Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

In article ,
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

Newps wrote:
Flying in clear skies does not require an instrument rating.

At 30,000 feet it does

Why? What does altitude have to do with it?

Airspace between 18,000 feet MSL and Flight Level 600 is designated Class A
airspace and all operations there must be conducted under IFR.

http://www.asy.faa.gov/safety_produc...spaceclass.htm

....so the hijackers couldn't possibly have done it, since they might
have faced some severe fines or jail time if they got caught flying
those planes illegally when they crashed them into the towers.

Chad Irby wrote:

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
Newps wrote:

Flying in clear skies does not require an instrument rating.

At 30,000 feet it does

Why? What does altitude have to do with it?

Airspace between 18,000 feet MSL and Flight Level 600 is designated Class A
airspace and all operations there must be conducted under IFR.

http://www.asy.faa.gov/safety_produc...spaceclass.htm

...so the hijackers couldn't possibly have done it, since they might
have faced some severe fines or jail time if they got caught flying
those planes illegally when they crashed them into the towers.

Maybe capital punishment too if anybody in the tower died as a result.

mrtravel wrote in news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

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?

Was the WTC in WV?






The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC

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.

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Truth,

Man, there is one thing I envy you for: the amount of TIME you must
have at your disposal. A pity you waste it liek this, though.



at present, I do have an abundance of time

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



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

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

TRUTH wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Truth,

Man, there is one thing I envy you for: the amount of TIME you must
have at your disposal. A pity you waste it liek this, though.



at present, I do have an abundance of time

Fired from your job or incarcerated?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The Whole Truth wrote in
:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:18:54 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

WTC 7 was NOT hit by an airplane. Never before in world history has a
steel framed hi rise totally collapsed from "fire". Not before 9/11,
not after 9/11. Never. Yet on 9/11, three building's supposedly
collapsed from fire. The government destroyed the evidence before a
proper investigation could be done. (Some people argue this, but they
provide no proof. The destruction on evidence is factual.)

Also, you have yet to offer even a remotely plausible theory as to
why the
government would go through all the trouble of blowing up WTC-7 in the
first place. It's not like it was full of people, the general public
had never even heard of it and given all the attention to the 3,000
deaths and WTC-1 and 2; most people have still never even heard of
WTC-7.



Okay. WTC 7 was the only WTC building not in the same physical area as
the other WTC buidlings. The leaseholder of WTC 7 had been in posession
of the lease since the building was built in 1987. Six weeks before 9/11
he bought a lease on the entire WTC complex. I don't know the legality,
but this site may help explain:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...6/07/15925.htm


Also, WTC 7 housed numerous government agencies. Paper documents, such as
those from ENRON, were destroyed when the building was "pulled".

WTC 7 was a steel framed building and housed the mayor's 13 million
dollar command bunker. It is theorized that this bunker was used to
control the Towers' demolitions (it was dust proof), and therefore needed
to be destroyed for any evidence it may have.

Also, the WTC 7 collapse begs the question: would the city construct the
mayor's 13 million dollar command bunker in a building that could
completely collapse from random damage and fires?

Not many people know about WTC 7 because of media silence. Even when
Professor Jones was on MSNBC, the station refused to play the WTC7 video
clip he sent them! info on this at www.st911.org

see here

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/building7.html