Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

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 ****!

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.

I'm well aware of the rules, that was not the point of the question.

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.)

There is no way the government could have known in advance that WTC-7 would be
hit by large pieces of debris which set a fire which burned for half a day
before the collapse. What would have been the story if WTC-7 hadn't been hit,
that WTC-7 just magically self-destructed? None of the other still standing
buildings were found to have been wired for destruction.

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.

Until you can offer a rational explanation as to why WTC-7 was chosen for
destruction and how the government knew in advance to wire it, you're going to
appear as nothing more than a lunatic off his meds. You want to convince us
that you've got a valid theory, you're going to need to do more than just say
"government bad, me right" over and over again.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:44:10 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

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.

Or in the worst case, compass headings and time of travel adjusted by wind
speed. The weather in Germany isn't always good enough for seeing the ground
from 30k feet.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:44:10 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

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.

Or in the worst case, compass headings and time of travel adjusted by wind
speed. The weather in Germany isn't always good enough for seeing the ground
from 30k feet.

Or indeed in the dark ! It's barely believable today that RAF navigators used
star sightings on early raids.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:44:10 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
WWII bomber pilots routinely flew at 30-33,000 feet, navigating by
landmarks.

Or in the worst case, compass headings and time of travel adjusted
by wind
speed. The weather in Germany isn't always good enough for seeing
the ground from 30k feet.

Or indeed in the dark ! It's barely believable today that RAF
navigators used star sightings on early raids.

Even prior to WWII, WWI Zeppelins flew to London in night raids using dead
reckoning and an extremely crude radio navigation system. The radio system
required German ground stations determine the direction the Zeppelin's
radio transmissions were coming from and had to radio back that information
to the airships who then did the triangulation. It was not only relatively
inaccurate, it clued the British in to the airship raids.

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

In a word
Bull****.
World record for altitude in a sailplane is somewhere about 50,000 ft
no instrument rating required.

So once again you are wrong a position not unusual to you..
Read the FAR's

Amazing how THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE is being defended, tooth and nail.

However, the events of 911 DID HAPPEN and they happened only like they
did, and it does not depend HOW WE SEE THEM, our perception is at
fault, not history.

Reality is complicated and sometimes seems illogical, but there WAS A
DEFINITIVE sequence of events.

Now, every one of you wonderful human beings has a built-in LIE
DETECTOR. Your brain is MADE FOR it.

In evolution Home-Boy Sapiens has prevailed because of her/his
out-smarting.

Now that's exactly the job-description of secret-service
spook-murder-arseholes.

Knowing that, we have to be double-clever and suspect a CON JOB.

con job No 1:

the arab hijackers pulled it off in plain sight, and we Americans were
just sleeping.

con job No 2:

We clever Special Ops used remote control and needed arab patsies.

Now, I ask you.

Given that the US military and US private business elites IN FACT
creamed the taxpayer and got jobs worth gazillions ... who benefitted,
and

WHO DID 911???

Come on, your built-in Lie-detector has already registered the
deceit... the needle of your sensors has already wiggled at the thought
that 9/11 was an inside job.

Let go, follow your instinct, become a hated conspiracy nut.

What is TRUTH worth if you have to pay the rent.

What do I care about communists and jewish people marching off to the
CONCENTRATION CAMP ... the NAZI party is good for business...

Oh, America is the greatest country... !!

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:40:47 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Or in the worst case, compass headings and time of travel adjusted by wind
speed. The weather in Germany isn't always good enough for seeing the ground
from 30k feet.

Or indeed in the dark ! It's barely believable today that RAF navigators used
star sightings on early raids.

The RAF nighttime bombing campaign was a bit different, for one thing they
didn't pick a precision target, they just dropped on a whole city. Easy enough
to do in the dark that they got it right a whole lot more often than they got it
wrong.

On 24 Feb 2006 14:15:25 -0800, wrote:


Amazing how THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE is being defended, tooth and nail.

It's better than any alternative proposed so far.

Reality is complicated and sometimes seems illogical, but there WAS A
DEFINITIVE sequence of events.

None of which involved micro-nukes, anti-matter, mind control, invisible
ninjas or time machines; every alternative theory I've seen to date requires at
least one of these elements.