Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

TRUTH wrote:


Are you *qualified* to debunk the article, may I ask?

What "expertise" is required? Do you expect there aren't any experts
around that can debunk this fabrication?
It doesn't take a genus to understand that steering a plane into a
building 1400 feet tall and hundreds of feet wide would be possible with
some training? You do realize, of course, that non-pilots have actually
landed some aircraft in emergencies? Of course they weren't 757's, but
that doesn't mean someone with training couldn't have steered one into
the WTC.


You are stating a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon. Are you
suggesting that all of the people who stated it was a 757 actual saw a
F-14 and got mixed up? Do you think the 757 that normally flies with
that flight numeber took off and landed at a secret base and the
passengers didn't die at the Pentagon?

Truth,

Yes! And I shall have the last laugh. Believe me.


Oh, it's all a matter of belief to you. Sorry, I won't discuss your
wacky religion. As for the facts, well, you're wrong. But you can
believe all you want.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 2006-02-22, TRUTH wrote:
A turn as you described it is not a precision manoevre. It's a turn. The
plane can practically fly that itself with that degree of precision with
almost no pilot input.

It was a 360 degree diving precision maneuver. Do you have qualifications
to refute the aeronautical engineer who quote the article may I ask please?

Aeronautical engineers don't define precision flying any more than
chickens define how eggs are cooked. Pilots define what is precision
flying. A 360 degree descending flight path is something any student
pilot can accomplish with a high degree of accuracy. I have done
probably hundreds of these so-called 'precision maneuvers' myself. A 360
degree descending turn is a *basic* manuever, regardless of what any
aeronautical engineer might say, just as in a hard boiled egg is a basic
way to cook an egg, no matter what a chicken might think.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:

btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots? If so, are
any of you guys 757/767 pilots (not just simulators)? Are there any
Aeronautical Engineers here who have the education and training to
debunk the article scientifically?

I have flown light aircraft. It's easier than you might think. It's
also not such a big deal to fly big jets when you simply just want to
crash them.

Graham

But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?

It *wasn't* a precision manuevre. There's just a few clots who make out it
was in order to try and falsely bolster their silly 'argument'.

Graham

Dylan Smith wrote:

A turn as you described it is not a precision manoevre. It's a turn. The
plane can practically fly that itself with that degree of precision with
almost no pilot input.

Especially when the only real goal is to keep the plane intact until it
hits the target. It doesn't matter how ugly and violent the turns are,
only that the plane continues to fly. Even stress damage is
inconsequential if it's less than failure limits.

Students with zero stick time turn airplanes during the very first
lesson. It's not very hard to do.

Skill only gets involved when one needs to keep passengers comfortable,
fly smoothly, fly in bad weather or tight conditions, or avoid breaking
an airplane.

These guys flew airplanes into targets that were visible from far away,
located in the middle of an area (the NYC skyline) that's visible from
_extremely_ far away, with a huge river that points right to it on a
perfect VFR day.

Even a non-pilot who's been a passenger, just once on a day that clear,
should be able to understand just how far away the NYC skyline is visible.

I'm a "real" pilot who has no doubt those guys flew those planes...

TRUTH wrote:

Dylan Smith wrote in
:

On 2006-02-22, TRUTH wrote:
But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?

A turn as you described it is not a precision manoevre. It's a turn. The
plane can practically fly that itself with that degree of precision with
almost no pilot input.

It was a 360 degree diving precision maneuver. Do you have qualifications
to refute the aeronautical engineer who quote the article may I ask please?

You mean to refuse *ONE* kook idiot ?

How about al the pilots who say it *wasn't* precision flying at all ?

Graham

TRUTH wrote:



"In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an
EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six
large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard”
instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight
data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and
progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with
regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no
ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and
then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this
information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an
instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in
relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as
“IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules."

It was a clear sunny day so everything you said above is irrelavant.
Also it does not take an instrument rated pilot to do lok at the EFIS
and determine where you are. It is much easier to tell where you are
BECAUSE of the EFIS.




"According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up
over Washington DC

The radar controller never said he popped up without warning.


and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a
rate of 360 degrees/minute

There was nothing incredibly precise about it, or did there need to be.


while descending at 3,500 ft/min,

A descent of that rate is in the middle of the normal range for an airliner.


at the end
of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level.

He didn't level out, he crashed into the building.


Oh, I almost
forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in
the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver

If you know where it is it's like turning off a light.

(one of his instructors
later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his
life depended on it)."

He was a foreigner, spelling was not second nature.



"The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a
commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers
at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the
maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar
room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a
military plane.”"

Because it was unexpecte, not because it was difficult.



"And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the
Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him."

Have you seen a picture of the area from the air? Antbody could pick
out the Pentagon.



"But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot.
You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most
densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military
brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld.

He wouldn't have any idea who occupied that part of the Pentagon.


Presumably in order
to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn
and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns
himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited
due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120
civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work
included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing)."

He did that because he was going to miss the building on his first attempt.



"I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large
commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH.

Nothing impossible about it.

A
discussion on ground effect energy,

No such thing.


tip vortex compression,

You're making **** up.


downwash
sheet reaction,

Now that's just funny.



wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the
scope of this article

Wake turbulence and jet blast affect aircraft behind the one making it.


(the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown
whole semi-trucks off the roads.)

Sure, if the trucks were within a couple hundred feet and the aircraft
was sitting on the ground. But a flying aircraft cannot blow any
vehicle over.



"Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-
lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH."

It's well within the capabilities of every airliner.







According to the article, the alledged hijackers would have had to be
trained instrument pilots,

No.


and thoroughly familiar with the 757/767 six
large screen LCD display in order to pilot the aircraft.

No.

TRUTH wrote:





On what basis do you say this? If a pilot cannot see the ground, and
cannot use instruments, how are they not flying blind?

Problem is there wasn't a cloud in the sky that day, therefore they
weren't flying blind.

TRUTH wrote:




The point is that the article's author says that pilots use their
instruments when flying at that high altitude.

He's blurring the lines. Above 18,000 feet pilots are required to be on
an instrument flight plan. That may or may not require them to use
their instruments for navigation.



So if they're not
instrument trained, aren't they really "flying blind"? (I know I would
be)

It is easy to teach a person to read a couple of instruments and get to
a certain place once you have already been placed in the air.



The flight instructors said they couldn't fly.

Anybody can fly a plane once it's already in the air with minimal
instruction. The skill comes in taking off and landing.


That's been reported all
over the news the past few years. And at least one of them couldn't even
spell.

How is that even relavant?


How on earth could they pilot 757/767s? How is it realistic to
think that they could?

You make it sound like brain surgery. Any dolt can fly a plane that's
already in the air.




btw, are any of the responders to my posts real pilots?

Yep.


Are there any Aeronautical
Engineers here who have the education and training to debunk the article
scientifically?

You don't need an engineer. Anybody in the aviation industry reads that
and laughs.

TRUTH wrote:






But how does that account for the precision maneuver in a 757 at the
Pentagon from a failed Cessna pilot?

It wasn't a precision manuver. He turned the airplane in a circle. Even
you could do that.