Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

TRUTH wrote:
In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable
difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into
a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles
away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over
500 MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.

Sir,

I can see by your postings that you're passionate about this, so I
don't want to be all dismissive and patronizing like some others have
been. Instead, let's just talk about it for a little.

It's obvious that you have been deeply affected by 9/11 and that you
find yourself unable to accept that we were simply caught unawares by a
cunning foe, as we were in Pearl Harbor. Instead you blame the
government. Not only do you blame them, you attribute the whole event
to them. It was their doing. A massive conspiracy with an equally
massive coverup.

Why would terrorists go to all that trouble, anyway? In the end they
only took down a couple of buildings and 3,000 civilians. I say "only"
3,000 not to be cruel, every one matters, but given their efforts over
the past two decades, it was hardly worth the cost. The puppet masters
are actually smart - they would have anticipated the counter-attack and
the loss of Afghanistan. They knew the hawks in the White House
wouldn't just let it go. It was a counter-productive thing to do. So
why do it?

As a country we consantly project our power and intrude in other
people's business with abandon. What can they do to the last, great
superpower? Terrorism is the only recourse the "little guy" has againt
the "big guy". You can't go to war against a vastly superior force.
The official story is that 9/11 was a demonstration. A demonstration
that we are not invincible. It was an effetive one.

We in the West have a fast-food culture. We want everything to be
immediate. We'll trash the "5-minute Abs" tape and buy the "3-minute
Abs" DVD. We want an immediate response to a stimulus. That's not the
way of the Eastern nations. They are, architypically, more long-view.
They can wage war over 100 years, slowly. No rush. Lay low. Make the
enemy bankrupt themselves by forcing them into a protracted engagement.
One stealthy terrorist can tie up an army.

9/11 has bolstered the spirits of the terrorists. It's an incredible
PR win. We're piling billions into Iraq and Afghanistan and losing our
freedoms over here. We've gone from "we'll never rest until Bin Laden
is caught or killed" to "well, he's not that important anyway". We're
losing troops daily in Iraq. Slowly. Painfully. Constantly. While
the country decends into civil war.

Frankly, we're losing. And we're losing because:
+ You can't kill an enemy you can't see.
+ New terrorists are being recruited faster than we can kill them.

So although they took a short-term loss (Afghanistan), they're winning
long-term.


So, why would the government orchestrate the attacks? To give them a
reason to go into Iraq? To given them a reason to massively increase
military spending? Perhaps one or both of those. What would it take
to achieve it? How many people were involved? How many branches of
government? Were the plane passengers put on trains and sent into the
forest for execution like some Nazi war story? Were the planes flown
to secret airforce bases for storage? Does that mean air traffic
controllers were involved? Did no one see the planes land? How many
construction workers did it take to wire the WTC with demolition
charges? Did no one notice the miles of cable and holes in the walls?

I tend to believe that two people can keep a secret only if one of them
is dead, and a government conspiracy of this scale probably covers 100s
or 1000s of different people. All of whom have to buy-off on the
execution of 3000 civilians.

Do we live in that country?


On your points, you use the word "fact" a lot, but I think you use it
incorrectly. It is a "fact" that the WTC towers fell. It is a "fact"
that planes flew into them. What happened next is perhaps open to
interpretation by experts and non-experts.

Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta was both
commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless non-pilot".
Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions of the pilots, but
you don't know how long they trained away from the flight school. You
don't know how much "book time" they had studying avionics. The attack
had years of planning behind it. I guess they could have spent that
time playing pinball... but maybe instead they were studying. That
something is hard does not make it impossible.

What about general airline hijacking policy. Before 9/11 wasn't there
a policy of compliance? Do what the hijackers want and the FBI will
get them on the ground. Are you sure the pilots didn't navigate to the
area before the terrorists took over? On the morning of 9/11, putting
a knife to the throat of a flight attendent immediately got you the
captain's attention. He may be ex-air force but he's not going to lose
a member of his crew. He's going to do exactly what you say. "Fly me
to New York". "Yes sir. Right away sir". I suspect the terrorists
said they would land somewhere and make their demands. By the time the
truth was known, it would be too late.


Still, all that said no one can difinitively say what happened on
board. All we can do is choose to believe a story. One story
presented by experts from one camp, and an alternative view from
another camp. Like JFK and faked moon landings, people believe what
they want to believe and for every argument there is a
counter-argument. The strength of each is in the eye of the beholder.

So, wrapping up...

I can take the step of saying, whilst I choose not to believe you, your
scenario is possible. I find it unlikely, but it is possible that the
government, envious of Middle Eastern oil and eager to boost military
budgets. formulated a "shock and awe" campaign on the American people
and the world.

The question is, can YOU take a reciprocal step? Can you concede that,
whilst it's not something you believe, there is a chance that following
years of intrusive foreign policy, a terrorist mastermind carefully
planned and executed a suicide campaign against the WTC and Pentagon?
That we were all caught unawares and that the Bush was the one in shock
as he read "My Pet Goat" to the kids in the classroom?


If you can't accept the possibility that your view is in error, then
you're not a clear, reasoned thinker. You're a preacher, preaching
your faith. Which is fine, too.. I guess.

Matt.

"Matt Wright" wrote in message
oups.com...

TRUTH wrote:
In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable
difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner
into
a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles
away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over
500 MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.

Sir,

I can see by your postings that you're passionate about this, so I
don't want to be all dismissive and patronizing like some others have
been. Instead, let's just talk about it for a little.
..
..
..

If you can't accept the possibility that your view is in error, then
you're not a clear, reasoned thinker. You're a preacher, preaching
your faith. Which is fine, too.. I guess.

He's a troll, nothing more, as his posts clearly demonstrate.

Paul Nixon

"Matt Wright" wrote in
oups.com:


Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta was
both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless non-pilot".
Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions of the pilots, but
you don't know how long they trained away from the flight school. You
don't know how much "book time" they had studying avionics. The
attack had years of planning behind it. I guess they could have spent
that time playing pinball... but maybe instead they were studying.
That something is hard does not make it impossible.



Matt.



I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was instrument
trained does not explain the others, in particular flight 77 and the
Pentagon.


Do you consider the BBC a reputable news source?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1559151.stm



See here for others:
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

TRUTH wrote:

"Matt Wright" wrote in
oups.com:

Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta was
both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless non-pilot".
Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions of the pilots, but
you don't know how long they trained away from the flight school. You
don't know how much "book time" they had studying avionics. The
attack had years of planning behind it. I guess they could have spent
that time playing pinball... but maybe instead they were studying.
That something is hard does not make it impossible.

Matt.

I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was instrument
trained does not explain the others

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there was no
need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear skies does
not require an instrument rating.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

"Matt Wright" wrote in
oups.com:

Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta was
both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless
non-pilot". Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions of
the pilots, but you don't know how long they trained away from the
flight school. You don't know how much "book time" they had
studying avionics. The attack had years of planning behind it. I
guess they could have spent that time playing pinball... but maybe
instead they were studying. That something is hard does not make it
impossible.

Matt.

I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was
instrument trained does not explain the others

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham





At 30,000 feet it does

TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:

"Matt Wright" wrote in
oups.com:

Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta was
both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless
non-pilot". Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions of
the pilots, but you don't know how long they trained away from the
flight school. You don't know how much "book time" they had
studying avionics. The attack had years of planning behind it. I
guess they could have spent that time playing pinball... but maybe
instead they were studying. That something is hard does not make it
impossible.

Matt.

I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was
instrument trained does not explain the others

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham



At 30,000 feet it does

INCORRECT !

FAA regulations require the licensed crew to use instrument flying
techniques ( for obvious reasons ).

That doesn't mean that it's impossible to fly VFR ( visual flight rules ) -
it just means you're breaking the law. Do you think the hijackers even cared
about that ?

If you can see the horizon / ground ( at any height ) you don't need to fly
instruments ( other than to obey regulations ).

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote in
:


TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:

"Matt Wright" wrote in
oups.com:

Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta
was both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless
non-pilot". Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions
of the pilots, but you don't know how long they trained away
from the flight school. You don't know how much "book time"
they had studying avionics. The attack had years of planning
behind it. I guess they could have spent that time playing
pinball... but maybe instead they were studying. That something
is hard does not make it impossible.

Matt.

I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was
instrument trained does not explain the others

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
was no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
clear skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham



At 30,000 feet it does

INCORRECT !

FAA regulations require the licensed crew to use instrument flying
techniques ( for obvious reasons ).

That doesn't mean that it's impossible to fly VFR ( visual flight
rules ) - it just means you're breaking the law. Do you think the
hijackers even cared about that ?

If you can see the horizon / ground ( at any height ) you don't need
to fly instruments ( other than to obey regulations ).

Graham







Okay, I'll admit you "might" know about this stuff, although I would give
an Aeronautical Engineer's opinion a little more weight. I am not an
expert in every aspect of 9/11. And I admit it. Stange how others do not
do the same

Truth,

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham





At 30,000 feet it does


No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to be
legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Truth,

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
was
no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham





At 30,000 feet it does


No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to be
legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.



Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do know is
what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly large
aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Flying in clear
skies does not require an instrument rating.

At 30,000 feet it does

Only if you're worried about being fined or having your license taken
away.

I have plenty of photos taken from airplanes that show enough ground
detail (to the point where you can recognize specific highway
interchanges and landmarks). You can easily see Manhattan Island from
that height (I recognized it from a plane en route to Boston from Miami
once, from 30,000+ feet and fifteen or more miles horizontal separation,
with less-than-perfect weather conditions).