RaptorBites Posted February 6, 2012 #526 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Looking at past history, I have noticed that the 9/11 CT folks have been consistent with getting the facts all wrong and misidentifying parts of aircraft and they were unaware that thermite could have been expected to be found within the WTC buildings. They even bungled facts surrounding United 93 and Cleveland airport without checking out the rest of the story. The 9/11 CT folks have consistently made a series of errors and those are just a few examples of many. Sky, I applaud your vigilance. If i had to keep repeating myself day in and day out, I would likely become insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted February 7, 2012 #527 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Be careful what you wish for Raptor..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 7, 2012 #528 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Be careful what you wish for Raptor..... In regards to American 77, it is just a matter of placing the pieces of the puzzle in the right places to obtain the picture of what those pieces represent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted February 7, 2012 #529 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Details are always interesting, and quite important Sky, but I would rather view the proverbial "Big Picture" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 7, 2012 #530 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Details are always interesting, and quite important Sky, but I would rather view the proverbial "Big Picture" When all of the pieces are placed together, you will have a picture, which will explain why American Airlines confirmed the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted February 8, 2012 #531 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) The pieces HAVE fallen together Sky, for the most part. For me they fell together about 5 years ago. For about 4 years I was just like you, defending the Official Conspiracy Theory. Trouble was, it was an incoherent theory and ultimately failed. If you're still flying and have access to an airplane, perhaps you could go out and experiment a little doing the same maneuver that Hani did, just to see how "easy" it is. Are you suggesting that corporate HQ always tells the truth and never makes mistakes? Edited February 8, 2012 by Babe Ruth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 8, 2012 #532 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) The pieces HAVE fallen together Sky, for the most part. For me they fell together about 5 years ago. Then, why did American Airlines confirm the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon? For about 4 years I was just like you, defending the Official Conspiracy Theory. Trouble was, it was an incoherent theory and ultimately failed. Can you look the family of the victims of American 77 in the eye and tell them that their family members were in on a government plot? After all, their remains were recovered at the Pentagon and have been identified. If you're still flying and have access to an airplane, perhaps you could go out and experiment a little doing the same maneuver that Hani did, just to see how "easy" it is. I did on a simulator, which is more difficult than doing the maneuver in a real aircraft and I successfully conducted the maneuver on the first attempt. ... and Are you suggesting that corporate HQ always tells the truth and never makes mistakes? In the case of 9/11, they did. Edited February 8, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted February 8, 2012 #533 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I don't know why AAHQ said what they did. Maybe a mistake, maybe deliberate subterfuge. I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you. Unless you happen to work for AA? I do not know that the US Solictor General was in on the plot, or anybody else. I strongly suspect they were, however. But that is just my speculation. I've been lied to by the best of them Sky, and I've flown a bunch of different simulators. Let's keep the conversation honest, if we may. Most simulators are for INSTRUMENT flight, and we both know that. Hani's maneuver was necessarily VFR, and we both know that sir. An overhead descending turn is easy for anybody to do, but at rates of 3500FPM, in an airplane one has never flown before, and considering his experience level, leveling off into terrain-following flight is absurd Sky, and we both know that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 8, 2012 #534 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) I don't know why AAHQ said what they did. Maybe a mistake, maybe deliberate subterfuge. When you are in the business of flying thousands of people everyday, you don't make such mistakes or commit such errors in judgement. And you can check with the engine manufacturer as well who will tell they lost engines that were attached to American 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon and the fact that American 77 had crashed into the Pentagon is the reason why the registration number for American 77 is no longer valid in the system. Remember, the engines have their own serial numbers as well. I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you. Unless you happen to work for AA? I don't have to work for American Airlines to know how who things work in civil aviation and you should know that. I've been lied to by the best of them Sky, and I've flown a bunch of different simulators. Let's keep the conversation honest, if we may. Most simulators are for INSTRUMENT flight, and we both know that. Hani's maneuver was necessarily VFR, and we both know that sir. In other words, his maneuver was easier in the real world than conducting the same maneuver in a simulator. An overhead descending turn is easy for anybody to do, but at rates of 3500FPM, in an airplane one has never flown before, and considering his experience level, leveling off into terrain-following flight is absurd Sky, and we both know that too. A decent rate of 3500 per minute is nothing. Such decent rates have been exceeded on many occasions by commercial airliners. Edited February 8, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted February 9, 2012 #535 Share Posted February 9, 2012 If you're still flying and have access to an airplane, perhaps you could go out and experiment a little doing the same maneuver that Hani did, just to see how "easy" it is. Babe, what, in your opinion, was so very difficult about this maneuver you refer to, or for that matter, the maneuvers that the other pilots flew that day into the buildings? I've heard this before where people said that those were advanced flying skills at work, when the fact is anyone could do them...plow into a building at full throttle?Basic skill, point the nose, scream and have a nice vaporization. lying into the Pentagon? Basic airmanship: fly a descending 360, level off and push the throttles into their stops as you level off and point...and scream again. Just interested in what's being thought here about this stuff. I am reminded that people generally tend to think that if an airplanes engines go out, that the plane will plummet to the earth, an erroneous, and rather silly notion. The idea that there was advanced difficulty in what the terrorists did on 9-11-01 is of a similar sort of origin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted February 9, 2012 #536 Share Posted February 9, 2012 MID Flying into the towers would be fairly easy IMO, though a sim instructor out in Arizona somewhere (737 type) had a hard time hitting the tower at the high indicated airspeeds reported in the official accounts. He encountered some sort of induced Dutch Roll. As for the Pentagon, it was not a 360 according to the official accounts, it was a 270, begun at 7000 feet overhead the target. Assuming for the sake of discussion that he used standard rate turn, that would require less than 2 minutes. I round up to 2 minutes for discussion. That works out to about 3500FPM for the entire maneuver. I did crop dusting in airplanes for 10 years, and I'm still active in flight instructing after all these years. For my more advanced students I introduce them to low level flight and crop dusting turns. Very few people are comfortable getting close to the ground at high speeds. Most must be forced to get within 50 of the ground. According to the official narrative, Hani had to complete the overhead portion, then transition for the last few seconds (350knots we are told) to terrain-following flight to descend into the "bowl" in which the Pentagon sits. He had to follow that terrain so closely that the airplane was perfectly centered on the target. The tail was not too high, the cowlings were not too low. In short, an absolutely perfect threading of the needle. All this by a lousy pilot, if we are to believe his instructors, flying in a transport category aircraft at speeds at least twice as fast as he had ever flown in his short career. I simply do not believe it could be done. Transitioning to landing out of a 600FPM descent is hard for most folks. Transitioning to almost 0 from 3500FPM? No ****ing way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 9, 2012 #537 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) MID Flying into the towers would be fairly easy IMO, though a sim instructor out in Arizona somewhere (737 type) had a hard time hitting the tower at the high indicated airspeeds reported in the official accounts. He encountered some sort of induced Dutch Roll. If you use improper control technique in a swept-winged aircraft, then you can expect to have problems.What was the yaw damper during? As for the Pentagon, it was not a 360 according to the official accounts, it was a 270, begun at 7000 feet overhead the target. Assuming for the sake of discussion that he used standard rate turn, that would require less than 2 minutes. I round up to 2 minutes for discussion. That works out to about 3500FPM for the entire maneuver.I did crop dusting in airplanes for 10 years, and I'm still active in flight instructing after all these years. For my more advanced students I introduce them to low level flight and crop dusting turns. Very few people are comfortable getting close to the ground at high speeds. Most must be forced to get within 50 of the ground. According to the official narrative, Hani had to complete the overhead portion, then transition for the last few seconds (350knots we are told) to terrain-following flight to descend into the "bowl" in which the Pentagon sits. He had to follow that terrain so closely that the airplane was perfectly centered on the target. The tail was not too high, the cowlings were not too low. In short, an absolutely perfect threading of the needle. All this by a lousy pilot, if we are to believe his instructors, flying in a transport category aircraft at speeds at least twice as fast as he had ever flown in his short career. I simply do not believe it could be done. Transitioning to landing out of a 600FPM descent is hard for most folks. Transitioning to almost 0 from 3500FPM? No ****ing way. But, he managed to strike the Pentagon anyway. Edited February 9, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted February 10, 2012 #538 Share Posted February 10, 2012 In YOUR mind, and of course the Official Conspiracy Theory, he managed to hit the Pentagon, Sky. In reality, a 300 hour pilot flying a 757 for the first time in his life, at the reported airspeeds, would have OVERSHOT the Pentagon by a wide margin. He would have ended up in the Maryland countryside or beyond. That's what you don't get. How many hours of dual have you given Sky? How many 300 hour pilots have you given instruction to? How much low level work have you done with your students? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 10, 2012 #539 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) In YOUR mind, and of course the Official Conspiracy Theory, he managed to hit the Pentagon, Sky. Facts, all facts and considering that you have offered no valid explanation to the contrary, only serves to underline that point. If you are going to refute what I have said, you have to have evidence. In reality, a 300 hour pilot flying a 757 for the first time in his life, at the reported airspeeds, would have OVERSHOT the Pentagon by a wide margin. He did overshoot the Pentagon and did not fly directly into the Pentagon on the first approach and to further add, he knocked down light poles and struck obstacles on the second approach ot the Pentagon. And, that first approach was not indicative of an approach of a remote-controlled aircraft nor missile. And once again, American Airlines reported the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon, and its registration number is no longer valid and passenger andf crew remains from American 77 have been recovered at the Pentagon and identified. Edited February 10, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted February 10, 2012 #540 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Oh, so now you're claiming that he had to go around and try again, being successful on the second try? Keep dreaming, Skyeagle. And I missed how much dual you have given as a flight instructor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 10, 2012 #541 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Oh, so now you're claiming that he had to go around and try again, being successful on the second try? Keep dreaming, Skyeagle. And I missed how much dual you have given as a flight instructor... I have always said that he conducted a poor approach and yet, he still struck the Pentagon. The fact that he struck the light poles also pointed to a poor approach. If flying by remote control, there would have been no reason to conduct a turning maneuver to strike the Pentagon on a second approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted February 11, 2012 #542 Share Posted February 11, 2012 MID Flying into the towers would be fairly easy IMO, though a sim instructor out in Arizona somewhere (737 type) had a hard time hitting the tower at the high indicated airspeeds reported in the official accounts. He encountered some sort of induced Dutch Roll. As for the Pentagon, it was not a 360 according to the official accounts, it was a 270, begun at 7000 feet overhead the target. Assuming for the sake of discussion that he used standard rate turn, that would require less than 2 minutes. I round up to 2 minutes for discussion. That works out to about 3500FPM for the entire maneuver. I did crop dusting in airplanes for 10 years, and I'm still active in flight instructing after all these years. For my more advanced students I introduce them to low level flight and crop dusting turns. Very few people are comfortable getting close to the ground at high speeds. Most must be forced to get within 50 of the ground. According to the official narrative, Hani had to complete the overhead portion, then transition for the last few seconds (350knots we are told) to terrain-following flight to descend into the "bowl" in which the Pentagon sits. He had to follow that terrain so closely that the airplane was perfectly centered on the target. The tail was not too high, the cowlings were not too low. In short, an absolutely perfect threading of the needle. All this by a lousy pilot, if we are to believe his instructors, flying in a transport category aircraft at speeds at least twice as fast as he had ever flown in his short career. I simply do not believe it could be done. Transitioning to landing out of a 600FPM descent is hard for most folks. Transitioning to almost 0 from 3500FPM? No ****ing way. Ah, Babe, but I think there's something we're leaving out of the equation! I understand what you're saying, and I'll say this: I couldn't have done it. Why? I'm not saying I couldn't have exeuted a 270, or a 360, in a couple minutes at 3500 FPM down and slapped into a building at 500 KTS. What I'm saying is, WHY WOULD I??? Threin lies the issue: Anyone with nominal pilot training could, and they did. Why: Religious fanaticism. Allah was waiting, with 77 virgins, if you killed the infidels! And yourself of course, as a martyr for the cause....but that's the thing. You, nor I, would be inclined to do such a thing, or to fly 150 people in a loaded 767 into a building, but these freaks were, and that's precicely why they did! It's not am mystery. People do this kind of crap. We can't imagine it. We can't even come close, but they do! Personally, I think airplanes are extensions of God's own hand, and I cannot imagine abusing one like that. But these Islamic yahoos can, could, and did! That's why this crap happened. It's not worth talking about flying skills, or the impossibility of the maneuvers. None of them were, especially with ALLAH and a lifetime's conditioning, and basic flight training in their pockets. Who needed to know how to bleed speed, drop the gear and flaps, and execute a nice gentle stall onto the ground? None of 'em! I think that's the bottom line here, and what I've said may times regarding this sort of discussion: Any kook could've done it, and kooks did do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted February 11, 2012 #543 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Amen to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 11, 2012 #544 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Ah, Babe, but I think there's something we're leaving out of the equation! I understand what you're saying, and I'll say this: I couldn't have done it. Why? I'm not saying I couldn't have exeuted a 270, or a 360, in a couple minutes at 3500 FPM down and slapped into a building at 500 KTS. What I'm saying is, WHY WOULD I??? Threin lies the issue: Anyone with nominal pilot training could, and they did. Why: Religious fanaticism. Allah was waiting, with 77 virgins, if you killed the infidels! And yourself of course, as a martyr for the cause....but that's the thing. You, nor I, would be inclined to do such a thing, or to fly 150 people in a loaded 767 into a building, but these freaks were, and that's precicely why they did! It's not am mystery. People do this kind of crap. We can't imagine it. We can't even come close, but they do! Personally, I think airplanes are extensions of God's own hand, and I cannot imagine abusing one like that. But these Islamic yahoos can, could, and did! That's why this crap happened. It's not worth talking about flying skills, or the impossibility of the maneuvers. None of them were, especially with ALLAH and a lifetime's conditioning, and basic flight training in their pockets. Who needed to know how to bleed speed, drop the gear and flaps, and execute a nice gentle stall onto the ground? None of 'em! I think that's the bottom line here, and what I've said may times regarding this sort of discussion: Any kook could've done it, and kooks did do it! DITTO!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted February 11, 2012 Author #545 Share Posted February 11, 2012 There has been no consideration of the points Babe Ruth raises – ATC’s confirmation of a military imitating speed and manoeuvre, swooping down the decline to the Pentagon and zipping mere feet above the ground on approach, said to be carried out by Hanjour, which even his flight school colleagues expressed amazement about his ability to perform. And luckily into the least damaging, recently reinforced, area of the Pentagon. It was hardly a given that he would succeed… yet allegedly he did, one for one. Rather, we get praise for thoughtless rhetoric which amounts to… ‘kooks done it’? Figures - this is the attitude the false flag attack relies upon. Poor show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted February 11, 2012 #546 Share Posted February 11, 2012 There has been no consideration of the points Babe Ruth raises – ATC’s confirmation of a military imitating speed and manoeuvre, swooping down the decline to the Pentagon and zipping mere feet above the ground on approach, said to be carried out by Hanjour, which even his flight school colleagues expressed amazement about his ability to perform. And luckily into the least damaging, recently reinforced, area of the Pentagon. It was hardly a given that he would succeed… yet allegedly he did, one for one. Rather, we get praise for thoughtless rhetoric which amounts to… ‘kooks done it’? Figures - this is the attitude the false flag attack relies upon. Poor show. Sounds like there's a few who disagree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted February 11, 2012 #547 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) Of course, MID--religion done it! Funny, I had a similar discussion with my sister-in-law yesterday regarding the super-human qualities so many americans assign to the mythical terrorist. Super-human qualities to them, and a suspension of the laws of physics regarding the events of the day. I understand full well that the rational processes do not apply when it comes to the events of 11 September. Faith in the government is what applies. Faith in the way that Huck Finn described it: "faith is when you believe something you know ain't true." If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. The government apologist Peanut Gallery chimed right in MID, that's the amusing part. Who cares what ordinary folks can do, them thar' terrists can do anything at all because they are inspired by Allah. Man, that is sure a simple rationalization for a group claiming to be driven by the scientific method and reasoned analysis. Kinda makes this agnostic wonder who is more inspired by Allah--them terrists, or the Christian Soldiers who embrace the Official Conspiracy Theory? Edited February 11, 2012 by Babe Ruth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted February 11, 2012 #548 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Of course, MID--religion done it! Funny, I had a similar discussion with my sister-in-law yesterday regarding the super-human qualities so many americans assign to the mythical terrorist. Super-human qualities to them, and a suspension of the laws of physics regarding the events of the day. It is often impressive to see how quickly Q24 can inspire someone to mis-interpret and begin adherence to CT belief systems. Religion did not do it, babe. Men did it. There can be much more rational discussion if that simple, fundamental truth is understood. There was nothing super-human about it, nor was there anything mythical, nor has there ever been anything mythical about terrorism. Nothing close to a suspension of the laws of pyhysics occurred. What occurred was a suspension of humanity, and rationality, in favor of religious fervor. To murder, and commit suicide, all in favor of a fantasy. Of course most people don't understand it. Indeed, it seems that many refuse to accept it. I understand full well that the rational processes do not apply when it comes to the events of 11 September. Faith in the government is what applies. Faith in the way that Huck Finn described it: "faith is when you believe something you know ain't true." If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. I don't think you do entirely understand it. Trust in government had nothing to do with 9-11. That's been an unsubstantiated construct of the CT mindset, based upon educational lack and that supreme distrust of authority, taken to unhealthy levels, in the wake of what appeared to be an impossible scenario developing on a sunny late summer morning over a decade ago. Man, thaThe government apologist Peanut Gallery chimed right in MID, that's the amusing part. Who cares what ordinary folks can do, them thar' terrists can do anything at all because they are inspired by Allah. t is sure a simple rationalization for a group claiming to be driven by the scientific method and reasoned analysis. Kinda makes this agnostic wonder who is more inspired by Allah--them terrists, or the Christian Soldiers who embrace the Official Conspiracy Theory? And that's the best that you can do? Confirm what I just said? Government apologists? Christian Soldiers? Who are they? And what is this "Official Conspiracy Theory"? I assume it's a Christian thing. (I don't know, I don't have a fork in the religious pie, and I've never been a Government apologist. That's a CT construct.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted February 11, 2012 #549 Share Posted February 11, 2012 There has been no consideration of the points Babe Ruth raises – ATC’s confirmation of a military imitating speed and manoeuvre, swooping down the decline to the Pentagon and zipping mere feet above the ground on approach, said to be carried out by Hanjour, which even his flight school colleagues expressed amazement about his ability to perform. And luckily into the least damaging, recently reinforced, area of the Pentagon. It was hardly a given that he would succeed… yet allegedly he did, one for one. Rather, we get praise for thoughtless rhetoric which amounts to… ‘kooks done it’? Figures - this is the attitude the false flag attack relies upon. Poor show. Not at all. You seem to be under the impression that it would require a pilot with miraculous skills to accomplish that maneuver, but why? If the sole intention and focus was to accomplish just that kind of maneuver, then that is all that would need to be practiced. I've seen nothing to indicate that each of the pilots couldn't have practiced their planned flights hundreds of times before hand. This doesn't require an experienced pilot, it just requires someone who has practiced this kind of maneuver over and over again to the point that they've perfected this one skill; a one trick pony so to speak. If your intention was to hijack an airliner and crash it into the Pentagon, would you not practice different approaches beforehand? Would you not practice it until your success rate was extremely high? This wasn't some willy-nilly effort on the part of the terrorists. They didn't decide on a whim to hijack the planes while they were on those flights. They planned and prepared for the event years in advance. Arguments about the danger inherent in such a maneuver are equally moot when you consider that the pilot's intention is to die and take American lives with them. Even crashing 77 into the ground en route to the Pentagon would have been a victory for the terrorists, much like 93 was probably still a victory in their minds; albeit less so than reaching the intended target would be. I really don't get why people think this was so impossible to do. Practice something enough and you are bound to get good at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 11, 2012 #550 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) There has been no consideration of the points Babe Ruth raises ATC's confirmation of a military imitating speed and manoeuvre, swooping down the decline to the Pentagon and zipping mere feet above the ground on approach, said to be carried out by Hanjour, which even his flight school colleagues expressed amazement about his ability to perform. Babe Ruth has confused what that ATC person had really meant, because he didn't say the aircraft was a military aircraft. Striking light poles with aircraft on the way to a target is not the way the Air Force conducts business. American Airlines has confirmed that the B-757, which crashed into the Pentagon, was American 77, and additionally, passenger and crew remains from that aircraft were recovered from the wreckage, so with those facts in hand, we can effectively dismiss conspiracy theories in regards to American 77. And, if you are going to fly a remote-controlled aircraft into the Pentagon, you are not going to fly the same flight profile as that foreign terrorist, because you are going to fly a remote-controlled aircraft DIRECTLY into the Pentagon and not waste time at altitude. Edited February 11, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now