The general difficulty of the 9/11 flights

Since this topic is diverging a little, I recommend people start new threads that address specific points. There were four flights, with different issues. Break it down, in a useful manner.
 
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!)

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.
 
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.
 
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.

One of the things you'll find is that while Jets are extremely complicated machines, they're still relatively simple. Take, for instance, Adam Savage and Jaime Hyneman.. neither of these two had any pilot experience but were able to land a simulated aircraft with nothing more than a guy on the radio walking them through it.

Here's the segment
External Quote:
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.
 
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.

False on two counts.

First he had completed training in a full motion Boeing 737 flight simulator.

Second that his speed fluctuated a lot during his descent (and climb at some stages of his very sloppy turn). [...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's irrelevant. Why is guided flight the only possible explanation?

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). One witness told us that he thought the plane had actually bounced off the heliport. He was situated on I395 in a semi truck.

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. Unfortunately I have no way to contact him to get further information.

Note that the elevation of the terrain is the absolute lowest along the approach path. That screams "missile cutout" to me. It indicates a very strategically chosen attack trajectory.

0cb0053036f55ec0f04005d8be7312a5.jpg
 
"missile cutout"
What's that?

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).
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?
 
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
 
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.

This seems to be only prevarication on your part. I submitted a LOT of personal info.
 
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?

A missile cutout is used when going from ground to air, but the concept applies. If there are obstacles which a missile would hit if launched with a low trajectory, the launcher is set up to shoot around the obstacle.

Hitting the lamp posts was simply inconsequential collateral damage. The fact that it appears to have also avoided a sign bridge (other than clipping the edge of the wing) is more telling.

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
 
It doesn't say anything about a simulator.

You don't log actual flight time on an simulator, only simulated flight time. 0 hours. He spent two months there and completed the initial training at the end of March 2001.

He was not the best pilot, but he was good enough. Your problem is that you seem to think the flight path is precision. That is false, and the data I have provided shows this. It was very, very sloppy. Unless you think he intended to hit several light poles on the way in...
 
Here is a video about a craft that can fly in the same manner. The case should be obvious in the first 60 seconds.

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.
 
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.

This is an account of a witness who described AA77 acting "like a cruise missile with wings." See the 0:45 timestamp.
 
It doesn't say anything about a simulator.
This is the dialogue that led to the certificate post.
First he had completed training in a full motion Boeing 737 flight simulator.
Source, please.
(certificate posted)
Uh, that is an application indicating 0 hours.
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.

So I'm not sure what you're arguing - that he had recieved no 737 simulator training? Which seems silly as you posted about it yourself. Why do you need proof that he received 737 simulator training if even you accept that?


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
That is not a 737. Is a cruise missile similar in handling to a 737?
"like a cruise missile with wings."
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?
The plane debris is undeniable, it was a plane not a missile.
 
The plane debris is undeniable, it was a plane not a missile.

Specifically referring to the Pentagon, an American 77? YES!

Moving on....in RE: to the WTC1 and WTC2? Again....American flight 11 and United flight 175. This is not in dispute, in
what is considered normal understanding of the events of 09/11/2001. It happened, and the documentation is clear on
this event.
 
This is an account of a witness who described AA77 acting "like a cruise missile with wings." See the 0:45 timestamp.

"If you take it in the full context, it's obvious I'm talking about a jet,
hitting the Pentagon, and not a cruise missile."

Screen Shot 2014-04-13 at 12.33.53 AM.png
So you're using a clip that mocks the absurdity of the (your)
"It was secretly a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon" position
to assert that there's good evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon?!? :eek:

Bad misfire.png
 
Last edited:
This is an account of a witness who described AA77 acting "like a cruise missile with wings." See the 0:45 timestamp.


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..
 
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. I offered a cruise missile as an obvious candidate. Please respond to what I actually say not what you read into it.
 
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.

Well, the actual FDR from the airplane that operated as American Airlines Flight 77, originally scheduled KIAD-KLAX, but hijacked and then intentionally flown into the Pentagon on a suicide terrorist act.....THAT is quite well established, and supported by ALL available evidence.
 
hyperbole is also used as the plural of hyperbola.
That is the mathematical use.
Hyperbole (/haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.[2][3]

Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech.[4] An example of hyperbole is: "The bag weighed a ton."[5] Hyperbole makes the point that the bag was very heavy, though it probably does not weigh a ton.[6]


I was asked for an example of something that used automated guidance in a way that approximates the behavior of AA77.
But the physics and control inputs of a cruise missile are very different to a large aircraft.

Relieved to hear you are not arguing a cruise missile was used, that's at least once less dead horse to beat.
However your post was confusing in the context of the conversation which made it appear you were arguing that.
 
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.

I did, actually. Your eye witness video completely disproves that a cruise missile is an "obvious candidate." If you want to make references to remotely operated machinery, then I would suggest providing videos or other information to that effect and not one relating to an eye witness' supposed account of a missile hitting the pentagon.
 
Back
Top