Re: Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

[Robert M. Gary]

Sounds like the guy hasn't done much research.

> But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the
> least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting.

True, in fact they did a really ****ty job. They overspeed the planes
several times and had to circle around a couple times before they could
even find the very large targets.


> In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS
> (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large
> multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard"
> struments.

They probably used a very simple straight forward method to address the
EFIS. They probably covered it up with duck tape. They weren't trying
to execute ILS approaches to mins here, they just flew (very poorly I
might add) the planes into giant targets. Some have speculated they may
have had Garmin 295's on them, making navigation about as difficult as
eating PopTarts.

-Robert

[Bush]

09-11-2001 was a clear cool, calm day, a real "corker". The two
pinheads who crashed AAA 11 test drove the same flight the previous
Tuesday, again in First Class. The only other passenger in First was
actor James Woods who later commented on their weirdness. Who knew.

Flying an EFIS Jet, it's a snap! My 13 year old can fly my F-15 ( she
has Flight sim) the A-320 (of course) and the 744 (EFIS) and she is
from St. Petersburg, Russia! Jeez we used to fly Bos-Dca direct, steer
245 degrees no brainer.

Bush

On 21 Feb 2006 11:50:19 -0800, "
> wrote:

>
>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> Sounds like the guy hasn't done much research.
>>
>> > But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the
>> > least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting.
>>
>> True, in fact they did a really ****ty job. They overspeed the planes
>> several times and had to circle around a couple times before they could
>> even find the very large targets.
>
> And the FDR suggested it was anything but a smooth approach.
>
>> > In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS
>> > (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large
>> > multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard"
>> > struments.
>>
>> They probably used a very simple straight forward method to address the
>> EFIS. They probably covered it up with duck tape. They weren't trying
>> to execute ILS approaches to mins here, they just flew (very poorly I
>> might add) the planes into giant targets. Some have speculated they may
>> have had Garmin 295's on them, making navigation about as difficult as
>> eating PopTarts.
>
> Yeah, I understand this guys point of view, but he makes alot of
>comments about IFR. This was not an IFR day. All they had to
>do was to modify the coordinates in the autopilot and let it get
>them close. Then merely guide it to impact in the approach.
>It was a clear day and you could see a long darn way. And
>those building stood out.