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: 2545
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 42.
#2. To: honway (#0)
An Analysis of the Flight 77 bu a Former Air Force Pilot But being unfamiliar with flying large airplanes at high speeds, the pilot wouldn't have taken into account the large radius required to make the turn. This would explain the circuitous 270 degree turn that was made to the impact point. When he rolled out, he'd simply point the nose of the airplane at the center courtyard of the Pentagon and dive toward his target. What he wouldn't know without experience is that when you dive, you accelerate the airplane and the lift increases. This causes the nose to rise, which would cause him to overshoot the target. In a panic, he would push forward on the controls and overcompensate, which would account for eyewitness descriptions of the airplane striking the ground short of the Pentagon. Of course, this is all speculation, not facts.
Furthermore, as TheStateInc believers say, if Hanjour was a good enough pilot and trained in jet simulators to carry this out, he'd know enough about how to slow a jet, i.e. spoilers, flaps, reduce power, lower the gear...same things a good Private pilot knows and ALL Commercial pilots know. To say he was good enough to carry it out, and then for someone to state what was stated in your post by that author, is to totally destroy the credibility of the entire official 9-11 story. I don't honestly know how any trained pilot could believe these jokers did what they did, nor do I see how any sane individual with a brain could believe that 3 buildings, one of which was not hit by a plane, all collapsed the SAME WAY.
The point of the link, which is written by a real airman who was in the FAA database with a commercial license when I checked, is the flight path of Flight 77 is consistent with a relatively inexperienced pilot putting the aircraft into situations he could not fully control. I myself am a licensed pilot and find his explanations quite plausible. A novice pilot puts the plane into a dive, but doesn't remember to compensate for the increased lift which is caused by the increased speed. So he overshoots the target, and then has to go into a tight 270 degree turn to avoid losing the target completely. I have been in extended arguments with other people on other sites who seem to have a lot invested in their own beliefs about this, and I am not going to repeat that here. That is just my 2 cents, and I will leave it at that.
No DNA has ever been matched or linked to said hijackers. One more question. Your stand on 911 is what?
The Pentagon is almost at sea level, and the aircraft was over 5,000 feet when it started its descent. That is a dive for an aircraft that large and generating that much lift. From the link:
That isn't what was reported by the actual FAA controllers, and according to your link, the flight path isn't even lined up with the Pentagon. The path of the airliner is exactly what was intended. So then an inexperienced pilot "overshot" the Pentagon, then took the aircraft, made a 270 degree circle, and flew it 40-60ft above the ground, and smack the empty side of the Pentagon? Like you said, its pure speculation. Again, your stand on 911 is what?
Please post a source which states exactly what the FAA controllers did report, then. How would you know what was intended? (1) Are you a pilot? (2) Do you know how lift, drag, thrust, and "ground effect" work? And alleging "The path of the airliner is exactly what was intended" isn't? (2) There are 2 sides that want war in the Middle East, not 1, and (3) Certain small elements of individuals on the side associated with the US and Israeli governments had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen, wanted it to happen, and did nothing to prevent it from happening.
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA77.pdf Your depiction of the flight path is not even close to the flight path reported by the NTSB Flight 77 Flight Path Study. You can find it at the link above on page 5. Consider the NTSB report. Hanjour rolls out on the final attack approach flying less than 50 feet above irregular terrain knocking down 5 light poles flying at over 450 knots.
The aircraft was headed in the general direction of Reagan International Airport and the Pentagon, which are only a few miles apart. 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. Also, it's not me who's been making such a big deal of an alleged "270 degree turn."
POSSIBLY, the FAA radar could have picked up an aircraft as a "primary return" - no transponder. Since the FAA insists that it saw the altitude, the transponder would need to be on. Lacking any TCAS warnings, there could have been no transponder - Flight 77 is a total fake, as to the crash. BUT - where did it end up? There's the 64,000 dollar question.
BUT - where did it end up? I believe that all four are somewhere at the bottom of the Atlantic.
#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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Upon passing the Washington Monument, the plan may have been for the pilot to make a right turn and dive into the building. A right turn at this point would have led the airplane to hit Pentagon on the Potomac River side where the Secretary of Defense has his office.
#3. To: AGAviator, skydrifter, honway, ALL (#2)
(Edited)
#4. To: IndieTX (#3)
#6. To: AGAviator, Skydrifter (#4)
From what I can recall about the path of desent, there wasn't a "dive" into or toward the Pentagon. The controllers reported a smooth 270-330 degree circle desent that took the aircraft right above the ground and smack into the empty side of the Pentagon.
#8. To: Kamala (#6)
From what I can recall about the path of desent, there wasn't a "dive" into or toward the Pentagon.
The controllers reported a smooth 270-330 degree circle desent that took the aircraft right above the ground and smack into the empty side of the Pentagon.
"I based the turn radius on a 275 knot airspeed, since I doubt the airplane would have sufficient power and structural integrity to fly at 500 knots at low altitude. And unless the pilot had a lot of experience flying large airplanes at high speeds low to the ground, he would have avoided making a steep bank, so I based my turn radius on a 30 degree bank angle."
#9. To: AGAviator (#8)
...That is a dive for an aircraft that large and generating that much lift....
#10. To: Kamala (#9)
That isn't what was reported by the actual FAA controllers, and according to your link, the flight path isn't even lined up with the Pentagon.
The path of the airliner is exactly what was intended.
So then an inexperienced pilot "overshot" the Pentagon, then took the aircraft, made a 270 degree circle, and flew it 40-60ft above the ground, and smack the empty side of the Pentagon?
Like you said, its pure speculation.
Again, your stand on 911 is what?
(1) There are many people who believe their passsionate and opinionated views on 911 can compensate for their lack of knowledge about technical details of various subjects pertaining to the details of 911,
#14. To: AGAviator (#10)
#16. To: honway (#14)
(Edited)
Your depiction of the flight path is not even close to the flight path reported by the NTSB Flight 77 Flight Path Study
#18. To: AGAviator, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#16)
#40. To: SKYDRIFTER (#18)
Flight 77 is a total fake, as to the crash.
#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".
Replies to Comment # 42. It is not worth "debating".
End Trace Mode for Comment # 42.