Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to Loose Change Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3  ( Go to first unread post )

 Flight 77 Maneuver/hanjour Flying Skills Debunked!, claims Screww Loose Change. Is it true?
OohChit
Posted: Feb 10 2007, 03:42 AM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Member No.: 44
Joined: 18-October 06



Well this "smoked" me out from the lurkers lounge..
Thank you NK for your work on this.. Xcellant info.
Top
Arrowhead
Posted: Feb 10 2007, 04:17 AM


Unregistered









QUOTE (Reggie_perrin @ Feb 10 2007, 12:17 AM)
So basically at sometime between august 01 to sept 01 Hanjour went from someone who "could not handle basic air maneuvers" in a cessna, to something akin to Tom Cruise in Top Gun and was able to fly a boeing so accuratly into the second floor of the pentagon, that he did'nt even damage the lawn, and was able to fly a few feet off the ground at 400+mph ?.

And they call us nutty conspiricy theorists ?

:blink:

Yeah really, and it wasn't the second floor, but the first floor, no mark on the lawn, and no impact damage from the tail section, or, if it somehow fell off, no tail section debris there. No wing damage, and no large engine damage. Just a 14-16 foot hole, pre-outer wall collapse. And no videos of the plane, where the Pentagon was surrounded by cameras from all angles. No Boeing hit there. To suggest otherwise is the height of absurdity. Sad that Steven Jones' new website promotes the idea of flight 77 hitting there. Oh well. Everyone has their own piece of the 9/11 puzzle.
Top
-Raven-
Posted: Feb 10 2007, 04:23 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 2,782
Member No.: 1,932
Joined: 4-February 07



QUOTE (Arrowhead @ Feb 10 2007, 03:17 AM)
Yeah really, and it wasn't the second floor, but the first floor, no mark on the lawn, and no impact damage from the tail section, or, if it somehow fell off, no tail section debris there. No wing damage, and no large engine damage. Just a 14-16 foot hole, pre-outer wall collapse. And no videos of the plane, where the Pentagon was surrounded by cameras from all angles. No Boeing hit there. To suggest otherwise is the height of absurdity. Sad that Steven Jones' new website promotes the idea of flight 77 hitting there. Oh well. Everyone has their own piece of the 9/11 puzzle.
Top
NK-44
Posted: May 31 2007, 07:28 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 495
Member No.: 1,085
Joined: 1-December 06



BUMP - just fixed some broken links
Top
alive and still talking
Posted: May 31 2007, 08:44 PM


alive and still talking


Group: Members
Posts: 4,143
Member No.: 1,913
Joined: 3-February 07



you dont need to know how to fly to highjack a plane, those things fly themselves
besides, some of the names released were part of a cover story anyway
Top
industrock
Posted: Jun 3 2007, 10:06 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 5,000
Joined: 3-June 07



1) Put the plane in autopilot
2) Turn the dial for the heading you want
3) Move a knob for the elevation you want
4) Sitback while the plane turns and descends by itself.

I've been in the cockpit of a quad engine cargo jet during an approach to landing and everything but the actual landing (autopilot was switched off at 1500 feet while the plane was facing nearly dead on to the strip) on the tarmac is done by the above steps. You could easily set the program to say... 10 feet.

All you would need to do is simple math to figure out which heading you want to go.

I'm not saying that this is what happend, but just as the OP is stating possiblities, i'm stating a possibility for how a lousy pilot could have made a difficult turn/descent. After watching the pilots in the plane i was in do it, or reading about certain computer controls on the internet, i'm pretty sure i could do this.

They say "military precision" i suggest "computerized precision"

EDIT: in addition, with the autopilot system, you can also enter coordinates into the GPS system on the plane. If they didn't know how to do this, the real pilots could have done it for them without knowing what they were dooming themselves with. Except for actual take off and landing, flying in these size planes are done using autopilot with coordinates/waypoints for the trip.

They could have gotten exact coordinates a number of ways. In Iraq, some local nationals who work on the camps are being paid by insurgent groups to get coordinates of certain key locations using GPS capable watches or cellphones. A terrorist in the states could get more accurate readings using an actual GPS device.
Top
industrock
Posted: Jun 4 2007, 12:01 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 5,000
Joined: 3-June 07



QUOTE (kupci @ Jun 3 2007, 11:41 PM)
QUOTE (industrock @ Jun 3 2007, 10:06 PM)
1) Put the plane in autopilot
2) Turn the dial for the heading you want
3) Move a knob for the elevation you want
4) Sitback while the plane turns and descends by itself.

I've been in the cockpit of a quad engine cargo jet during an approach to landing and everything but the actual landing (autopilot was switched off at 1500 feet while the plane was f


But that's just it - you're talking about flying, not landing. Note how close 77 flew to the ground, and where it hit the Pentagon. They might've been running on autopilot at 7000 ft, sure, but if you read the OP (I admit, it's long, but tons of great material), this was not about punching in destination A to B and sitting back, this was, especially for the Pentagon plane, some highly technical and skillful maneuvering, including landing in one case. For the Pentagon, it seems the pilot flew past it, then circled around (interesting maneuver for a computer, would you agree?) - and here' the interesting part - flying the jumbo (these things are the greyhound buses of the sky) like a fighter jet. [And one fact I didn't see mentioned in the OP is this : weren't the real pilots of most of the flights, retired military fighter pilots? Could be wrong on that, but thought I read that somewhere. It could be argued or believed, if the hijackers, too unskilled to punch in coordinates, could get the pilots to punch in the coords for the Pentagon, why not save time and force them to fly into it? Or ..]

Think about it this way - your car has ABS, and perhaps some stability control, cruise control, (and some cars even have collision avoidance, such as the Mercedes, which applies brake if you get too close) - but if you are an expert race car driver, you'd turn all that stuff off as it gets in the way. Same with the autopilot on a sailboat, or a plane - if you're in a storm. Consider that light poles were knocked down too, in addition to the difficulty of flying so close to the ground.

Yes, autopilot is possible. And remote is possible (see one of the quotes from the OP). But, especially with flight 77 (and given the commentary from experts above), it seems the pilots were highly skilled, excellent pilots. Not a hani hanjour flight school dropout.

For example, above you forgot [5] Turn off transponder And the million other tiny details and variables that make flying more difficult than driving a car. These were folks that simply left a stalled plane on a runway - you wouldn't even want to drive in a car with these chaps.

***For the Pentagon, it seems the pilot flew past it, then circled around (interesting maneuver for a computer, would you agree?) -

The very skilled maneuver they were talking about was the circle to go back after they had passed the Pentagon. This circle could be very easily done... and with two fingers. It's the circling around that i was talking about using the autopilot system for. We are not using autopilot go to from point A to point B here - I don't know how to explain what i saw in the cockpit... Maybe more of a manual autopilot? The pilots didn't use the flight controls to steer the plane, they turned a dial for heading and turned another for altitude. At this point, the plane banked and reduced it's altitude automatically and w/o the pilots' intervention.

Terrorist 1: Shoot, we just passed it!
Terrorist 2: Damn, let me turn these 2 dials to automatically turn the plane around and reduce elevation.
Terrorist 1: Nice work, the plane did a great maneuver by itself and everyone will think it was to the work of a skilled fighter pilot!

After dropping in altitude and changing heading, they could have taken back controll manually.

My point is that this "extreme maneuver that can only be done with military precision" can in fact be done by anyone.

***why not save time and force them to fly into it? Or ..

If someone said fly this plane into the ground or we'll slit your throat, what would you do? My guess is that at this point the pilots were already dead or at the back of the plane with the other passengers.

Would it be safe to assume that after the plane had changed heading and dropped in altitude that it was pretty much pointing relatively straight at the Pentagon? At this point, all you would have to do is change a little bit with the rudder controls at the feet and point the wheel down to drop more in altitude - easily keeping control of the craft if this is all you had to do - including dropping low enough to hit poles but not the ground.

THe only thing i remember reading that was truly exceptional about the flight was the banking of the plane while descending in altitude. Of which, i have showed you that it could be done easily with computer controls.
Top
kupci
Posted: Jun 4 2007, 12:52 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 126
Member No.: 2,906
Joined: 6-March 07



QUOTE
Terrorist 1: Nice work, the plane did a great maneuver by itself and everyone will think it was to the work of a skilled fighter pilot!


Hmm, I'm not following. Wouldn't they want it to look like a flight school flunkie?

QUOTE
Would it be safe to assume that after the plane had changed heading and dropped in altitude that it was pretty much pointing relatively straight at the Pentagon?  At this point, all you would have to do is change a little bit with the rudder controls at the feet and point the wheel down to drop more in altitude - easily keeping control of the craft if this is all you had to do - including dropping low enough to hit poles but not the ground. 


I see - use the autopilot to make the amazing turn, then switch it off for the "landing"? But I think this thing would've had to be autopiloted the whole way, Hani simply didn't have the skills for even the easiest maneuvers. Thus my point about circling back, that is, someone was in control of the plane, and knew very well, how to control it, when to use auto, when not. Yes, perhaps you could figure out the coordinates and punch it in, and it's a few steps, but that's a tiny subset, at least it seems, from all the work required.

From a more abstract level, it seems too critical, to leave anything to chance here, and especially someone with questionable skills.
Top
industrock
Posted: Jun 4 2007, 01:02 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 5,000
Joined: 3-June 07



QUOTE (kupci @ Jun 4 2007, 12:52 AM)
QUOTE
Terrorist 1: Nice work, the plane did a great maneuver by itself and everyone will think it was to the work of a skilled fighter pilot!


Hmm, I'm not following. Wouldn't they want it to look like a flight school flunkie?

QUOTE
Would it be safe to assume that after the plane had changed heading and dropped in altitude that it was pretty much pointing relatively straight at the Pentagon?  At this point, all you would have to do is change a little bit with the rudder controls at the feet and point the wheel down to drop more in altitude - easily keeping control of the craft if this is all you had to do - including dropping low enough to hit poles but not the ground. 


I see - use the autopilot to make the amazing turn, then switch it off for the "landing"? But I think this thing would've had to be autopiloted the whole way, Hani simply didn't have the skills for even the easiest maneuvers. Thus my point about circling back, that is, someone was in control of the plane, and knew very well, how to control it, when to use auto, when not. Yes, perhaps you could figure out the coordinates and punch it in, and it's a few steps, but that's a tiny subset, at least it seems, from all the work required.

From a more abstract level, it seems too critical, to leave anything to chance here, and especially someone with questionable skills.

you don't seem to be comprehending the fact that you don't need coordinates to make a turn like that. I should have left anything about coordinates out of my original post so i wouldn't confuse anyone. My fault.

Say you're flying at 280 degrees at 15,000 feet. You just flew over your target. To make this amazing turn, and to get back on target, you turn a dial to 100 degrees (280-180) to turn completely around. Then the little dial next to the one you just entered the heading on, you set to 500 feet. Hit enter.

You just made your amazing turn.

At this point there would be no more amazing maneuvers to make. All you'd have to do now is keep the plane close to the ground and go STRAIGHT.

***Hmm, I'm not following. Wouldn't they want it to look like a flight school flunkie?

I don't think the terrorists cared at all to make it look like whatever. My "terrorist 1" comment about a fighter pilot turn was sarcastic.

Are my posts really that hard to follow? Where is "alive and still talking" i need serious input. Not this rubbish.
Top
kupci
Posted: Jun 4 2007, 06:58 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 126
Member No.: 2,906
Joined: 6-March 07



QUOTE

you don't seem to be comprehending the fact that you don't need coordinates to make a turn like that.  I should have left anything about coordinates out of my original post so i wouldn't confuse anyone.  My fault.


Not to confuse people? Or not for people to poke holes in? By saying you should've left it out, are you withdrawing that argument?

You presented two "theories", I commented on the second, quoted below, to refresh your memory. I view these theories as essentially similar anyway, the "flunkies used autopilot" theory, and IMO, the coordinate idea is you're better argument anyway.

QUOTE

EDIT: in addition, with the autopilot system, you can also enter coordinates into the GPS system on the plane. If they didn't know how to do this, the real pilots could have done it for them without knowing what they were dooming themselves with. Except for actual take off and landing, flying in these size planes are done using autopilot with coordinates/waypoints for the trip.


Anyway, back to "flunkies used autopilot, theory #1".

QUOTE

Say you're flying at 280 degrees at 15,000 feet.  You just flew over your target.  To make this amazing turn, and to get back on target, you turn a dial to 100 degrees (280-180) to turn completely around.  Then the little dial next to the one you just entered the heading on, you set to 500 feet.  Hit enter.

You just made your amazing turn.


At this point there would be no more amazing maneuvers to make.  All you'd have to do now is keep the plane close to the ground and go STRAIGHT.


See, you haven't thought this through at all. You've just changed course, like changing the autopilot on a sailboat, with additional variable of height. What you've forgotten is other variables - speed and original location. Sure, you've executed a turn - do you have any clue where you are now? To help you imagine this a bit, you're flying at 400mph. Did you just blow past the Pentagon again, and now you've got to turn again? Great way to turn, setting a new course for a distant location, but a terrible way to direct a jumbo to a pinpoint location. This is why they turn *off* this stuff - as you even admit - when they takeoff or land these jumbos. This is even more implausible than "flunky uses manual control to execute fighter jet acrobatics".

Seriously, *read* the material in the OP. The witnesses and experts quoted describe this as the work of a highly skilled pilot, executing fighter jet maneauvers. What you're suggesting is the typical denier argument - they admit Hani could barely fly (I love the article about them leaving their Cessna right on the tarmac and walking away - are these folks capable of the myriad of decisions required to fly a plane?), so they try the argument that flying nowadays is easy, anybody can execute these maneuvers. And I think it's well described in the OP that this is not the evidence, not the observations.
QUOTE

***Hmm, I'm not following.  Wouldn't they want it to look like a flight school flunkie?

I don't think the terrorists cared at all to make it look like whatever.  My "terrorist 1" comment about a fighter pilot turn was sarcastic.

Are my posts really that hard to follow?  Where is "alive and still talking" i need serious input.  Not this rubbish.


LOL. I see the lightbulb flickering. Good - go with that. Here's another, along similar lines. Why did WTC1,2,7 collapse such that it looks like a textbook controlled demolition? Perfect. Very skilled work. Not almost - but absolutely too perfect.
Top
kupci
Posted: Jun 4 2007, 07:06 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 126
Member No.: 2,906
Joined: 6-March 07



QUOTE (industrock @ Jun 4 2007, 12:01 AM)
***For the Pentagon, it seems the pilot flew past it, then circled around (interesting maneuver for a computer, would you agree?) -

The very skilled maneuver they were talking about was the circle to go back after they had passed the Pentagon.  This circle could be very easily done...

Minor issue, but you missed the point here. I'm simply pointing out that it was likely there was a pilot flying manually, since they flew *past* the Pentagon, perhaps to get visual id, then turned around. If they were on autopilot, and had it configured correctly (and now completely assuming no acrobatics were required), computers are infallible and would not fly past the target. That was a real pilot at the controls, skillfully switching between autopilot and manual where required, something I highly doubt an unskilled pilot could do. Otherwise, you must have some serious contempt (and I say ignorance) of the skills of your average jetliner pilot.
Top
industrock
Posted: Jun 5 2007, 12:53 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 5,000
Joined: 3-June 07



QUOTE (kupci @ Jun 4 2007, 07:06 PM)
QUOTE (industrock @ Jun 4 2007, 12:01 AM)
***For the Pentagon, it seems the pilot flew past it, then circled around (interesting maneuver for a computer, would you agree?) -

The very skilled maneuver they were talking about was the circle to go back after they had passed the Pentagon.  This circle could be very easily done...

Minor issue, but you missed the point here. I'm simply pointing out that it was likely there was a pilot flying manually, since they flew *past* the Pentagon, perhaps to get visual id, then turned around. If they were on autopilot, and had it configured correctly (and now completely assuming no acrobatics were required), computers are infallible and would not fly past the target. That was a real pilot at the controls, skillfully switching between autopilot and manual where required, something I highly doubt an unskilled pilot could do. Otherwise, you must have some serious contempt (and I say ignorance) of the skills of your average jetliner pilot.

Talk to a jet liner pilot and ask him how easy it is to use manual mode on the computer to execute a turn and descent. At that point, come talk to me about ignorance about how it's done, ok?

Your mind sees what you want and expect it to see, nothing less, nothing more. It's that simple. I'm not going to explain what i'm talking about for a third time, since obviously the first two went right over your heads.
Top
industrock
Posted: Jun 5 2007, 12:56 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 5,000
Joined: 3-June 07



QUOTE (kupci @ Jun 4 2007, 06:58 PM)
QUOTE

you don't seem to be comprehending the fact that you don't need coordinates to make a turn like that.  I should have left anything about coordinates out of my original post so i wouldn't confuse anyone.  My fault.


Not to confuse people? Or not for people to poke holes in? By saying you should've left it out, are you withdrawing that argument?

You presented two "theories", I commented on the second, quoted below, to refresh your memory. I view these theories as essentially similar anyway, the "flunkies used autopilot" theory, and IMO, the coordinate idea is you're better argument anyway.

QUOTE

EDIT: in addition, with the autopilot system, you can also enter coordinates into the GPS system on the plane. If they didn't know how to do this, the real pilots could have done it for them without knowing what they were dooming themselves with. Except for actual take off and landing, flying in these size planes are done using autopilot with coordinates/waypoints for the trip.


Anyway, back to "flunkies used autopilot, theory #1".

QUOTE

Say you're flying at 280 degrees at 15,000 feet.  You just flew over your target.  To make this amazing turn, and to get back on target, you turn a dial to 100 degrees (280-180) to turn completely around.  Then the little dial next to the one you just entered the heading on, you set to 500 feet.  Hit enter.

You just made your amazing turn.


At this point there would be no more amazing maneuvers to make.  All you'd have to do now is keep the plane close to the ground and go STRAIGHT.


See, you haven't thought this through at all. You've just changed course, like changing the autopilot on a sailboat, with additional variable of height. What you've forgotten is other variables - speed and original location. Sure, you've executed a turn - do you have any clue where you are now? To help you imagine this a bit, you're flying at 400mph. Did you just blow past the Pentagon again, and now you've got to turn again? Great way to turn, setting a new course for a distant location, but a terrible way to direct a jumbo to a pinpoint location. This is why they turn *off* this stuff - as you even admit - when they takeoff or land these jumbos. This is even more implausible than "flunky uses manual control to execute fighter jet acrobatics".

Seriously, *read* the material in the OP. The witnesses and experts quoted describe this as the work of a highly skilled pilot, executing fighter jet maneauvers. What you're suggesting is the typical denier argument - they admit Hani could barely fly (I love the article about them leaving their Cessna right on the tarmac and walking away - are these folks capable of the myriad of decisions required to fly a plane?), so they try the argument that flying nowadays is easy, anybody can execute these maneuvers. And I think it's well described in the OP that this is not the evidence, not the observations.
QUOTE

***Hmm, I'm not following.  Wouldn't they want it to look like a flight school flunkie?

I don't think the terrorists cared at all to make it look like whatever.  My "terrorist 1" comment about a fighter pilot turn was sarcastic.

Are my posts really that hard to follow?  Where is "alive and still talking" i need serious input.  Not this rubbish.


LOL. I see the lightbulb flickering. Good - go with that. Here's another, along similar lines. Why did WTC1,2,7 collapse such that it looks like a textbook controlled demolition? Perfect. Very skilled work. Not almost - but absolutely too perfect.

the object your're suggesting i retract was not an argument i was using at all, i was merely pointing out the fact of how easily these planes fly themselves once in the air and flaps set accordingly.

Read the above post. You're wasting my time.
Top
industrock
Posted: Jun 5 2007, 01:02 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 5,000
Joined: 3-June 07



QUOTE (industrock @ Jun 5 2007, 12:56 AM)
QUOTE (kupci @ Jun 4 2007, 06:58 PM)
LOL.  I see the lightbulb flickering.  Good - go with that.  Here's another, along similar lines.  Why did WTC1,2,7 collapse such that it looks like a textbook controlled demolition?  Perfect.  Very skilled work.  Not almost - but absolutely too perfect.


When's the last time you've been to NYC and stood inside the deconstruction area? I think never. Rewind 6 years, sit there and look around. When you see all the collateral damage from your "textbook" implosion, come talk to me about that, ok?

In the mean time, continue to read news articles and watch videos.
Top
dfrankl4
Posted: Jun 5 2007, 02:34 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Member No.: 3,672
Joined: 5-April 07



I would think that to even find the pentagon, you would need the help of ATC's wouldn't you. Come on, to even turn the plane around and go towards DC would take a Air Traffic Controller to give you the correct information and to hit a tiny spec such as the pentagon, you would have to have someone on the outside telling you where to go.

Dfrank
Top
UKperspective
Posted: Jun 5 2007, 04:21 PM


Blunt Speaking Yorkshireman


Group: Members
Posts: 237
Member No.: 2,862
Joined: 5-March 07



QUOTE (NK-44 @ Feb 8 2007, 06:57 AM)
According to a footnote in the 9/11 Commission Report, some time in August 2001 Hanjour successfully conducts “a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.” The instructor thinks that “Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation.” 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 248 and 531

Cooperative Research states that
QUOTE
"besides the 9/11 Commission Report, no other evidence exists of Hanjour passing this certification flight. A search of the Lexis Nexus database indicates there are no mentions of Hanjour attending this school, or any witnesses recalling him there." Source


According to the 'Chronology of Events for Hijackers, 8/16/01 - 9/11/01, Hani Hanjour' from the Moussaoui-Trial, Hanjour took this lesson on the 20th of August at 15.00h and paid in cash.

QUOTE
A man who answered the phone at Congressional Air Charters  of Gaithersburg declined to give his name and said the company no longer gives flight instruction. On July 20, 2001, Hanjour - likely accompanied by Nawaf al-Hazmi, another member of the Flight 77 team - completed a 'challenging certification flight' supervised by an instructor from Congressional, according to the report of the 9/11 Commission. Source


The Commission-Report's statement contradicts all others. And as we've seen there's no evidence that this certification flight ever happened. The Commission-report quotes an anonymous instructor who thinks that Hanjour had "training from a military pilot". As there's no way that Hanjour could improve his skills in a few days more than in five years before, there are only two possibilities: this story is complete fraud, or it is true but then the instructor is obviously not talking about the same Hanjour.

You missed one possiblility here.

Maybe another man with military flying skills and a similar appearence took this test in his name to help him become properly certified. When you mention that another man accompanied him on this flight, how about if the companion was actually Hanjour and the pilot was in reality a simpathetic military trained friend who wanted to help him out?
After all this challenge is far more severe than anything he has achived previously according to your information.
Top
peterabbit
Posted: Jun 5 2007, 06:33 PM


TruthgoneWild


Group: Members
Posts: 247
Member No.: 4,244
Joined: 29-April 07



QUOTE (industrock @ Jun 4 2007, 12:01 AM)
The very skilled maneuver they were talking about was the circle to go back after they had passed the Pentagon.  This circle could be very easily done... and with two fingers.

Easy? Two fingers?

Only if you have experience flying such aircraft my friend.

It's not the "circle to go back" that's hard; it's turning while descending 7000' at high speed and hitting the first floor is why it's not an easy task.
Top
seek_the_truth
Posted: Jun 5 2007, 08:26 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 727
Member No.: 984
Joined: 19-November 06



QUOTE (industrock @ Jun 5 2007, 05:53 AM)

Talk to a jet liner pilot and ask him how easy it is to use manual mode on the computer to execute a turn and descent. At that point, come talk to me about ignorance about how it's done, ok?

Your mind sees what you want and expect it to see, nothing less, nothing more. It's that simple. I'm not going to explain what i'm talking about for a third time, since obviously the first two went right over your heads.

Yeah, a JET LINER PILOT. He has been trained how to use a flight director and FMS. I have yet to see a report of how they knew what to do in a 757 cockpit. Sure flying it can be as easy as a 172, but a 757 has A LOT more systems and alot more going on. People say how "they didn't need to know how to land it" but really, they basically were. It is hard for an inexperienced pilot in such a complex aircraft to descend that fast with perfect results, and as shown above, his skill level wouldn't allow him to do that. And I have still seen nothing showing how they trained for a 757 cockpit. Cockpit posters wont tell you too much, they wont tell you how to but a descent rate in and do the turn. Htey needed to know how to use a flight director, no report shows they did. When people say that they knew what they were oding, they were trained are lying. They were not. simple. if you cant fly a 172 you cant fly a 757.
Top
seek_the_truth
Posted: Jun 5 2007, 08:27 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 727
Member No.: 984
Joined: 19-November 06



QUOTE (dfrankl4 @ Jun 5 2007, 07:34 PM)
I would think that to even find the pentagon, you would need the help of ATC's wouldn't you. Come on, to even turn the plane around and go towards DC would take a Air Traffic Controller to give you the correct information and to hit a tiny spec such as the pentagon, you would have to have someone on the outside telling you where to go.

Dfrank

Not really.
Top
NK-44
Posted: Jun 6 2007, 09:34 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 495
Member No.: 1,085
Joined: 1-December 06



QUOTE
1) Put the plane in autopilot
2) Turn the dial for the heading you want
3) Move a knob for the elevation you want
4) Sitback while the plane turns and descends by itself.


autopilot was not engaged when approaching the pentagon - at least this is the official version: NTSB Flight 77

when one defends the official version it would be good to even know the official version.


QUOTE
If someone said fly this plane into the ground or we'll slit your throat, what would you do? My guess is that at this point the pilots were already dead or at the back of the plane with the other passengers.


according to the official version (based on passenger calls) the pilots were in the back of the plane.
it should be noted that:
-the hijackers broke into the cockpit without a stress signal activated by the pilots
-friends, relatives and colleagues go conform that pilot Burlinghame would not give up the cockpit without a fight
-this all happened in under three minutes (last radio contact/flight 77 turn)


QUOTE
EDIT: in addition, with the autopilot system, you can also enter coordinates into the GPS system on the plane. If they didn't know how to do this, the real pilots could have done it for them without knowing what they were dooming themselves with.


again, this is highly unlikely. and your contradicting yourself. on one hand they couldn't even enter GPS coordinates, on the other hand, after 'shooting over' the pentagon they were able to enter new altitude + direction within seconds, in (besides the entering of the cockpit) most stressful part of the maneuver.
(not to forget we're talking about someone who was 'overhelmed by the instruments').

to be fair, that the pilots entered gps-data for them is something you consider as a possibility, you don't say this is what happened. but i think it's safe to say that they did not received help from the pilots.

Burlinghame wouldn't give up his cockpit to someone who couldn't even enter gps-code without a fight.
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | Investigate 9/11 | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (3) 1 [2] 3 



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0430 seconds · Archive