WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Silly theory that somehow AAL77 was remote guided or what ever..
YUP!! Entirely silly, as a "theory". The FDR re-creation is proof:
Silly theory that somehow AAL77 was remote guided or what ever..
Then, I am confused as to your "point"?
Did you work at the Pentagon, on 11 September 2001? If so, what was your status? Keeping in mind that a LOT of employees at the Pentagon were then, and still are, civilian. (I know the area, so please keep this in mind too!)
But it is actually very easy. Trivially easy almost. Like driving a car in a circle in an open area. I think you are getting caught up with the words "high speed spiral descent" which sounds hard. It's not like some spiral dive. Descending is done by reducing power. Turning is done by turning the yoke a bit.
There's no path to follow. You just wait until you complete the turn.
Interesting that a man who had absolutely no flying time in any kind of jet could maintain a relatively constant airspeed during that descent. It's like driving down a mountain. As you go down, your potential energy is converted into kinetic energy of forward motion.
While this isnt evidence, it does show that with a very small amount of instruction, one CAN control a plane.. even a commercial airliner. One point that is not in contention, either from the Truthers OR those that "believe the official story" ist hat the men that took control of those planes on 9/11 had flight training. This means that even with the most basic of instruction they had the ability to line up a plane and crash it given what you see above, and what expert pilots (including those on this board) have said over and over and over. The Pentagon had 5 sides, each of the WTC towers had four (total of 8). That's plenty of target space to crash a plane into.External Quote:
Interesting that a man who had absolutely no flying time in any kind of jet could maintain a relatively constant airspeed during that descent. It's like driving down a mountain. As you go down, your potential energy is converted into kinetic energy of forward motion.
That's irrelevant. Why is guided flight the only possible explanation?
False on two counts.
First he had completed training in a full motion Boeing 737 flight simulator.
The final seconds of flight exhibited extraordinarily precise maneuvering.
Interestingly, he also reported that state troopers came flying down the shoulder and slid sideways in front of the traffic, blocking off the freeway several seconds prior to impact.
Source, please.
What's that?"missile cutout"
So the lamp posts were intentionally hit?The final seconds of flight exhibited extraordinarily precise maneuvering. The plane came in between the Navy Annex (large rectangular complex of building wings in the upper right) and the VDOT antenna to the left of the Annex. It then proceeded at full throttle across the cloverleaf, clipping lamp posts along the way, and made a final corrective maneuver (not available in the truncated flight data which is missing the final few data frames).
Uh, that is an application indicating 0 hours.
External Quote:http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a020801hanisimulator&scale=0#a020801hanisimulator
February 8-March 12, 2001: 9/11 Hijacker Hanjour Practices on Boeing 737 Simulator, but Has Problems
![]()
9/11 hijacker Hani Hanjour practices on a Boeing 737-200 simulator for a total of 21 hours at the JetTech International flight school in Phoenix, Arizona. Hanjour also attends ground school and pays just under $7,500 for the training. Despite only completing 21 of his originally scheduled 34 hours of simulator training, according to the FBI this is the best-trained of the four hijacker pilots (see Spring-Summer 2001). However, an instructor comments: "Student made numerous errors during performance… including a lack of understanding of some basic concepts… Some of the concepts involved in large jet systems cannot be fully comprehended by someone with only small prop plane experience." [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006] The school contacts the FAA to warn it of Hanjour's poor English and flying skills (see January-February 2001).
Entity Tags: Hani Hanjour, JetTech
In a simulator?Uh, that is an application indicating 0 hours.
Then you also understand that I am not at liberty to discuss any details of my employment. Some contracts forbid me from even mentioning who the customer is.
What's that?
So the lamp posts were intentionally hit?
Does your description of 'extraordinarily precise' somehow exclude human operation?
Do you have exmaples of automated guided flight like this approach?
It doesn't say anything about a simulator.In a simulator?
Uh, that is an application indicating 0 hours.
It doesn't say anything about a simulator.
Here is a video about a craft that can fly in the same manner. The case should be obvious in the first 60 seconds.
That is an Application for a Medical, and EVERY pilot who gets a "medical" knows that form.
...you seem to think the flight path is precision. That is false...
NOPE! Sorry. Any airline pilot (like myself) sees this as nonsense, immediately. NOT that these missiles exist, but that there is STRONG evidence at the Pentagon....the FDR and CVR, and also DNA.
The topic of the flights of 9/11? I can discuss this at GREAT length.
This is the dialogue that led to the certificate post.It doesn't say anything about a simulator.
First he had completed training in a full motion Boeing 737 flight simulator.
(certificate posted)Source, please.
The 0 hours is obviously for actual flight in a real live plane - it indicates that the required training has been completed, it also indicates it is for additional rating. So it does not indicate he has 0 training hours, just 0 real world hours.Uh, that is an application indicating 0 hours.
That is not a 737. Is a cruise missile similar in handling to a 737?Here is a video about a craft that can fly in the same manner. The case should be obvious in the first 60 seconds.
Documentary of the Cruise Missle Tomahawk
A cruise missile with wings would have completely different flight dynamics to a cruise missile without wings. So are you saying the wings were fake pasted on wings?"like a cruise missile with wings."
This is an account of a witness who described AA77 acting "like a cruise missile with wings." See the 0:45 timestamp.
The plane debris is undeniable, it was a plane not a missile.
This is an account of a witness who described AA77 acting "like a cruise missile with wings." See the 0:45 timestamp.
This is an account of a witness who described AA77 acting "like a cruise missile with wings." See the 0:45 timestamp.
Oh, dear.....ever heard the term ('word') "hyperbole"???
I hate to break it to you @Hetware but the video you just posted completed debunks what you're saying. Your youtube evidence clearly states that the eyewitness saw a jet crash into the pentagon, and then goes on to use a metaphore to describe what it was doing.. "It was like a cruise missle (pause) with wings." Saying that the aircraft was flying low, like a cruise missle, and then adding in "with wings" because he was drawing a parallel, not actually stating that it was a missle..
Where did I say that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. I was asked for an example of something that used automated guidance in a way that approximates the behavior of AA77.
That is the mathematical use.hyperbole is also used as the plural of hyperbola.
But the physics and control inputs of a cruise missile are very different to a large aircraft.I was asked for an example of something that used automated guidance in a way that approximates the behavior of AA77.
I prefer "hyperbolae", but hyperbole is also used as the plural of hyperbola.
But at least 530 records in the Wayback Machine. Must've been popular
I will check it out.
http://web.archive.org/web/http://www.politicalfriendster.com/
Where did I say that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. I was asked for an example of something that used automated guidance in a way that approximates the behavior of AA77. I offered a cruise missile as an obvious candidate. Please respond to what I actually say not what you read into it.