Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

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 wrote:

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,

Thank you ! Trust me I do !

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

The issue of whether or not the hijackers were instrument rated is of zero
consequence in the context of 9/11 since the weather was VFR ( visual flight
rules ).

Commercial pilots often have to fly in rather poorer weather where you may
not be able to see the ground, horizon, or even much in front of your nose.
That's why they have instrument ratings. The idea behind flying 'on
instruments' is about when you can't see where you're going. The reaon for
the FAA rules about mandatory use of 'IFR' ( instrument flight rules )
flight is essentially precautionary.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

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,

Thank you ! Trust me I do !

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

The issue of whether or not the hijackers were instrument rated is of
zero consequence in the context of 9/11 since the weather was VFR (
visual flight rules ).

Commercial pilots often have to fly in rather poorer weather where you
may not be able to see the ground, horizon, or even much in front of
your nose. That's why they have instrument ratings. The idea behind
flying 'on instruments' is about when you can't see where you're
going. The reaon for the FAA rules about mandatory use of 'IFR' (
instrument flight rules ) flight is essentially precautionary.

Graham






Do you know that this, in fact, is applicable for 757/767s ??

TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

The issue of whether or not the hijackers were instrument rated is of
zero consequence in the context of 9/11 since the weather was VFR (
visual flight rules ).

Commercial pilots often have to fly in rather poorer weather where you
may not be able to see the ground, horizon, or even much in front of
your nose. That's why they have instrument ratings. The idea behind
flying 'on instruments' is about when you can't see where you're
going. The reaon for the FAA rules about mandatory use of 'IFR' (
instrument flight rules ) flight is essentially precautionary.

Graham

Do you know that this, in fact, is applicable for 757/767s ??

It applies to all major airline operations.

If you want the details see the FAA regs.

Graham

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

Commercial pilots often have to fly in rather poorer weather where you
may not be able to see the ground, horizon, or even much in front of
your nose. That's why they have instrument ratings. The idea behind
flying 'on instruments' is about when you can't see where you're
going. The reaon for the FAA rules about mandatory use of 'IFR' (
instrument flight rules ) flight is essentially precautionary.

Do you know that this, in fact, is applicable for 757/767s ??

You might want to consider the fact that people have been flying planes
at 30,000+ feet for several decades now, and many of them didn't have
anything lie that we'd consider IFR equipment.

WWII bomber pilots routinely flew at 30-33,000 feet, navigating by
landmarks.

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

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

Look, dimbulb: THIS aeronautical engineer (with 40 years experience in
field, BTW) and pilot (of 45 year experience) says that your source
doesn't know what he is talking about; furthermore, it is irrelevant
whether or not he is an "aeronautical engineer".

I have worked with a whole spectrum of aero engineers -- their
aeronautical knowledge has ranged from superior to abysmal -- your guy
falls into the latter category.

Your posting and the answers you have received fall into the category
of, "If you aren't going to like the answer, don't ask the question."
You have asked the question in an aviation newsgroup and gotten a
unanimous answer: you are full of ****!

Orval Fairbairn wrote in
news
In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

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

Look, dimbulb: THIS aeronautical engineer (with 40 years experience in
field, BTW) and pilot (of 45 year experience) says that your source
doesn't know what he is talking about; furthermore, it is irrelevant
whether or not he is an "aeronautical engineer".

I have worked with a whole spectrum of aero engineers -- their
aeronautical knowledge has ranged from superior to abysmal -- your guy
falls into the latter category.

Your posting and the answers you have received fall into the category
of, "If you aren't going to like the answer, don't ask the question."
You have asked the question in an aviation newsgroup and gotten a
unanimous answer: you are full of ****!




Well......it's obvious from the way you present yourself, that you are an
over emotional hot-head. Therefore you obviously cannot be trusted to
look at information objectively and clearly.



BTW.... You think bin Laden admitted to 9/11?


Here's five Osamas:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/binladen8.jpg

Osama "E" admitted to 9/11 on videotape. Even Mr Magoo can tell that is
not bin Ladin.



The video is archived on National Public Radio's website here

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/res...213.binladen.t
ape.html


In that video, he writes with his right hand, when the FBI's website says
he's left handed.
He wears a gold ring, which is forbidden in Islam.

More info here

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html