown was above the max allowable airspeed. A very loud and distracting warning clacker would have been heard going "CLACK,CLACK,CLACK,CLACK" nonstop. You cannot disable the clacker warning. A very loud steady gear warning horn would have been blaring.The Ground Proximity Warning System would have been blaring out the words, "TOO LOW,PULL UP, TOO LOW PULL UP" nonstop.
i haven't heard one pilot anywhere claim the skill level supposedly executed by supposed Flight 77 into the pentagon.
#49. To: AGAviator (#47)
Thanks for that link. I'll take a close look at it later.
Phoenix Simulation: Boeing 757
#50. To: honway (#48)
For under 45 seconds...
A very loud and distracting warning clacker would have been heard going "CLACK,CLACK,CLACK,CLACK" nonstop...A very loud steady gear warning horn would have been blaring.The Ground Proximity Warning System would have been blaring out the words, "TOO LOW,PULL UP, TOO LOW" nonstop.
#51. To: AGAviator (#44)
Given the geometry of the aircraft, the only way to breach ground effect is to lower the nose into a trench - which we know didn't happen.
#52. To: honway (#48)
gee, i wonder why they didn't.
It would have been helpful if the NTSB had released a complete transcript from the cockpit voice recorder.Normally a transcript would include the aural warnings recorded by the voice recorder.
#53. To: christine (#52)
gee, i wonder why they didn't. Because they didn't want it to look like they were coverning up anything.
It would have been helpful if the NTSB had released a complete transcript from the cockpit voice recorder.Normally a transcript would include the aural warnings recorded by the voice recorder.
#54. To: christine, ALL (#39)
********** http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/printer_1253.shtml ... snip ... Ralph Omholt's "skydrifter" website claims: "No pilot will claim to be able to hit such a spot as the Pentagon base — under any conditions — in a 757 doing 300 knots. As to the clearly alleged amateur pilots: IMPOSSIBLE!" "Impossible"? "No pilot will claim...?" Well, we did not have any difficulty finding pilots who disagreed. Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports. George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do." ... snip ... General Partin, an Air Force Command Pilot, sums up the case for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon: "The alternative explanations just get crazier and crazier. In addition to the physical evidence and the photographic evidence supporting the official story, there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses — including many people I know personally — who saw the 757. Besides that, there are the light poles that were knocked down — which I saw personally and which are in the photographic record — that can't be accounted for by a missile or small jet wingspan. Then you have the Flight 77 victim remains and the black boxes. If you reject all of that, then you have to come up with an alternative explanation for what happened to Flight 77. I've seen the alternative explanations and they're absurd!" ****************
i haven't heard one pilot anywhere claim the skill level supposedly executed by supposed Flight 77 into the pentagon.
#55. To: BeAChooser, (#54)
BAC, BAC, BAC - In your usual cum-sucking style, you constructively lie from the outset of your entry onto this forum as well. I specified a surgical strike, your 'guy' specified hitting the building. Apples and oranges! See how your are, BAC? Your disinformation is a habit, you haven't changed a thing; still no brains. You're worthless! {Well, actually, you are due credit for editing my Web site; make that "Practically worthless."} George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."
#56. To: BeAChooser (#54) (Edited)
George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do." It appears these pilots are unfamiliar with the flight path of Flight 77. you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, If someone had kept the nose down and pushed like the devil,the jet would have crashed well short of the Pentagon after striking the first light pole. . "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do." Hitting the Pentagon would be fairly easy.Flying at over 400 knots maintaning a consistent altitude of less than 50 feet over irregular terrain while striking five light poles,avoiding more significant obstacles and not crashing short or climbing above 50 feet would be extremely difficult.
Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.
#57. To: All (#56)
Terrorists Were Well Trained, But Not Necessarily in Flying By James Glanz Excerpt Whether the terrorists deliberately chose large jets and counted on the fire damage cannot be determined. But John Nance, an airline pilot, author and aviation analyst, said the direct hits on the two towers and on the Pentagon suggested to him that the pilots were experienced fliers. The smooth banking of the second plane to strike the towers supports this point of view, Mr. Nance said. He added that precisely controlling a large jet near the ground, necessary for the Pentagon attack, also required advanced skill. “There’s no way an amateur could have, with any degree of reliability, done what was done yesterday,” Mr. Nance said.
Before the spin started in the mainstream media.
September 13,2001
New York Times
Section A page 21
#58. To: All (#57)
http://www.annonline.com/interviews/971114/biography.html JOHN J. NANCE, a native Texan who grew up in Dallas, holds a Bachelor's Degree from SMU and a Juris Doctor from SMU Law School, and is a licensed attorney. A decorated Air Force pilot veteran of Vietnam and Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm, he is also a Lieutenant Colonel in the USAF Reserve well known for his involvement in Air Force human factors flight safety education. John, who has piloted many jet aircraft including Boeing 727's, 737's, 747's, and Air Force C-141's, has logged over 11,000 hours of flight time in his commercial airline and Air Force careers, and continues to serve as a Boeing 737 Captain for a major airline. John Nance is an internationally recognized air safety analyst and advocate best known to North American television audiences as aviation analyst for the ABC-TV and as the Aviation Editor for "Good Morning America. As a broadcast journalist, John Nance has delivered more than 3,000 newscasts on radio and television, including three years with ABC Network affiliate WFAA in Dallas. His business experience includes 6 years as president of an international tour company with operations in four countries and a luxury charter coach operation in the U.S. and Canada. John is the nationally-known author of nine major books, five Fiction, four Non-fiction: Splash of Colors (Wm. Morrow, 1984), the gripping story of Braniff International Corporation's decline and bankruptcy in 1982; Blind Trust (Wm. Morrow, 1986), the critically-acclaimed and widely-quoted expose of airline deregulation's effects on airline safety and human factors in aviation; On Shaky Ground (Wm. Morrow, 1988), a pivotal report to the nation of what we have discovered about the threat of damaging earthquakes to the eastern and western U.S.; Final Approach, the best-selling airline-related novel released in 1990; What Goes Up, an important work designed to strip away the mystery of both the Ozone and Greenhouse/Global Warming controversies; Scorpion Strike, a military technothriller set just after the Gulf War; Phoenix Rising, a gripping novel set against the backdrop of today's deteriorating airline industry. Pandora's Clock, was released in Summer, 1995 by Doubleday, and became an instant national bestseller. It was made into a TV Mini-Series, that first aired in November of 1996 on NBC. Medusa's Child, his ninth novel, was released in early 1997. An NBC-TV miniseries aired in November of that year. During the past decade through extensive research and professional involvement stemming from his books, John Nance has emerged as a national advocate of crew resource management and expanded human performance training. He is also a dynamic professional speaker/consultant, presenting pivotal programs on Teamwork and Risk Management. Before accepting ABC's offer to become their exclusive consultant/analyst for aviation, John Nance had appeared on more than 1,300 radio and television shows during the past seven years including multiple appearances on ABC's "Good Morning America", the PBS "MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour", "Oprah", NPR, "NOVA", and many others. John's editorials have been published in newspapers nationwide, including the Los Angeles Times and USA Today. Ann On-Line features two previous interviews with John Nance, originally-posted on October 23, 1996 and February 12, 1997. John Nance lives with his wife and three children in Tacoma
“There’s no way an amateur could have, with any degree of reliability, done what was done yesterday,” Mr. Nance said.
#59. To: BeAChooser (#54)
Uh huh. What you fail to mention is the fact that he was talking about a NOSE DIVE CRASH into the ground, not an aerial manuever that matched that of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon on 9/11, where he was obviously unaware of how it approached the Pentagon and flew 50 feet above the ground for about a mile before hitting it squarely with no downward pitch.
"Impossible"? "No pilot will claim...?" Well, we did not have any difficulty finding pilots who disagreed. Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
.
.
.
Comments (60 - 68) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest