The impossibility of mere humans to fly heavy aircraft into huge buildings

[Swede]

And no way can they ever learn to do it. Can't be done.

[HornBuckler]

1. That's the least questionable thing about 9/11

But yes, I agree - pretty hard to swallow.

[lightbulb]

2. Well, that's a relief

Thanks.

[rman]

3. No-one has claimed that

And you know it.

The question is how probable it is that poorly trained pilots would be able to pull this of on their first flight in a large passenger jet.

[Debunking911]

4. If that were true

they wouldn't be able to land them either. It takes less skill to hit a building than land. All you have to do is point. That's like saying you can't hit a lamp post with a truck because it's harder to drive than a car. It's a logical fallacy.

[quickesst]

5. logical fallacy fun...

To compare driving a truck into a lamp post to navigating a 757 into a specific target is laughable. I could drive a truck when I was six years old, BUT, I could hit a lamp post with one when I was four. I believe there may be just a wee bit more involved in negotiating the passenger jet. Thanks.
quickesst

[Debunking911]

6. What's laughable is

compairing a 4 year old to college graduated people with pilots licenses. People who their instructors said they had no doubt they could fly the plane into a building. Take offs, landings and instrument rating is another thing.

Without making it sound to easy, an airliner is just a very sluggish plane. If you can point the plane to a runway, you can point the plane to a building. No difference. You don't have to learn how to land it, just point it.

[quickesst]

7. OK....

Show me the quote where the instructor that was acually teaching them said this guy could take control of a 757 in mid-flight, plot the course to the Pentagon, make the "documented" maneuvers, then hit the target. If you are talking about an inexperienced pilot appearing suddenly at the controls with the 757 pointed in at least the general direction of said target, then yes, he may have gotten lucky. Now, I have no experience whatsoever with aviation, but, this particular gentleman seems able enough to recognize a fairy tale when he hears one.

Mr. Sagadevan, who is an aeronautical engineer and experienced airline pilot?

“Let’s look at it at its most elemental level,” said Sagadevan in an extended telephone conference this week from his home near San Diego. “There is not one Arab name on any of the four flight manifests. How did the alleged hijackers board these aircraft? Next, seven of the nineteen hijackers are alive and well in the Middle East today; one died well before 9/11. How does one explain that? Then, the government wants us to believe that a person who could not solo a little Cessna-172 took over the controls of a huge Boeing 757 jetliner and performed complicated maneuvers that experienced pilots could have never performed.



“I cannot emphasize enough a crucial fact: ‘Flying’ an airplane is one thing. Finding an invisible target is something else altogether. From my point of view, it would have been impossible for these utterly incompetent pilots — whose instructors claimed ‘COULD NOT FLY AT ALL’(my caps) -- to have accomplished this feat. If this was fabricated by the government, then so was the rest of the 9/11 story.”

And of course, this is just one of the testimonials by experienced pilots, both Vietnam war pilots, airline pilots, and in some cases, both. Somehow, these guys just seem to know what they're talking about. Thanks.
quickesst

[Debunking911]

8. "he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it"

This is the cached version because newsday moved the story...

Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:p_D-M_mMDGkJ:www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story+Despite+Hanjour%27s+poor+reviews,+he+did+have+some+ability+as+a+pilot,+said+Bernard+of+Freeway+Airport.+%22There%27s+no+doubt+in+my+mind+that+once+that+%5Bhijacked+jet%5D+got+going,+he+could+have+pointed+that+plane+at+a+building+and+hit+it,%22+he+said&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

[seatnineb]

10. Really?...this Italian pilot says Pentagon plane trajectory is ridiculouse

Here is Claudio Galavotti.

He is a commercial pilot for Alitalia.

He has also flown miltary aircraft.

This is what he had to say when asked about Hanjour's ability to pilot a plane into the Pentagon .The program was called "Pentagono Misteri" that was shown on Italian TV(2/20/06)



Ma basta toccarli e fare una spostamento di 100 metri in quota....quindi sull asse orizontale........e' veramente ridicolo.......cioe' bisogna avere tutta una serie di condizioni particolari di restare attacato al terreno......io credo che non e ' una cosa semplice.

It just needs a touch and there would be a movement of 100 metres at altitude.....on the horizontal axis...it is just ridicolouse....you would need a set of particular circumstances to remain so close to the ground....I believe that it is no easy thing

So there you have it......a qualified pilot saying that the way the plane was flown into the Pentagon is "RIDICULOUSE".

[Debunking911]

12. Anyone I can double check, someone from america?

As you can see from the loose change video no one should trust anything. Not the government or the conspiracy theorist. I want to be able to double check this. So far everything I check into has a twist to it. I'm not saying this isn't legit but I need to be able to check.

[seatnineb]

13. It is legit.......deal with it...besides you won't like what you find!

Here.....swallow some more.....

When asked how he would cope if he had to fly the same way Hani Hanjour did ...this is what he had to say......



Dovrei metterci veramente tanto tanto impegno perche non e' una cosa semplice dal mio punto di vista....credo che chi ha fatto questa attivita possa capire cosa vuole dire stare a 10 metri a terra 5 metri a terra con un aereoplano che pesa 110 120 tonellatto lanciato 900 km al ora...........basta toccare la cloche.......e schizza via.......ma schizza facendo variazioni 100 metri......non di 10 metri.....

I would have too work really really hard because it is not an easy thing from my point of view.....I believe whoever did this understood what it it means to stay 10 or 5 metres off the ground with an aeroplane that weighs 110 or 120 tonnes going at 900kmh......it would just need a touch of the yoke ........and you would go off course....but you would go off course by a 100 metres or so.....not 10 metres....

[HornBuckler]

14. Good post and point

Unfortunately, some folks need him to be American to be 'credible'. And a lot of folks around here seem to think they could hop into a jumbo jet and fly it around like riding a bike. It's pretty damn ridiculous. To take the 'official story' on it's word would mean that all four flights were the first time ANY of them had flown a real aircraft. Seems like a pile of steaming BS to me.

[Debunking911]

18. If the instructor says it's doable by him

why are you so sure it's not?

[HornBuckler]

20. I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE

just highly suspect. Remember - this was the first time any of these four pilots had EVER flown a real plane/Boeing Jet. What do you think the odds would be in Vegas for 4 guys with some simulator training and no real world experience to pull off what they did? I am no statistician but i'd guess 10,000 to 1 or so. It's just not plausible in my opinion. True, true I am NO expert - But consider this


Take yourself and 3 friends - go to a foreign country and take some simulator/flying lessons - then get 15 other friends to help takeover the planes needed so you and your 3 buddies can fly them into key targets in that foreign country - How confident are you that you could pull that off? I sure as shit don't think it's possible. Maybe I need to hang out with more super beings.

Just curious - your handle is Debunking911 but you seem to be disagreeing with/not even entertaining the questions raised on several topics about 911 - i'm curious what you think went down on 9/11?

Edit - typos and added middle part

[Jazz2006]

21. "this was the first time any of these four pilots had EVER flown a real...

plane"


Are you sure about that? What makes you think that's true?

[HornBuckler]

23. Well as far as the official story that's what I've gathered.

I put real plane/boeing jet - I think I can be pretty damn sure it's the first time any of them had flown in a Boeing jet - can I be absolutely certain? NO, but neither can you that they had flown one - Therefore we can deduce that the odds are probably in my favor in regards to large commercial airliners. (based on them being from countries where these planes aren't easily accessible - hell, that are not easily accessible here - so chances are they had never flown a commercial airliner)

But, theoretically I could be wrong - I don't think any of these guys flew any plane on or before 9/11 - I personally don't buy any of the official story. See my middle paragraph for some of my reasoning behind this belief.



Edit again for typos - sheesh!

[Jazz2006]

26. So, it's not a "real plane" if it's not a Boeing?

O.... kay.

And if they had never flown (you actually said flown IN but I'll assume that's an error and that you didn't really mean that flying IN a jet is the same thing as flying a jet) a "Boeing jet" before, they couldn't possibly do so for half an hour or so on September 11, 2001?

What makes you think that they couldn't? It's really not all that difficult.

"Therefore we can deduce..."

Your "therefore" is misplaced given that is relies upon at least two logical fallacies to begin with. And for the same reason, so is the "we can deduce" and everything that follows it without further elucidation.

Care to elucidate?

[HornBuckler]

27. I use real plane to eliminate simulator time

And I further clarify by using commercial airliner - You seem to have a great trend on getting on semantics of people's posts and not their intentions/meanings. So I will put it another way, because honestly I would like to know and the following question is really what I believe you and I are both after.

What do you think happened on 9/11?

I realize your answer may be complicated/lengthy but just in a paragraph or two, whatcha think happened?

[Jazz2006]

31. Ahh, well, why didn't you say that?

You never mentioned simulators at all until now. Don't blame me or start casting aspersions on me about semantics just because I haven't the psychic ability to know that when you said "real planes/Boeing jets" and went on to insist that you meant Boeing jets that I was somehow supposed to know that you meant something entirely different but that you had never mentioned.

Sheesh.

As for what I think happened on September 11, 2001, yes, you're right, the answer may be complicated and lengthy.... but for the nutshell version, you can search on my name here and find it as I've posted it before.

[HornBuckler]

33. Well the fact that I knew you've flown a DC-8 should tell you

something - I obviously know you know about simulator time and other things. I have searched but maybe I've missed it? I see a lot of arguments with other posters, but no real gut feeling of what you think went down. I will continue to search though, I believe you've posted it somewhere and I will continue to look.

Edit : I'll have to donate again to search with any efficiency - all I am left with is a manual hunt and that takes awhile but I will search again at my buddies house (who is a current donor - I used to be but that's another story) I should donate, and I plan on doing so next drive, but nevertheless you can understand me having difficulty finding your thoughts manually.

[Jazz2006]

36. No worries...

When I have some extra time, I'll do a search myself and post it to you if you can't search at present.

(I didn't realize that you couldn't search at present when I suggested that you do so.)

[HornBuckler]

29. You deserve your explanation and here it is

I'll take your word that it's 'easy' (although I have trouble buying it, I'll assume you know what you're talking about) to fly a plane in to a building. That said, the events of the day would severely complicate things, would they not? They've got box cutters and a hostage situation, screaming passengers, dead and or threatened pilots to deal with - adrenaline has got to be through the roof and it is more than likely the first time they've been behind the controls of a Boeing jet - now does that sound lake a walk in the park?

and if so, you should work for the CIA or something, maybe the Justice League - because you seem super human to me.

[Jazz2006]

34. More strawmen...

1) I never said that flyng a large jet was a walk in the park. It isn't difficult, though. The tough parts are taking off and landing, not flying.

2) I am not super human, just human like everyone else here.

3) I've never hijacked an airplane or been on a hijacked airplane and I don't pretend that I know any more than anyone else about what went on in those cockpits on that day. All I'm saying is that flying the jet isn't particularly difficult. You can set up all the strawmen you like and take great pleasure in knocking them down, but that doesn't change anything that I've actually said and it doesn't strengthen your argument any.

[HornBuckler]

38. That's absurd Jazz, and you're not being honest

You said it was 'very easy' to fly a plane into a building. We aren't exactly talking about flying a plane into a building are we? That's part of it, but you and I both know in a vacuum the 'very easy' you speak may be plausible. But this was no vacuum - It was filled to the brim with a hellish nightmare if we are to believe the official story and to perform in that scenario would take nerves of steel. Do you not agree on that point?

I really don't get the leap to 'straw man' for one to make any sensible argument about the events of that day a bit of projection/assumption needs to be done.

for instance - I'm pretty sure the pilot didn't say "hey come on up here and fly this baby into the WTC"

There was a struggle, there had to be. It was probably bloody and or at least violent. Forceful entry and take over of the cockpit had to happen. Then, after all that they had to hit their intended target.

Where is the 'straw man' there? Sounds pretty much what would be necessary to pull off, does it not?

And again you didn't say it was a walk in the park, but you did say very easy - they seem pretty interchangeable to me. and please don't say you were commenting on the flying of the plane in a vacuum and not taking into account the events that would lead up to impact.

[Jazz2006]

43. Au contraire....

1) I am always honest, your ill founded accusations to the contrary notwithstanding.

2) I said it is very easy to fly a jetliner - because it is. Like I said earlier, I don't think I'm smarter or more competent than most people here. Thus, I think that given instruction and access to the controls and instruction from a pilot, most people here could fly one, too, without any formal training. Not take off and land. Fly.

3) If you are a hijacker intent on killing yourself and a whole bunch of other people in the process, I don't think that you would see the events you describe as a "hellish nightmare" at all. I don't know where you get the idea that there had to be a struggle on all of the planes - it's possible, but it's by no means a given, no evidence that there was any such struggle on the first three, and by rational basis that I can think of that those pulling it off would consider it a "nightmare".

4) As for "forceful entry" - maybe, maybe not. It could have been as easy as having someone open it voluntarily without any idea what was to follow.

5) "Take over" - yes. But it could have been as easy as walking in and slitting the throats of the pilots before they even turned around if there was no violent entry in the first place.

I spent a few years in the cockpits of airplanes, and it wasn't exactly eventful when the door opened.

6) "There was a struggle, there had to be."

What do you mean, "there had to be"? If the hijackers got in by subterfuge or by threatening someone to open the door without making a lot of noise or simply by opening a door that may not have been secured, etc., there is no reason to think that the flight crew would even turn around or pay any attention to the door opening, and no reason to think there would necessarily have been a struggle. Of course, we don't know for sure what happened, but as far as I can tell, there were no transmissions by pilots saying that they had cockpit intrusions or that they'd been hijacked, which suggests that they were not in a position to make such tranmissions. And that, in turn, suggests that they may have been killed quickly.

7) "And again you didn't say it was a walk in the park, but you did say very easy - they seem pretty interchangeable to me."

You say tomato, I say tomato (I'll assume you can read the different pronunciations into that). I don't think they're interchangeable. Why bother changing my words when "easy" is a whole lot shorter and succinct than "a walk in the park" unless you're playing games and deliberately trying to misrepresent what I said?

8) "and please don't say you were commenting on the flying of the plane in a vacuum and not taking into account the events that would lead up to impact."

Not in a vaccuum, no. But not in the specific events that you have chosen to describe here (without a shred of evidence to support it) as a hellish nightmare, forceful, violent, etc. etc. etc... If you actually look at the thread where this originated, it was, in fact, all about flying jets without formal training - period - and not at all about the various and sundry scenarios that you imagine may or may not have existed. Seems like just another strawman on your part.

[HornBuckler]

46. Ok. Uhh yeah.

I appreciate your reply, I sincerely do. But let's try and cut the crap, please?

You want me to believe it's even slightly probable there wasn't some sort of struggle? Again, we are talking about at least 3 of the 4 planes. None of the flights had any violence or take-over threats/situation? Come on!? On all the other hijackings that have happened in the past the crew at the very least was aware they were being hi-jacked. All of this with mere box cutters nonetheless. I have been on a lot of flights and don't ever remember casually walking into the cockpit. To believe that 3 of the 4 take-overs didn't hit a confrontational situation is absurd.

You say that I am asking the 'wrong questions' - again I am having trouble following you. The story of 19 hi-jackers taking over 4 planes and 3 of them hitting their intended target is the real conspiracy here.


You're right, I have no evidence to support a 'struggle' but one can assume a struggle must have occurred. Like I said before, I'm sure the pilots didn't fold over and say sure - crash this plane buddy. Come on Jazz. You must realize I have some valid points, and to discredit them with a broad brush (there is no evidence) is really not being fair or 'open' to my suggestions at all. Of course there is no evidence. All we have is speculation, and I feel the probability of little to no struggle on at least 3 of the 4 planes HIGHLY improbable.

But I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree until the official story comes out. (if ever)

Peace.

[Jazz2006]

48. Once again....

You keep putting words in my mouth that I've never said.

It really does grow wearisome.

Just in your last post alone, here are some of the things I have never said, which you seem to attribute to me.

1) That I want you to believe that that there wasn't some sort of struggle
2) That none of the flights had any violence or take-over threats/situation
3) That 3 of the 4 take-overs didn't hit a confrontational situation


I have never said any of those things that you attribute to me. Just as I have never said a whole bunch of other things that you seem to attribute to me in prior posts.

And yes, I do say you're asking the wrong questions because it appears to me that you are starting from a preconceived viewpoint and considering only the things that might potentially support your preconceived notions instead of starting from a neutral viewpoint and considering all of the evidence and following it wherever it leads. This is, sadly, a far too common mistake that is made by conspiracy theorists.

It's called tunnel vision.

It's understandable at a certain level that conspiracy theorists make the same mistakes, particularly since the same mistake is made over and over again by those who should know better (i.e. police officers who are presumed to be able conduct investigations properly), but that's no excuse for buying into it.

Tunnel vision has led to numerous wrongful convictions of innocent people. That's reason enough not to employ the same tactic here.

(I could go on and on about the extent to which tunnel vision has resulted in wrongful convictions and wrongful executions but that's for another thread. The point here is that the exact same tunnel vision ought not be used by conspiracy theorists to try to support unsupportable premises, but that's what the vast majority of the CT sites do.)


4) "But I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree until the official story comes out. (if ever)"

Sure. I'm okay with that.

5) "Peace"

That's something we can agree on without reservation. Peace.

Cheers,
Jazz.

[Jazz2006]

22. Hornbuckler, I don't think the source has to be American to be credible...

but considering that most people here are not likely fluent in written Italian, it would be helpful to have a source in English, which is the language used here on DU.

Re: your second point, flying a jet is not particularly difficult even without formal training, and it seems that these guys did have flight training. Taking off and landing are difficult, yes, but flying isn't. That said, coming in at such a low altitude at high speed as was exhibited at the Pentagon would certainly be more difficult than hitting the WTC towers.

Re: your third point, what makes you think that the hijackers had never flown a real aircraft before?

[HornBuckler]

24. Well you and I disagree on the skill required to fly

I understand you have flown before (A DC-8 as I recall) so you definitely are more qualified than I as to the difficulty in flying a jet. However, I find it NO small or easy task to pull off what we're to believe was pulled off - Remember this wasn't just one plane - but four. And as we are to be told - they hit 3 of the 4 targets PERFECTLY or at least in the case of the WTC - Just sounds statistically impossible - And how much training do you have in flying a plane that low into a friggin building? Who has that kind of training? Maybe one pilot could get lucky and hit his intended target, but 3 outa 4? Not buying it.

As far as the Italian - I'm not fluent but I've clicked the link and checked it out a bit and it does seem to be translated accurately.

and on the third point, I've responded in a separate message.

EDIT - oh and most importantly, why weren't they shot down? There are so many questions that haven't been answered it boggles the mind.

[Jazz2006]

28. Stretch DC8, actually, but that's beside the point.

1) I realize that you think it "no small or easy task" but unless I'm smarter and more competent than most other people here - and I don't think I am - it actually WAS very easy.

2) What makes you think they hit 3 of their 4 targets "perfectly"? They only had to hit them somewhere, and particularly in the case of the WTC towers, those were massive targets standing head and shoulders above everything else in sight - not difficult to hit. Hitting the Pentagon would certainly be more difficult given its height, but it still a HUGE building that is easily identified from the air and that happens to be in a location that is very friendly to sight-navigation.

3) I'm not fluent in written Italian either. I do understand spoken Italian at least when it's spoken in the dialects that my Mom spoke. My point was simply that it serves no useful purpose to post an Italian language cite here as "proof" of anything since 99% of the people reading it won't be able to decipher it and Babelfish and other online translation services are notoriously bad when it comes to detail.

4) I'm not sure that the last one wasn't shot down.

5) Yes, lots of questions, indeed. You just seem to be asking the wrong ones.

[HornBuckler]

32. No No, not the last one

Why weren't the other three shot down? And what other questions are you talking about? And your comment about very easy is beyond ridiculous - do you understand they had to get on the plane first - take it over - get into the cockpit - man handle the pilot and co-pilot - secure the screaming passengers - somehow get their heart rate to a level where they could even see straight and then fly into a building - again, you sound like superman/woman here


Most folks get stressed in rush hour traffic, but these four dudes in a hostage situation performed pretty damn near perfect (in the sense they hit what they intended) but hey, apparently most folks on this board could do the same thing in your opinion - I don't buy it on any level.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Debunking911]

30. The reality is

these questions were answered but the conspiracy sites give half truths and leave out things all together. The timeline can be seen here...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=dayOf911

[Debunking911]

17. I take it you can't prove it's legit.

That's OK. I'll look into it further. But I don't take anyones word for anything. Not the government and not the conspiracy theory sites.

[seatnineb]

50. Wow!...you are really are desperate!...eat this...it is 100% legit.

http://www.nexusitalia.com/nexus_new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65



Note that Galavotti did not say that it is impossible to fly a plane into the Pentagon....just that it is very fuckin' hard!

Which contadicts your bullshit about "merely pointing it into the target"

As for being legit

You say your brother in law the second plane hit the WTC?

Prove it.

We will see who is legit!

[Sterling]

76. Wow and the other is an airline pilot?

I am sorry but please don't ask people to believe this kind of stuff. Just stick to the facts. If people want to become "experts" by dropping names and such, at least have the courtesy to identify yourself and verify your story is authentic.

[Sinti]

35. Thanks for the article. They could have had training elsewhere, also

I'm pretty sure we don't know everything they did. Why would they get flying lessons here, though, it doesn't make sense. Why not Pakistan, or Egypt, or somewhere a little less conspicuous? Their plans could have come undone here really quickly if anybody had been on the ball. The thought of my own government being that incompetent is really disturbing to me.

[Tobias]

9. "There is no Arab name on any flight manifests" -> THAT´S ANOTHER LIE!

Just look at the manifests. The Terrorists are listed there.

[Sterling]

77. Funny I was here after 9-11 and the manifests had no hijackers on them

when we reviewed them initially. When did this change?

[Tobias]

80. That´s nonsense, because the manifests weren´t released before 2005

If you do not agree please show me where you found them.

Just show manifests without hijackers. You cannot.

[Debunking911]

11. Sagadevan is not the best spokes person..

..He isn't just a commercial pilot who doesn't have anything to gain from this. He writes books about extraterrestrial phenomena, has a radio show and is a conspiracy theorist. Even his own book's bio doesn't make him sound to unbiased.

"Sagadevan, who was the featured guest in a television documentary on extraterrestrial phenomena, also hosted his own radio program, The Open Mind, in the 1980s. The program, which discussed declassified "Top Secret" government documents obtained through the Freedom Of Information Act, reached millions of listeners in the US and Europe."

Do you have something from a pilot who is just a commercial pilot? Someone who has nothing to gain from lying? Also, what airline did he work for and how many hours does he have in a 767/757. It flys very different than a 747.

I have flown a small plane and used the VOR. It's not hard to point a plane using the wheel and Rutter. (I don't mean Microsoft flight Sim either) The hardest thing to do is land and take off. The instructor who said he had trouble on landing also said it wasn't uncommon for him to have to land the plane for students.

You have to remember, most of the instruments are there for preflight checks and monitoring like you would the oil, battery and other instruments of a car. Knowing or not knowing the fuel pressure doesn't help you point the plane. You simply need a VOR and landmarks along the way. The Washington monument is a hell of a landmark. This was the approach..



"1998
Hanjour was still living with Bandar in January, and the two of them both took flying lessons at Arizona Aviation, where Hanjour eventually earned his commercial pilot rating."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour

He was good enough to get a commercial license.

Another point I want to make is that the hits weren't perfect. The reason for them being at angles were the corrections they had to make on approach. So I don't know why people think it was so perfect? Even the pentagon hit was at an angle and hit the ground with one wing. It equaled a bad landing.

[Harper_is_Bush]

89. "plot a course"?

Didn't they just follow the river? And how hard is it to see New York?

Methinks you need to do more research perhaps...

What is your belief on this matter please? What is your opinion about who was involved and responsible for the planes hitting the twin towers? As well, do you believe there were explosives in the buildings?

[mirandapriestly]

15. Typical OCT Logic - Skill WAS necessary

skill that these "hijackers" did not have..

...However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from
Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.

http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm

"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,"

says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."



Flight 77: "The Plane Was Flown With Extraordinary Skill"
Once again: Operation 911 demanded that the attacks be tightly coordinated.
... If we are to believe
the story we are being told, the masterminds needed, at an absolute minimum,
pilots who could actually fly the planes and who could arrive at the right
place at the right time.
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, took off from Dulles Airport in
northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m. and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:40 a.m.
The Washington Post, September 12, says this: "Aviation sources said that
the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that
a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even
knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than
obvious."

According to the article, the air traffic controllers "had time to warn the
White House that the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was
traveling at a gut-wrenching speed--full throttle.

"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House,
the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a
fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees from the right to approach the
Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from
controller's screens, the sources said." ("On Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being
Hijacked'," The Washington Post, September 12, 2001, pgs. 1 & 11)
http://darrendixon.supanet.com/operation911.htm


Meet Ace Pilot Hani Hanjour
http://www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story
...
However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender,
soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August,
they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172.
Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging
600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined
to rent him a plane without more lessons.

[Debunking911]

16. I guess you didn't read the newsday link...

which conspiracy sites don't like to show you...

This is the cached version because newsday moved the story...

Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:p_D-M_mMDGkJ:www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story+Despite+Hanjour%27s+poor+reviews,+he+did+have+some+ability+as+a+pilot,+said+Bernard+of+Freeway+Airport.+%22There%27s+no+doubt+in+my+mind+that+once+that+%5Bhijacked+jet%5D+got+going,+he+could+have+pointed+that+plane+at+a+building+and+hit+it,%22+he+said&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

And yes, low flying airliners traveling at 500 miles an hour and taking sharper than normal turns would look like a fighter to someone who never saw an airliner in a normal approach do that before. It doesn't mean it's a fighter. Did anyone bother to get a clarification from them? No...

People describe things all the time which aren't what they say they are just so the person hearing it understands better. Below is an example of what conspiracy theorist like to do with quotes...
____________________

Government covers up freight train accidents…

"The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.”

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php

Did a fright train pass over their head? Was there a giant pencil sharpener over there heads?

“While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here”

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/09/02/wisconsin.tornado/index.html

"It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess."

http://www.offenburger.com/farmarchive.asp?link=20040906

It came with "the roar of forty freight trains."

http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm

“It sounded like a freight train”.

http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2954

“Before I reached the bottom of the stairs, I heard the sound of a roaring freight train”



As you can see there was no tornado on that day according to NOAA.

So why is the government covering up train derailments?



In 2003 Amtrak was going bankrupt. They couldn't afford to rebuild the homes of Americans after a derailment.

ETC.. ETC..
__________________

This goes beyond sloppy research. They purposely cut important information out of there sources and invent straw men which aren't there.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Debunking911]

25. Amen..

..brother

[mirandapriestly]

40. and you didn't read my WaPo information which is better

"some ability as a pilot" is not:

"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,"


This is the best you can do?

[ediedidcare]

39. what about the impossibility

of flying a jetliner airplane at ground level because of the lack of lift under the wings?

just wondering...

[mirandapriestly]

41. This ENTIRE THREAD is based on a strawman argument

-that the pilots were just crashing into large buildings -when in actuality they had very specific targets and maneuvered and turned very precisely to hit them
but that doesn't stop them from "proving" how mediocre a pilot Hanhjour REALLY was with "Newsday" (from Rove's lips to theirs) articles.
and they picked up the terms "straw man" and "ad hominem" from people telling them that that is what they do, and now they CONSTANTLY misuse the terms to describe other posts.

[HornBuckler]

44. Thanks.... I truly understand what you are saying.

It is pretty absurd, what some folks are saying. I guess we are 'tin-foil hatters'. Man, that is so discouraging. In do time, the truth will hopefully come out - until then all we can do is cite the obvious.

It would take a damn near miracle to pull this off, not to mention the collapse of the buildings and a hundred other anomalies on that day.

[mirandapriestly]

45. They are the "tin foil hatters"

the official conspiracy theory is ridiculous especially in light of some of the facts that are less known to the public. The masses are known to believe some really ridiculous things - these people are no different.

[HornBuckler]

47. Amen.

At least I'm not alone in critical thinking.

:)

[Jazz2006]

49. ROTFLMAO

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry, but that post and the one to which it purports to respond are just wayyyyyyy too funny for words.

[mirandapriestly]

52. HAHA, ;)

[HornBuckler]

42. Yeah, good point

I will say it again people.

Look at the reality that was involved in the so called official version of what happened.

19 dudes - four airliners - hostage situation, box cutters, death and or violence - little to no experience behind the controls of a commercial airliner and they somehow got cool and calm enough to hit 3 of the 4 targets?

Please!

How is this even feasible to any logical thinking person?

the odds of such are staggering. I guess I am wasting my time typing this, but I think people really need to take a look (not at the evidence, but at rather what we are expected to swallow about this whole 9/11 thing).

Films like loose change etc are great, at least they are forcing people to re-think their previous ideals about what happened. But you don't need a film to question what we are supposed to believe happened on that day.

The odds of hijacking four planes and hitting 3 out of 4 targets not getting shot down or intercepted in any fashion/sans maybe flight 93 - is so far out of the park I can't fathom people would entertain the 'official' story.

There are some highly intelligent people here, and I respect each and every one of you. But to delude yourself in the 'official' story is absurd. If it helps you sleep at night, cool. But I, for one, am not buying it.

[greyl]

51. That's totally untrue bs.

How the hell do you think planes ever take off?

I assume you're just repeating something you heard somewhere without the knowledge of how wings work.

[quickesst]

53. Jazz2006 wrote....

"Worst of all is that the :tinfoilhat: brigade doesn't even seem to realize that their spouting of such nonsense just helps Bush and hurts the real quest for truth."

You haven't given one clear example of the truth you talk about. I don't have to go back and search old posts to remind myself what I believe, and I can sum it up in a couple of sentences. That would be like waking up with amnesia every day, and having to catch up, with notes, on what I believed the day before.

Like I stated in my earlier post, sitting someone with even a rudimentary knowledge of flying in the seat with the plane pointed at the target, and you might get lucky. Please address this arab hijacker's supposed skills in using the planes instruments to plot the course to the target. No. Don't throw in deflecting bullshit. TELL ME HOW THIS HIJACKER WAS ABLE TO NAVIGATE AND PLOT A COURSE TO HIS TARGET. The hijacking occurred in mid-flight. The original course for the airliner was already plotted. What kind of skill is required to alter the course of a 757, with transponder off. Did they look out the window and say, "The pentagon is that way." If these hijackers had the skills to navigate a plane from a position many miles away, at 30,000 ft or so, plot a new course, successfully pull off a maneuver that skilled combat and airline pilots would not attempt, then those guys that spent years learning to navigate these planes could have saved thamselves a whole lot of time and money by simply taking a few courses at the local flight school.

And about quoting a source in English. Am I the only one here who sees the English translation, you know, RIGHT UNDER THE ORIGINAL QUOTE IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, or do I have a special translating computer that noone else has.B-) Thanks.
quickesst

ps: Please address the questions asked. I get your point in being able to fly a plane into a target if it's pointed at the target. What about those minutes from the initial takeover of the plane to visual sight of the Pentagon?

[sgsmith]

55. Changing an airplane's direction.

Is easy. Turn off the autopilot, and the control column and rudder pedals are fully functional. Turn the wheel to the left and you go left. Pull back on the wheel and you go up. In fact, using the controls usually disengages the autopilot automatically.

Basic pilotage using instruments is taught fairly early in a private pilot's learning process. The simplest device is the VOR, which all you have to do is tune in the radio frequency, adjust the OBS and fly to the radio station. I haven't checked a chart, but there's bound to be a high power VOR at National Airport. More likely is the highjackers keyed into the autopilot the airport designator (DCA I believe) for National, and let the autopilot fly to within visual range of Washington. Turning off the transponder doesn't have anything to do with navigating the airplane, any more than turning off your car radio interefers with you ability to use the in-dash navigation unit to show streets.

If you look at the Flight 77 ground path as displayed on Wikipedi, it shows a wide turn, followed by a nearly arrow straight path to Washington. That path, I believe, is close to what you'd see with an autopilot driven turn and flight to a fix. I'm not sure what altitudes the plane was at, but the final turn started at 7,000 ft I believe. So somewhere between Ohio and Virginia the plane lost 23,000 feet altitude. It's been a while since I was in the left seat, but the view from 7000 feet is usually above the haze layer and you can see a long way. I know that when I fly commercial to New York, I'm usually able to look out the passenger window and pick out Washington from a distance. And no, the pilot doesn't get on the PA to say "Washington is on the left side of the airplane".

The basic fact is that flying an airplane in cruise mode isn't a terribly difficult thing to do. It's the non-cruise modes - taking off, landing, emergencies, IFR conditions - that make a commerical pilot's job difficult and training so extensive. Also, pilots go through retraining on everything at least annually, but most of that training is on emergency procedures.

[seatnineb]

54. No you are wrong.

Flying so close to the ground like the plane that we are told hit the Pentagon is very difficult

Swallow some facts for a change....

Here is Alitalia pilot Claudio Gavalotti:



.......... being interviewed by presenter Roberto Olla on a program that was called Pentagono Misteri.

It was shown on 2/20/06 on RaiUno one of the state-owned TV channels in Italy.

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:WkiYF0fxOZgJ:www.nexusitalia.com/nexus_new/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D653%26Itemid%3D69+Per+pentagono+misteri+rai&hl=it&gl=it&ct=clnk&cd=3

Roberto Olla:

Se lei dovesse pilotare un areo a raso terra come invece e' arrivato questo aereo a 800 e passa km al ora...e qui ce una strada gliela ricordo............di fronte a quale difficolta si trovarebbe?

If you had to fly a plane close to the ground like this plane that was travelling at 800khm....and I'll remind you that there is a highway here...what kind of difficulties would you encounter?

Claudio Galavotti:

La prima difficolta sarrebbe quella di volare attacatto a terra...e lo so per esperienza dirretta avendo fatto volo milatare a bassa quota...........quindi si deve vincere la reazione instinta di "alzarsi"....primo.....secondo

The 1st difficulty would be to fly so close to the ground itself.... and I know having flown at low altitude during my time in the military....so you have to overcome the instinctive reaction to "raise"(the plane)...first....second.....

Roberto Olla:

il terreno corre.......

because the ground passes.....

Claudio Galavotti:

..... il terreno corre via ad una velocita incredibile........propia la reazione ancora di alzarsi
secondo......ce la turbulenza indotto dal terreno

... the ground passes by at an incredible speed...so the reaction to raise (the plane)....second...there is the turbulence induced by the ground....

Roberto Olla:

Che significa turbulenza?

What does turbulence mean?

Claudio Galavotti:

Mano mano che ci si avvicina a terra piu si va in zona di aria perturbata......vento vicino a terra non ha una direzione predeterminata .....ma ruota in funzione degi ostacoli........quindi ci sono tutta una serie di turbulenza che fanno si che si e' molto difficile stare veramente appiccicata per terra.

Little by little as you get closer to the ground the more you go into a zone where the air is "unsettled"....the wind close to the ground does not have a pre-determined direction....but circulates in accordance to the obstacles.......so there is a lot of turbulence that makes it very difficult to remain so close to the ground.

[greyl]

56. to seatnineb: Wrong about what? nt

[seatnineb]

57. You have no answer to this:

In the words of Claudio Galavotti:




Ma basta toccarli e fare una spostamento di 100 metri in quota....quindi sull asse orizontale........e' veramente ridicolo.......cioe' bisogna avere tutta una serie di condizioni particolari di restare attacato al terreno......io credo che non e ' una cosa semplice.

It just needs a touch and there would be a movement of 100 metres at altitude.....on the horizontal axis...it is just ridicolouse....you would need a set of particular circumstances to remain so close to the ground....I believe that it is no easy thing

So Greyl ,how did Hani Hanjour fly so close to the ground at 400- 500mph?

Any answers....quickly now.....

[sgsmith]

58. If he doesnt, I do

Say that "I believe that it is no easy thing" is not the same thing as saying it cant be done.

No, it would not be a an easy task. Personally, I think it was dumb luck.

[Ezlivin]

59. Dumb luck seems to be the order of the day

Hani Hanjour managed to pilot the aircraft - dumb luck.

He managed a descending spiraling approach without stalling the aircraft - dumb luck.

He clipped several light poles and maintained control - dumb luck.

He flew into the only side of the Pentagon that had been recently upgraded - dumb luck.

There were multiple drills involving hijacked aircraft that day - dumb luck.

Every single one of the hijacked aircraft were too far away to be intercepted - dumb luck.

Three steel-framed buildings collapsed into their footprints for the first time in history - dumb luck.

I wonder when dumb luck will strike us again?

[Sinti]

60. Bush hit the trifecta :) It's like a small fish being caught just before

a big one eats it, then the fisherman throws him back. So he grows up to be an even bigger fish (really, really fast) and turns around to eat the fish to which he was once food.

It can happen. :silly:

[sgsmith]

62. Or...

"Hani Hanjour managed to pilot the aircraft - dumb luck."
Or skilled planning and training by an adversary who wanted to successfully execute an attack. Supposedly he did have a commercial pilot's license.

"He managed a descending spiraling approach without stalling the aircraft - dumb luck."
Fast descending approaches don't cause stalls. Slow flight is when stalls occur for the most part. I believe jets stall at higher speed at higher altitudes, when the pressure is much lower than the sea level of Washington DC and New York City.

"He clipped several light poles and maintained control - dumb luck."
I think a jet wins the mass battle against a light pole.

"He flew into the only side of the Pentagon that had been recently upgraded - dumb luck."
1/5 or 20% chance. And if you look at it another way, he had a 80% chance of hitting a non-reinforced wedge. Guess the attack wasn't as well thought out as it could have been.

"There were multiple drills involving hijacked aircraft that day - dumb luck."
I assume that the U.S. military carries out drills for lots of reasons every day.

"Every single one of the hijacked aircraft were too far away to be intercepted - dumb luck."
Seeing how NORAD was postured to defend from attacks outside the continental US, and that the number of fighters on alert have been reduced due to the downfall of the Soviet Union, which was probably the only country able to mount an outside attack, not inconceivable.

"Three steel-framed buildings collapsed into their footprints for the first time in history - dumb luck."
Doesn't gravity pull things straight down? Last time I checked, that's how it worked.

"I wonder when dumb luck will strike us again?"
Hopefully never. But a planned attack by suicide personnel has a high probability of success.

[Ezlivin]

75. Or indeed..

"Hani Hanjour managed to pilot the aircraft - dumb luck."
Or skilled planning and training by an adversary who wanted to successfully execute an attack. Supposedly he did have a commercial pilot's license.
The key is "supposedly". Was he type-rated? How many hours in a simulator did he fly? How many hours in ANY large aircraft did he have on his log? What is amazing about this argument is that it ignores what professional certified flight instructors had to say about Hani's skill level. We can "suppose" all we want, but the facts facing us is that he was not even qualified to check out a Cessna, much less take over a modern heavy aircraft at altitude.

"He managed a descending spiraling approach without stalling the aircraft - dumb luck."
Fast descending approaches don't cause stalls. Slow flight is when stalls occur for the most part. I believe jets stall at higher speed at higher altitudes, when the pressure is much lower than the sea level of Washington DC and New York City.
Stalls occur when an aircraft's wing no longer develops lift. In a turn, the inside wing will stall first because it is not moving through the air at the same speed as the outside wing. In fact, many accidents occur when a pilot makes too sharp a turn while in the pattern for approach. A fast descending turn is difficult to execute because airspeed is absolutely critical; the moment the inside wing (about which the plane "pivots") slows too much, the plane will literally fall out of the air. "A spin is a special type of stall that happens when one wing loses lift, but the other does not. More often than not, a spin occurs when you make a hard turn and have the nose pitched too steeply. Lift fails on one wing, and it begins to drop toward the ground. Meanwhile, the opposing wing keeps producing lift and rising. If the rudder is engaged, it rotates the aircraft about its yaw axis. The result is a spinning corkscrew motion. All aircraft have a critical angle of attack, or a maximum angle at which the wings can still provide lift. If you nose up drastically at high speeds, you may surpass this angle and initiate a stall or spin. (Source)

Hani had to manage all this with his meager skills.

"He clipped several light poles and maintained control - dumb luck."
I think a jet wins the mass battle against a light pole.
Yes, the mass will continue forward, but will be in control? Particularly when both wings were struck multiple times. "Since 1960, aircraft-bird collisions destroyed 20 US-registered commercial aircraft" (More) And that's just a bird strike.

"He flew into the only side of the Pentagon that had been recently upgraded - dumb luck."
1/5 or 20% chance. And if you look at it another way, he had a 80% chance of hitting a non-reinforced wedge. Guess the attack wasn't as well thought out as it could have been.
Apparently Hani "thought out" the attack as he approached the Pentagon, making the decision that rather than simply lower the nose and run into the side of the Pentagon where Rumsfeld was sitting to make a much more difficult maneuver to hit the opposite side. So it was a 50/50 choice and Hani chose the most difficult method to accomplish his task.

"There were multiple drills involving hijacked aircraft that day - dumb luck."
I assume that the U.S. military carries out drills for lots of reasons every day.
But never large scale drills involving multiple agencies and hijacked aircraft. Assume all you want, but that kind of drill is not held frequently do to the incredible logistics involved. For an exercise: Tell me how many times before and since 9/11 that type of drill has been held.

"Every single one of the hijacked aircraft were too far away to be intercepted - dumb luck."
Seeing how NORAD was postured to defend from attacks outside the continental US, and that the number of fighters on alert have been reduced due to the downfall of the Soviet Union, which was probably the only country able to mount an outside attack, not inconceivable.
Failure of imagination, huh? Isn't that canard a bit old to trot out? Using domestic aircraft as weapons was so well known that it was already in the public's consciousness (for instance, Fox had a movie about just such an attack on WTC 6 months before 9/11). And we all assume that our intelligence agencies are as up-to-date as the general public. And Andrews AFB, home of Air Force One was very, very close.

"Three steel-framed buildings collapsed into their footprints for the first time in history - dumb luck."
Doesn't gravity pull things straight down? Last time I checked, that's how it worked.
Go look at the Leaning Tower of Pisa and get back to me on that. And while you're at it, get a list of other steel framed buildings that collapsed due to fire.

"I wonder when dumb luck will strike us again?"
Hopefully never. But a planned attack by suicide personnel has a high probability of success.
Sure it does. Why? Because nothing has changed since 9/11.

[seatnineb]

78. Excellent post Ezlivin!...keep up the good work.

:toast:

[number6]

95. good job Ezlivin

:toast: :thumbsup:

[seatnineb]

63. Looks like you have missed something...........

Sgsmith......

You always seem to show up when your fellow debunkers are in a spot of bother.......like on the concrete core threads...

But you are nothing more than an anonymouse internet poster who claims to know how to fly ..which could be true....but it could also be false.....given the medium of the internet you have no definitive way of proving that you do know how to fly...which probably suits your case.

Maybe I missed the part about where Galavotti said that it was dumbluck....

I did not miss the part where Galavotti said the way the plane was flown was Ricolouse.





Ma basta toccarli e fare una spostamento di 100 metri in quota....quindi sull asse orizontale........E' VERAMENTE RIDICOLO.......cioe' bisogna avere tutta una serie di condizioni particolari di restare attacato al terreno......io credo che non e ' una cosa semplice.

It just needs a touch and there would be a movement of 100 metres at altitude.....on the horizontal axis....IT REALLY IS RIDICOLOUSE..you would need a set of particular circumstances to remain so close to the ground....I believe that it is no easy thing


Try again.

[sgsmith]

81. seatnineb

Maybe I show up and try to talk about subjects I know something about, instead of rambling about things that I have no knowledge about.

You try again.

[seatnineb]

84. That is fair enough............

So solve this problem.......

In the words of Vin Narayanan:
The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/17/first-person.htm


In the words of Claudio Galavotti:



Dovrei metterci veramente tanto tanto impegno perche non e' una cosa semplice dal mio punto di vista....credo che chi ha fatto questa attivita possa capire cosa vuole dire stare a 10 metri a terra 5 metri a terra con un aereoplano che pesa 110 120 tonellatto lanciato 900 km al ora...........basta toccare la cloche.......e schizza via.......ma schizza facendo variazioni 100 metri......non di 10 metri.....

I would have too work really really hard because it is not an easy thing from my point of view.....I believe whoever did this understood what it it means to stay 10 or 5 metres off the ground with an aeroplane that weighs 110 or 120 tonnes going at 900kmh......it would just need a touch of the yoke ........and you would go off course....but you would go off course by a 100 metres or so.....not 10 metres

Here is the Exit sign in question(I think...there is another along the same road):



So how did Hani manage to keep that plane on course despite having clipped the exit sign?

[sgsmith]

86. Damage?

It doesn't look that that sign has been damaged in any way whatsoever:



I know that witnesses can say that they saw things that never really happened. Maybe the person who says the sign was clipped assumed that it was hit. There have been several photos floating around that show the light poles that were damaged at the top, along with being knocked down. I don't recall seeing any photos showing a damaged exit sign.

I do have some problems with your Italian pilot and his remarks. I think that professionals in nearly any field like to show off their knowledge and skills, and tend to make things sound more difficult than they really are. As an example - he says "it would just need a touch of the yoke ........and you would go off course....but you would go off course by a 100 metres or so.....not 10 metres". That's a lot of hyperbole - I really doubt that a "touch" is going to send an airplane 300 feet off course.

Watch the NTSB reconstruction of the AA 587 crash and see how much the control wheel is moved during flight and how little of an immediate change in flight path occurs:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/flight_path_web01.wmv

[seatnineb]

87. Narayanan maybe lying.

Narayanan is adamant that the plane hit the exit sign:

Here are 2 statements almost 1 year apart where Narayanan says the following regarding the exit sign:

In the words of Vin Narayanan(9/17/01):
The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/17/first-pe...

In the words of Vin Narayanan(9/9/02):
The jet came in low and fast, it's tail clipped the overhanging exit sign on the way in, before hitting the Pentagon wall.

http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20020909002/tscript.htm

But maybe Narayanan is just lying....because here is the exit sign in question.......

As you can see.....there is no damage to this exit sign.......



As for this:
In the words of Sgsmith:

That's a lot of hyperbole - I really doubt that a "touch" is going to send an airplane 300 feet off course.

Well that is just your word.........against this man's:

Claudio Galavotti(Alitalia and former military pilot)


...........basta toccare la cloche.......e schizza via.......ma schizza facendo variazioni 100 metri......non di 10 metri.....

it would just need a touch of the yoke ........and you would go off course....but you would go off course by a 100 metres or so.....not 10 metres

I'll take his word over yours...anytime.....

[greyl]

90. What's your exact source for those Galavotti quotes?

I ask even though your appeal to authority is absolutely fallacious.

[seatnineb]

91. My VHS recording of the program from 2/20/06.

Think I am bullshittin' you......

Think again....the program was all too real.

Here is an entire forum dedicated to the program.

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1047

And in case you were wondering.....my mother is Italian.

And I am fluent in Italian.

[greyl]

94. Non li credo, compagno.

Mostrare ognuno una certa prova.

Because you haven't yet at all.

[seatnineb]

99. Invece credici amico mio.......

You are out of your depth......

Check out the reactions of these Italian viewers to that program...........

In the words of SoTutto:
Inviato: 20/2/2006 1:12 Aggiornato: 20/2/2006 1:12
"Anche il pilota ha ammesso che la manovra era difficilissima."

"Even the pilot has admitted that the manover was very difficult"

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1047

And if that web site does not convince you...you can always try another:

i due comandanti dell'Alitalia hanno fatto chiaramente capire che le probabilità di compiere la manovra attribuita ad Hanjour erano praticamente inesistenti.

The 2 pilots of Allitalia had made it quite clear that the probablility of being able to accomplish the moves which have been attributed to Hanjour were practically non-existent.

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:WkiYF0fxOZgJ:www.nexusitalia.com/nexus_new/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D653%26Itemid%3D69+Per+pentagono+misteri+rai&hl=it&gl=it&ct=clnk&cd=3

[greyl]

61. Again, wrong about what?

You haven't answered that question, but here are some more to chew on:

Why do you assume the plane hit its exact target?

How do you know it wasn't intended to hit the White House, but something similar to Flight 93 happened?

How many seconds was the plane "at ground level"? (2?)

[seatnineb]

64. That is a piss poor response.

I guess the highlighted text in bold below that I have underlined regarding Galavotti's assesment really damages your beliefs...



Dovrei metterci veramente tanto tanto impegno perche non e' una cosa semplice dal mio punto di vista....credo che chi ha fatto questa attivita possa capire cosa vuole dire stare a 10 metri a terra 5 metri a terra con un aereoplano che pesa 110 120 tonellatto lanciato 900 km al ora...........basta toccare la cloche.......e schizza via.......ma schizza facendo variazioni 100 metri......non di 10 metri.....

I would have too work really really hard because it is not an easy thing from my point of view.....I believe whoever did this understood what it it means to stay 10 or 5 metres off the ground with an aeroplane that weighs 110 or 120 tonnes going at 900kmh......it would just need a touch of the yoke ........and you would go off course....but you would go off course by a 100 metres or so.....not 10 metres....

Please tell Greyl.....

Where did Hanjour learn to understand how to " to stay 10 or 5 metres off the ground with an aeroplane that weighs 110 or 120 tonnes going at 900kmh"

[Jazz2006]

65. Hee hee

That's kind of funny, actually, seatnineb saying that greyl's response was "piss poor" even while 9b repeats the same post for a third or fourth or fifth time and doesn't answer the very straightforward questions that greyl asked in his post, let alone ever explain why 9b thinks greyl was "wrong" about anything in the first place.

Too cute, really.

[seatnineb]

66. Care to answer this question?

If flight 77's transponder was turned off..........

Then how did the radar show what altitude the plane was at....

Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main...

Or is it a question that is too hard for you?

[Jazz2006]

67. Sure....

... with the same alacrity that you've exhibited in response to the posts and queries directed to you above.

[seatnineb]

68. Let me increase your pain..........

Gee Jazz.......

I never knew Hani Hanjour could fly a plane that even with it's transponder turned off....could still display it's altitude on radar!

BTW how did Hani manage to cause 2 important eye witnesses to see 2 completely different things?

"The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball."
Tim Timmerman
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,550486,...

I saw the wings fold back and crumple and pierce the wall sorta like an accordian.
Mike Walter
RaiDue(Italian T.V) September 2002

So did the wings fly forward?

Or did the wings fold back?

[Jazz2006]

69. Nothing painful about that to me...

I'm still waiting for you to answer greyl.

Like I said, I'll answer your queries with the same alacrity that you've answered those directed to you.

(Hint: alacrity ~ look it up)

[seatnineb]

70. Keep going Jazz................

Keep believin' the myth of Hani the brave....

So Fight 77 pilot,Hani Hanjour was able to :

1)Ovecome fierce turbulence by flying his plane so close to the ground....

2)Cause witnesses to contradict eachother with regards to the fate of the wings of the plane as it crashed into the building...

3)Allow his plane to still indicate it's altitude on Radar despite having this same plane's transponder switched off!

And now.....he managed to avoid hitting a helicopter which happened to be on that side of the Pentagon......

I was told by one witness, an Air Force enlisted - senior enlisted man, that he was outside when it occurred. He said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He said it appeared to be a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is - excuse me - and he then saw fireball go into the sky.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.03.html

The Pentagon flight trajectory is full of grade A horse-shit.

[Jazz2006]

71. A little reading comprehension goes a long way....

Greyl's first post here was at #51.

You purported to "respond" to him with your post #54 ranting about things that had nothing to do with his post but somehow insisting that he was "wrong" even though your post had nothing to do with what he wrote.

You have since repeated that same rant ad nauseum and it still has nothing to do with anything he said or anything I said.

And you're still ranting and pretending that he was "wrong" about something that he never posted anything about and you keep pretending that he was somehow required to respond to your weird and silly posts.

Very strange, that.

P.S. A reminder to go and look up alacrity.

[seatnineb]

72. Greyl believes in the official trajectory..........

You know this...he knows this:

What he posted here is proof that he believes in this trajectory:

greyl (1000+ posts) Fri May-05-06 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #57

How many seconds was the plane "at ground level"? (2?)

That is why I said he was wrong.

But you knew that already.....

[Grateful for Hope]

74. I am sure that is correct.

"But you knew that already".

[greyl]

88. Your replies indicate that you aren't trying to understand.

When I typed ""at ground level"", I added the quotes because I was responding to post #39 which reads, in part: "what about the impossibility of flying a jetliner airplane at ground level because of the lack of lift under the wings?"

I know the person didn't mean the plane was on the ground. They were talking about the span of time after the plane had substantially leveled out very near the ground as it approached impact with the pentagon.

I don't think you have a concept of how fast 500mph is.

[seatnineb]

92. In fact I understand only too well.....and you know that.

You honestly believe that the plane was travelling at 500mph!

Care to tell me how a 73 year old woman was able to read "the numbers under the wing" as the plane passed over her car!

In the words of 73 year old Christine Patterson:
"It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing."

http://www.naualumni.com/News/News.cfm?ID=613&c=4

LOL!

Did Hani Hanjour slow his plane down just so that this woman could read the numbers under the wing?

Face it...

Some of the witnesses are talking complete horse shit.

[greyl]

93. Is your real name Red Herring?

I'm well aware that individual witness testimony should be considered with skepticism.

[seatnineb]

100. Is that the best you got?

Here swallow some more:

In the words of Penta-eye-witness David Cissel:

Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board
http://www.cincypost.com/attack/cissel091201.html

Tell me again Grey....how fast was that plane going?

[Grateful for Hope]

73. I'd love to hear some original

thoughts from you concerning this topic. Then, statements such as "too cute" might have some meaning.

[seatnineb]

79. We could be in for a long wait........

....before Jazz does write somethin' "original"!

[Jazz2006]

82. I am not here to do "command performances" for the likes of you.

Perhaps you should buy a dog.

[Grateful for Hope]

83. "for the likes of you"

Pray tell, what does this mean?

It is not unusual in this forum to have posters ask about one's thoughts concerning 9/11. But then, since you have only been here a brief time (despite post count), I can understand why you would not know this.

[seatnineb]

85. That much is obviouse:

Here....eat some more anomolies from the bullshit story you hold so dear.....

In the words of Noel Sepulveda.....
"it flew above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear. The plane's right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle".....
http://www.dcmilitary.com/airforce/beam/7_15/local_news/15935-1.html


In the words of Claudio Galavotti:



...........basta toccare la cloche.......e schizza via.......ma schizza facendo variazioni 100 metri......non di 10 metri.....

it would just need a touch of the yoke ........and you would go off course....but you would go off course by a 100 metres or so.....not 10 metres


Hani sure did know how to control that yoke!

[number6]

96. seatnineb you posts are GREAT!!

:popcorn::applause::applause::applause:

[Debunking911]

97. Interesting how you

repeat one persons opinion who wasn't there yet ignore many who were...

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

[mirandapriestly]

98. "The Plane Was Flown With Extraordinary Skill"

according to air traffic controllers as well. Hanjour did not have "extraordinary skill".

[Debunking911]

102. Not really

The plane was flown in a way that the air traffic controllers thought wouldn't be a commercial airliner. The turns and such would never be done by a normal airliner because it would cause the passangers much discomfort and not because you had to be a fighter pilot. So they assumed at the time it was a fighter.

"Impossible"? "No pilot will claim...?" Well, we did not have any difficulty finding pilots who disagreed. Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml

[Sweet Pea]

105. Can anyone explain....

how an air traffic controller could make that "...flown with extraordinary skill" observation simply from looking at a blip on a radar scope of a contact with no transponder information?

Where's Merc? What's the update-rate of your radar scopes? How accurate is the height/altitude function when a raw return is the only data you have?

I know about the "fighter jet" comment, as well, and I am aware that ATCs are well trained professionals who by training and experience can indeed interpolate information from a scope, but this was a blip for cryin' out loud. You can only get so much information from a greenish blob moving on a scope.

What constitutes "extraordinary skill" from an ATC perspective?

[seatnineb]

101. The people who "were there" contradict eachother.

In the words of Vin Narayanan:
The plane actually skidded off the ground BEFORE it hit the wall.

http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20020909002/tscript.htm

In the words of Steve Riskus:
I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first...
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/npp-lagas.html


Sorry Debunkin'...you can believe the above witnesses if you want.....but there is no fuckin way you are gonna convince me to believe in them.

[Debunking911]

103. How do you know

this guy was there? This is an interview with a conspiracy theory site. Not the most reliable source for me. Like the Sagadevan quote, when asked to prove he was a commercial pilot he said he hasn't flown in over 20 years so there is no proof. Then he also says he changed his name when he became a US citizen. So we are supposed to take a conspiracy theorist with a radio show who can't prove anything at his word? But I know this doesn't fuckin convince you. There are pilots who are 757 pilots today which say it can be done yet this doesn't fuckin convince you either. Trust me, I'm not trying to. I do this for people who may be reading this and not you.

And yet the quotes you posted could both be true. The PLANE didn't hit the ground but the ENGINE could have just before hiting the building. SOMETHING caused the lateral damage to the pentagon. To my knowlege missiles don't blow up laterally. They make round craters and holes. How do you explain the first floor damage to the left and right of the impact if the wings didn't do it? Do you have evidence of a missile which can cause this kind of damage?

[seatnineb]

104. From my common sense.

Come on Debunkin'!

You tellin me you ain't heard of Steve Riskus!

He took all these famouse photos!





And Steve Riskus is adamant that the plane did not hit the ground BEFORE hitting the building.......

There was none of this hitting-the-ground first crap I keep hearing
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta13.html

I don't buy your engine explanation...last I checked...the engine is part of the plane.

And Riskus says the plane did not hit the ground.

And here is one more bullshittin witness to add to the list:

In the words of Steve Anderson:


From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... <SNIP>

I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.
http://www.jmu.edu/alumni/tragedy%5Fresponse/read%5Fmessages.html

Problem is that Steve Anderson was over a mile away!

As you can see from this map( where the star is):

http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?newFL=Use+Address+Below&addr=&csz=VA+22209+&.intl=us&name=&lat=&lon=&srchtype=a&qty=&new=1&trf=0&getmap=Get+Map


SRI International
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2800 (28th floor)
Arlington, VA 22209

The office is located in the North Tower of the Twin Towers (formerly the Gannett/USA Today building) in Arlington (Rosslyn), Virginia.

http://www.sri.com/contact/wdc.html

In 2001, the newspaper moved into its new 30 acre (120,000 m²) headquarters in McLean, in Fairfax County, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C., not far from its former headquarters in the old USA Today building in Arlington County, Virginia.


http://www.bizapedia.com/UstoVo/usa_today.php


The only thing I will agree with you on is that something caused the lateral damage to the Pentagon

Cordite anyone?

In the words of Gilah Goldsmith (personnel attorney at the Pentagon)

"We saw a huge black cloud of smoke," she said, saying it smelled like cordite, or gun smoke.
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk010921/usp14a.shtml