You don't have a commercial licence or Sim time. The hijackers did.
The point is that I doubt that I would find a high speed spiral descent even in that light plane as 'easy' as parking a compact nose on.
I specifically remember the "theory" that Iran had loaded up the flight with corpses. It was disgusting.
Actually it has been done before- though not IN the US- but By the US
Yes, an urgent wartime effort; on the 77th meridian, under strict instruction to restrict the building's height to 77 feet, they began it's construction, on September 11th of that year, to be precise.I stand corrected, I was thinking 1951 instead of 1941, my mistake.. thanks Redwood
So your answer to my question is that they would find these high speed spiral descents relatively easy ?
OMG that had me laughing quite out loud I am afraid.Zero. Thats the point. It would have been easier to crash where they were than to avoid them.
The argument about AAL77's choice of which side to hit seems equally pedantic. The first thing we can all agree on is that he was far too high. The idea that he should have aimed for the "generals".. well, how do you know he wasn't? Maybe he thought that was where they were? What ever, that is pointless conjecture. The point is his target was the Pentagon. It was a symbolic hit, not a military strike. It didn't matter where he hit it, so long as he hit it.
The argument by some truthers that at the first sight of the Pentagon, Hanjour should have pushed over into a dive is most ignorant assumption that could be envisioned.
The turn wasn't flawless, neither was the final run-in. The radar trace shows numerous small magnetic heading alterations in the final few minutes and then what I term a last second desperate lunge, probably to correct for drift from the northwesterly wind blowing at the time.
That is indicative of a pilot hand flying, but inaccurately. The speed is all over the shop as we say. This rules out an automated guidance system which compensates for drift and controls speed very accurately.
Having years of hands-on experience with automated guidance systems, and an intimate familiarity with the lay of the land of the final approach into the Pentagon, I can say with confidence that automated guidance is the ONLY viable explanation.
Sorry, but let me STOP YOU RIGHT THERE.
I happen to have looked into this particular aspect of 9/11. I can discuss at great lengths, and also, as an experienced pilot ON the B757/B767.
Do you wish to continue?
By all means. Is there anything that you dispute regarding my account of the final approach of AA77 into my place of employment?
Every person who has learned to fly understands the concept of the "overhead approach". Usually it is meant for the locating and ascertaining of an uncontrolled airport or other place to land (when uncertain of its specific location). Once flown over, then a controlled turn around combined with a descent will set up the airplane for an approach to the airport (or landing spot). In the case of 9/11 at the Pentagon, of course "landing" was not the intent...but the same principles are involved.
The "Military Overhead Break" is similar, for reference:
Perhaps a better image taken off of the Internet:
What was "different" on 9/11 RE: the Pentagon and AAL77 was merely the amount of turn, being about 330° rather than a "conventional" 180° and a "racetrack oval" with another 180° turn.
EDIT: On a personal aside....one would think that any website on the Internet who self-claim as "pilots" would be able to understand this very basic principle!
So we are to believe a crazed suicidal terrorist who wasn't interested in learning to land nor take off, and was flying one of the only aircraft aloft on the east coast was trying to avoid congestion?
Your "place of employment"?
OK...let me begin. On September 11, 2001 I was employed with a major airline (COA) and on that day, was scheduled for a trip the next day. So, it was one of my "days off".
I was at home, on September 11, 2001...that morning, and had workmen in my backyard, building my deck...(who I told to GO HOME, as the tragedy unfolded, on the news).
My home (then) was near the corner of Fillmore Street and Pershing Drive, in Arlington Virginia. (Please feel free to GoogleMap that location....look for 'Lyon Park' as an anchor point...THAT was actually my voting site, during elections....want to know more???)
I was home, that day. As I mentioned, my next trip (on 12 September, 2001) was to Sao Paulo (KEWR - SBGR)...a layover IN Sao Paulo (a city I've been to MANY times), then over to Rio (SBGL).....I was looking forward to my layover in Rio Di Janeiro....I still have never visited there!
BACK to my experience. I felt it when the upper floors of the Pentagon fell...Only after the fact did I realize what I felt, in my house, was related to the collapse of the Pentagon's upper floors.
ALSO>...I lived there, I drove by the area for MONTHS!!!
I could go on and on and on.......wanna talk about the airplanes of 9/11?? I can chat there, too. Another thread, please just search...
I think your perception of how aviation actually works is distorted by....maybe a variety of sites...and also maybe some horrible versions that tend to embed in the public "phsyche" due to HollyWood movies.
IF (And, I do not pretend to know your financial situation)....but IF you took just a few flying lessons?? Would help a LOT in understanding.
EDIT: JUST one link...(there are SO many more options!!):
I don't need to google the location. I know the area well. On 9/11 I was starting the process of joining a contract in direct support of the office of Lieutenant General Timothy Joseph Maude. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/tjmaude.htm
Unfortunately my online research was lawyered off the internet: http://www.politicalfriendster.com/ The data is still there. I just haven't found an easy was of reproducing the interface. Of particular interest is the entity call "aircraft blotter". Not only did I have all the major details of the flights and aircraft involved in 9/11 smartly cataloged and referenced, I had losts of other goodies such as N987SA and N900SA, to name but a few. But I digress.
The manager rated his flying ability as average to below average. One of his instructors said he had no flying ability (paraphrased, perhaps). Which is noteworthy.I can say with confidence that automated guidance is the ONLY viable explanation.
There was no such occurrence as a "high speed spiral descent". AAL 77 made a fairly commonplace right-hand descending turn. Whomever was actually flying (the clues have pointed to at least two pilots in each of the four airplanes that day), the turn was 'sloppy" by the standards of a professional aviator, but certainly not "complex" (as suggested by the word "spiral"), nor particularly "high-speed". It was a bit above the usual regulatory minimum in U.S. airspace of 250 knots below 10,000 feet (**), but the airplane's aerodynamics don't care about "regulations".
(**)This dictate is a convenience for ATC (Air Traffic Control). There is the added 'bonus' of bird strike/windshield safety, but the forward windows are actually quite strong.
Here is a segment from a Dutch television program called "Zembla" that was first broadcast in 2006. It uses clips from that execrable film called "Loose Change" (a source of many 9/11 misconceptions) and examines the veracity of that film's claims. This portion is in a simulator with a fairly low-time Private Pilot to re-create the American flight 77 Pentagon attack. The video opens with a bit of soundtrack from "Loose Change" which is factually incorrect. The narrator (Dylan Avery): "...executes a 330 degree turn at 530 miles per hour..." (my emphasis). The speed claim by the filmmakers is false.
(The simulator portion comes towards the end of this clip, but the preliminary is worth a watch...it IS in Dutch, with English subtitles).
Here is the NTSB re-creation that was animated using the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) info:
I could not find a shorter version (except for ones that include false text added), but skip to 1:18:00. It can be seen that in the descending turn the airspeed varies between 265 and 303 knots (305 MPH to 349 MPH). This is all well within the airplane's normal abilities. I personally have flown above 250 knots below 10,000 feet in a B767 when overwater and outside the 12-mile limit. It is commonplace in some parts of the World, especially in Micronesia.
But at least 530 records in the Wayback Machine. Must've been popularUnfortunately my online research was lawyered off the internet:
Hey...um...we just shared a thread a few minutes ago in which you also began similarly...and, well, the DNA stuff didn't go well.Having years of hands-on experience with automated guidance systems, and an intimate familiarity with the lay of the land of the final approach into the Pentagon, I can say with confidence that automated guidance is the ONLY viable explanation. The plane followed the absolutely lowest available terrain, basically threading a needle between the Navy Annex and I395. It continued at full thrust close enough from the ground to clip several lamp posts, and hit the first floor of the building on a trajectory parallel to the ground.
Here are some statements regarding the piloting ability of the accused suicidal flying ace:
Having years of hands-on experience with automated guidance systems, and an intimate familiarity with the lay of the land of the final approach into the Pentagon, I can say with confidence that automated guidance is the ONLY viable explanation. The plane followed the absolutely lowest available terrain, basically threading a needle between the Navy Annex and I395. It continued at full thrust close enough from the ground to clip several lamp posts, and hit the first floor of the building on a trajectory parallel to the ground.
Here are some statements regarding the piloting ability of the accused suicidal flying ace:
The third iteration of Loose Change is by far the best.
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Needs Debunking: That the GPS does not implement time corrections from Einstein's relativity||Science and Pseudoscience||7|
|Debunked: Home Schooling Parents in Ohio Jailed||General Discussion||6|
|James Tracy: Teaching 9/11 to Students||General Discussion||4|
|Halliburton's $100 Load of Laundry||General Discussion||5|
|Brock Chisholm(first Director-General of the World Health Organization) Quote||Quotes Debunked||32|
|Debunked: 1,433 Deaths Caused by New Zealand Police Since 1990||General Discussion||37|
|Former top NATO Italian General Fabio Mini||Contrails and Chemtrails||16|
|Concerned about dismissing the concept of flase flags in general.||Site Feedback & News||33|
|AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False||9/11||161|
|Debunked: Retired Army General Al Cuppett||People Debunked||15|
|LAX Shooter's General Description/Attire Confusion.||Conspiracy Theories||0|
|General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years||Conspiracy Theories||61|
|C||The difficulty of seeing the curve of the earth from 30,000 feet||Flat Earth||11|
|Clinton's Flights on Epstein's Plane, the "Lolita Express", did not go to the Island||Conspiracy Theories||2|
|G||Flight data for Flights 11 and 175||9/11||4|
|Flights being quarantin||Current Events||0|
|North-South flights||Flat Earth||10|
|Help identifying odd flights||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||8|
|F-WWQF high altitude test flights||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||3|
|Explained: Why flying isn't impossible on a globe||Flat Earth||106|
|Racetrack contrails near Genoa, Italy on December 26 [Air France and EasyJet flights on hold, Fog]||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||11|
|Flat Earth Theory Debunked by Short Flights (QF27 & QF28) From Australia to South America||Flat Earth||276|
|HAL47 and HAL9981 Two Hawaiian Flights Diverted to Oakland||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||2|
|Pair of jets flying in formation? [Two commercial flights]||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||4|
|BBC - Longer flights to curb vapour trails||Contrails and Chemtrails||144|
|Use Siri to See What Flights Are Above You||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||0|
|Weather Modification Inc - Are Their Flights Tracked?||Contrails and Chemtrails||8|
|Contrail Science Interactive Flights Map (beta)||Contrails and Chemtrails||18|
|Stratospheric passenger flights are likely an inefficient geoengineering strategy||Contrails and Chemtrails||2|
|Debunked: Only Four Airliner Flights/Day over Mt. Shasta, CA||Contrails and Chemtrails||36|