Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

mrtravel wrote:

TRUTH wrote:


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

But they went lower, didn't they?

Irrelevant. They didn't care about the FAA rules.

At 30000 feet, do you think it would be possible to figure out where
Manhattan is, on a clear day? If you spend some time looking at maps, it
wouldn't be that difficult.

Anyone can fly a jet by visual references alone when the weather's fine.

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

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

I prove what I know, and you prove what you know.

You reckon this is a 'my willie is bigger than your willie' contest ?

Graham



I hope not!!

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

also , that's a red herring arugment. It has nothing to do with the
facts that do exist, such as the failed-cessna pilot flying a 757 at
400MPH.......

Do you have any evidence that whoever was supposed to be flying that
757 was indeed a 'failed Cessna pilot' or is it mere conjecture on
your part ?

Graham




I don't have it from mainstream media sources. But people (including Dr
Jones) has said it. If it was not true, it would have defininitely been
exposed by someone. If it's NOT true, maybe you can research it and prove
Jones and others wrong! If you CAN do that, it would be good. The Truth
movement wants to be based, simply, on truth.

mrtravel wrote in
. net:

TRUTH wrote:

mrtravel wrote in news:0DxLf.36854$F_3.15100
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:


TRUTH wrote:


Still, showing one of them was instrument
trained does not explain the others, in particular flight 77 and the
Pentagon.

Since you have already indicated that NONE of them were capable of
flying the plane, doesn't evidence for one of them debunk this
thought? Or.. must we gather evidence that all of them were trained
in order to debunk you NONE theory?





No it does not. I don't know every single fact about 9/11, and
neither do you. I prove what I know, and you prove what you know.
Either side can make errors.

A statement that NONE of the hijackers could crash the planes into
buildings is a main point in your argument that they didn't do it.
Now, if the highjackers had this training, wouldn't that debunk this
argument. Since this is a MAJOR point in your "proof" that it was the
government, it is important that this part of the story be correct.




Only if you are relying on little ol me to be 100% correct in everything.
I cannot be, so I hope others would understand that and look at the
information for themselves without taking everything I say literally. But
I do understand your point

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
:



mrtravel wrote:

TRUTH wrote:


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

But they went lower, didn't they?

Irrelevant. They didn't care about the FAA rules.

At 30000 feet, do you think it would be possible to figure out where
Manhattan is, on a clear day? If you spend some time looking at maps,
it
wouldn't be that difficult.

Anyone can fly a jet by visual references alone when the weather's
fine.

Graham




Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West Virginia?

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
:

TRUTH wrote:

also , that's a red herring arugment. It has nothing to do with the
facts that do exist, such as the failed-cessna pilot flying a 757 at
400MPH.......

Do you have any evidence that whoever was supposed to be flying that
757 was indeed a 'failed Cessna pilot' or is it mere conjecture on
your part ?

Graham


I don't have it from mainstream media sources. But people (including Dr
Jones) has said it.

Dr Jones looks rather lame in view of his writing a paper, the subject of
which he isn't qualifed in !

If it was not true, it would have defininitely been
exposed by someone. If it's NOT true, maybe you can research it and prove
Jones and others wrong! If you CAN do that, it would be good. The Truth
movement wants to be based, simply, on truth.

Well..... I heard many reports that those hijackers who trained at flight
school on heavy jets weren't considered to be 'very good pilots' but I've
never come across the suggestion that any of them had failed a Cessna flight
test.

In fact, even to get onto an 'advanced' i.e. jet training course *requires* a
full private flying licence ! The flight schools simply won't accept 'failed
Cessna pilots'.

Graham

TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

mrtravel wrote:

TRUTH wrote:

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

But they went lower, didn't they?

Irrelevant. They didn't care about the FAA rules.

At 30000 feet, do you think it would be possible to figure out where
Manhattan is, on a clear day? If you spend some time looking at maps,
it
wouldn't be that difficult.

Anyone can fly a jet by visual references alone when the weather's
fine.

Graham

Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West Virginia?

A few 'light fluffy clouds' such as you might encounter on a nice day don't
amount to 'IFR'.

'IFR' is when you seriously can't see where you're going. Training is done
with 'blinds' to stop the trainee pilot seeing out the windscreen.

Graham