Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

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

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)

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.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

TRUTH wrote:

snip

FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out of
all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.

Your persistent lying even after being told the correct definition of
"squib" adds to your lack of credibility.

Squib
Pronunciation: 'skwib'
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown

1 a : a short humorous or satiric writing or speech b : a short news
item; especially : FILLER
2 a : a small firecracker b : a broken firecracker in which the powder
burns with a fizz
3 : a small electric or pyrotechnic device used to ignite a charge

Source: Merriam-Webster

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Peter Twydell wrote:
In message eoCLf.26211$Ug4.11645@dukeread12, Dan writes
TRUTH wrote:

snip
FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out of
all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.

Your persistent lying even after being told the correct definition of
"squib" adds to your lack of credibility.

Squib
Pronunciation: 'skwib'
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown

1 a : a short humorous or satiric writing or speech b : a short news
item; especially : FILLER
2 a : a small firecracker b : a broken firecracker in which the powder
burns with a fizz
3 : a small electric or pyrotechnic device used to ignite a charge

Source: Merriam-Webster

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I was quite amused some years ago when I read that the world's leading
manufacturer of suppositories was called Sqibb. Adds a whole new
dimension to 'going with a bang'.

'TRUTH' wouldn't be able to use any of their products because he spends
too much time talking out of where they're supposed to be inserted.

Squibb also made toothpaste. This could explain his shooting his
mouth off g

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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).

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.

TRUTH 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?

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




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

VE (Mortimer Schnerd, RN) wrote in
m:

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.

This of course assumes that the pilot is concerned with obeying the
rules.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |