3292 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

Thanks Sky, for your impressive credentials and honest answer regarding flight instructing.  I respect your military service.

How much low level time do you have?  Just as an idea to see how you might judge Hani's awesome flying skills.  Or, will you claim that they are only ordinary skills?

But on topic, I must say the same to you as to Boo & Cz.  Can't somebody get a computer to draw the outline of a 757 on the Pentagon wall, as viewed from the parking lot camera?

It would settle the question.  I would be happy to acknowledge it was a Boeing, if that be the case.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 05 August 2012 - 06:44 PM.

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 05 August 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

As the worthy opposition, you could prove me wrong and decide the question.  If Cz can get his photogrammetrics together, he could provide an overlay of the Boeing on the Pentagon wall at the instant it struck, and we could then infer what we actually saw on the parking lot camera shot.  Why so much anxiety?

I am happy to admit that I'm wrong whenever that can be demonstrated.  I've been wrong in my life many times, and learned to live with it decades ago.  If you and your team can sketch what the Boeing should have looked like just as it struck, I'll buy it.

Babe Ruth, on 05 August 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

But on topic, I must say the same to you as to Boo & Cz.  Can't somebody get a computer to draw the outline of a 757 on the Pentagon wall, as viewed from the parking lot camera?

Its your claim, BR... so its your burden to prove it.

If you're too lazy / incompetent / ignorant to make any effort to verify what you say, its not up to us to help you prove or even disprove your case in any way.

You provide no proof for your claim(s), therefore it (they) can be easily dismissed as the deluded opinion(s) of a willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest, under-the-bridge living conspiracy believer.






Cz

[Kludge808]

747400, on 05 August 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

"The *Snip* Squadron"?

Yeah, I saw that too.  As a proud member of the Geriatric Squadron, I take offense.  

[Babe Ruth]

Cz

I'm assuming that you are claiming the object in the picture is a 757.  Is that a correct assumption?

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 05 August 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

Cz

I'm assuming that you are claiming the object in the picture is a 757.  Is that a correct assumption?

I am not making any claim.

The "Official Narrative" makes the claim that it was a 757 - specifically, AA Flt. 77 - and they provide the evidence to back up their claim.

For the purposes of the Burden of Proof, the "Official Narrative" is the accepted version of events. Whether you accept or believe that or not is of no consequence.

You are proposing events that contradict the accepted version of events, so it is your burden to prove your version of events.

Period.

End of story.





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 05 August 2012 - 06:59 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

No offense intended sir, but it SOUNDS like you are defending the accepted version of events?

I know you're not taking any position, as you stated.  So then, what's that old saying that one cannot prove a negative?

Do you mean to say you have no interest in what was in the photograph?

[Kludge808]

Oh, my freakin' God!

BR, what is it with you?  All you're doing now is presenting straw man arguments, ad hominems and outright distortions & falsehoods.  Your "life experiences" include nothing related to aviation which has been shown time & time again yet you persist in trying to get everyone to believe that particular fantasy.  You insist everyone prove what they say yet you offer not even a shred of evidence to contradict anything posted that disagrees with your "life experiences" and "common sense."  You are nothing but a disruption to the thread and I am >|< close to reporting you as such.  In any road, I am through with you.  Totally, completely and absolutely through.

Fellow members of the Geriatric Squadron and honorary members, may I suggest placing this irritant on ignore?

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 05 August 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

No offense intended sir, but it SOUNDS like you are defending the accepted version of events?

I know you're not taking any position, as you stated.  So then, what's that old saying that one cannot prove a negative?

Do you mean to say you have no interest in what was in the photograph?

Are you going to fulfill your burden of proof and produce evidence - showing how you used proper photogrammerty techniques and calculations based solely on the one photograph that the "tail was too short" for it to have been a 757 - to defend your position or not, BR...?

Yes or No...?

That's the only question that needs answering right now.

If yes, then please, show your work.

If no, then please stop the handwaving, red herrings, intellectual dishonesty and all the other distractions and just admit that you have no evidence to back up your claims and no intent of providing any.





Cz

[DONTEATUS]

THe proof is in the Details ! Or in this case Da-Tail !

[Kludge808]

DONTEATUS, on 05 August 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

THe proof is in the Details ! Or in this case Da-Tail !

ROFLMAO!  About right on that.  

[Kludge808]

skyeagle409, on 05 August 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

I have to say it  once again, that is the tail of a B-757. BTW, I had a chance to talk with a few B-757 pilots at our convention in Las Vegas, and I might add the 9/11 CT folks do not have many friends in that group.

I'm a little surprised they would have any but there is always that 2%.  If any are on line anywhere, it would be cool if one would join this little discussion to present his/her professional opinion.  Maybe [s]he can also pound into Captain Life Experience's* head the difference between Vmo and Vne although that's probably wishful thinking.

* I don't remember who came up with this but thank you!

[Kludge808]

skyeagle409, on 05 August 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

Thanks!

Got a chance to talk to a number of airline pilots including those who fly the  B-757,  and I visited my cousin in Las Vegas, who is a retired engineer from United Airlines at SFO and whose son is a B-767 captain for another major airline who also flew the B-757 for a number of years.

Kewl!  As I mentioned previously, the only air transport time I have is 20 hours each in the DC-9 and 737 simulators at Used Air.  The DC-9 could be a real b***h under certain conditions while the 737 was relatively tame.  I've heard the 757 & 767 are delightful to fly, especially with the improved situational awareness offered by glass cockpit.

Quote

I heard that!   That approach was not flawless by a long shot. In addition to damages to government property, perhaps we should send a bill to his relatives for damages incurred when he knocked down those light poles.

I think they belonged to the State of Virginia.  Maybe send a couple good ol' boys over to collect ...

[Karlis]

Kludge808, on 05 August 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

Yeah, I saw that too.  As a proud member of the Geriatric Squadron, I take offense.  

Point of order, please:

I edited one or two posts containing the phrase, "geriatric squadron" because imo that could be interpreted as a negative dig at older posters who have now retired from active duty. I have also asked that this phrase not be used in future posts.

If anyone has objections to that, please PM me or Saru, rather than posting about it in threads.

thanks,
Karlis -- mod team member

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 05 August 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

Thanks Sky, for your impressive credentials and honest answer regarding flight instructing.  I respect your military service.

How much low level time do you have?

Quite a bit. I once flew a brand new Cessna 172 from the factory at low altitude over open country until I reach Colorado to refuel. From there, I flew to Tonopah, NV, and then on to Oakland, CA. where the aircraft was fitted with long range tanks for its flight to Australia. Another pilot took over from there.

Quote

Just as an idea to see how you might judge Hani's awesome flying skills.  Or, will you claim that they are only ordinary skills?

His approach was sloppy and his turning maneuver was nothing spectacular nor different from the maneuvers I conducted when my instructor pulled back the throttle and told me that I just lost an engine. I placed the aircraft into a bank and scanned the ground for an emergency landing spot  and looking out for power lines and taking into an account, the direction of furrows and ridges while careful not to go into an power-off stall during the  turn, which has hardly any different than what Hani ahd done and I was just a student pilot at the time.

I consider turns around a point or S-turns in moderate winds, which was taught to me as a student pilot, a more difficult challenge than what Hani had done. All he had to do was to bank the aircraft  and drop the nose, and aim for the Pentagon, so how difficult is that?  The fact he knocked down the light poles shows just how sloppy his approach was. A more practical approach IMO, would have been a direct, angular diving attack with a tailwind where additional energy and airspeed would have been gained, and coming in from such a high altitude would have avoided ground obstacles which could have spoiled the attack.

Quote

It would settle the question.  I would be happy to acknowledge it was a Boeing, if that be the case.

As many times as I have seen vertical stabilizers of B-757s, it was no  problem for me to pick up on certain details.

[skyeagle409]

Kludge808, on 05 August 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

Kewl!  As I mentioned previously, the only air transport time I have is 20 hours each in the DC-9 and 737 simulators at Used Air.  The DC-9 could be a real b***h under certain conditions while the 737 was relatively tame.  I've heard the 757 & 767 are delightful to fly, especially with the improved situational awareness offered by glass cockpit.

The B-757 is very easy to fly and at Duncan's birthday party, a former co-worker of mine, and who was also an airframe technician in my unit at Travis AFB, later went on to fly B-757s and refers to the B-757 as a "push-button airplane" and he told me at the party that he would rather fly the B-727 for some real flying. Another  guest at Duncan's party and a good friend of ours, was aerobatic wonder, Julie Clark. She drops down for visits from time to time and there is much about her on the Internet.

You can push a button on the B-757 and the aircraft will take off and fly the trip and then, push another button at the proper time and the B-757 will land itself. I don't think that many passengers are aware that in some cases, the aircraft is actually landing itself. Since the B-767 and the B-757 share similar panels, it is no problem moving up to the B-767 from the B-757.  With the B-757, just set the autopilot and make sure the flight director and autothrottle are engaged and then, you can go to sleep and let the B-757 fly itself. I shot this little joke at the airlne pilots in Las Vegas the other day at the convention when I said: Technology is becoming so advanced, that one pilot and a dog would only be needed in the cockpit; The pilot to monitor the instrument panel and the dog to bite him if he touches anything.

It is a little joke that has been passed around within the aviation community.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 August 2012 - 09:49 PM.