The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426:1484]

Quag · Sep 21, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

Ok here we go

phoenyx said:
Ok.

Your reasoning does sound good here.

Again, sounds good...

I see. You may be right on this point.

I've heard it said more then once that Hani Hanjour was the best of the pilots. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?
Nope but it doesnt mean he wasnt and again, failing a check ride is not indicative of their inability to do what they did, most of the check ride has nothign to do with the small skill set rrequired

Again, sounds good there...

You don't actually know what they worried about. Honestly, I think the alleged hijackers may well have never boarded the planes at all. If they did, they may have -thought- they were going to hijack the planes, but I believe that the planes were all taken over by remote control. If this was the case, they really didn't have to know much at all; they just had to take the fall for what happened, which wouldn't be hard, because they'd be dead and so unable to argue that they didn't actually do it (whether they tried or not). Personally I think they may have even thought that the whole thing was simply a simulation. But anyway, this is going way beyond what we're talking about right now.. I just thought I'd reveal my theories here so you could see where I'm coming from on this point.

WOW! your mind must be a scary place

I'm not willing to assume why Nila apparently made some mistakes here. However, I would like to point out that Nila, as far as I know, is -not- a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, as far as I know. She just wrote an article, published on prisonplanet.com (a rather famous site for those who don't believe in the official story) that seemed to be quite knowledgeable, given my understanding of the things she was talking about. I would like to point out that she still has more points that you haven't yet tarnished. Take, for instance, the following:
***
Thats why I said learn about aviation, to someoen who doesnt knwo she coudl make sense but If you knew you woudl realize that she is makign this stuff up
Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.
No basic is flyign straight and level, they hijackers did not need to know how to take off/land or doign any preflight/inflight checks. nor woudl they have to do coordianted turns etc. There is a reason as a student pilot you spend so much time doing circuits, its because thats what you need to practice the most!

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.
as stated it was irrelevant for their task

In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.”

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”
***
opinions based on instructors comparing them to peopel who wanted to learn to fly not crash aircraft
And yet, these incompetent pilots somehow managed the following:

***
According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).Why do you assume he had to do this all himself, there are 2 seats I would be surprised if they werent both occupied so while 1 is performign the turn the other is lookign for/turnign off the transponder, not that difficult or extrodinary.

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “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.” because no one turns liek that with passengers aboard not because it is difficult! btw flying withotu passengers is always more fun

And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.

again huge building on the Potomac a very large river with highways around it etc. youd have to be pretty blind to not se eit from very very far away
But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).ran outta time will try but expect no more before tuesday
***

There's more as well, but I think that's good for now...

phoenyx · Sep 21, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

shanners said:
From an FAA examiner, who passes or fails student pilots:

"people don't realize that to hand fly an airliner at those speeds is extremely difficult ... particularly if you're a novice because a novice whose experience is on a small plane ... going 300 knots in an airliner and you move the controls like you'd expect to do in a little plane ..."

I'd seen that video before, but it's good to be reminded of it; thanks for posting it shanners

phoenyx · Sep 21, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

Quag said:
phoenyx said:

I don't think it's irrelevant, but the truth of the matter is, as time goes on, I think it becomes clear who really knows their stuff and who doesn't. In my book, you've passed the "looks like a pilot" test. True, I'm not actually a pilot myself, but for the purposes of this discussion, that'll do.

Click to expand...

Didnt know was a test i would have studied

Laugh, well you passed with flying colours anyway

.

Quag said:
phoenyx said:

All I can say is that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover.

Click to expand...

I'm judging this book by erronous content not the cover

Well to be fair, we currently only have -1- pilot in this forum it would seem. Nila isn't around to defend herself. I'm not a pilot, so there are certainly things I don't know; your reasoning sounded logical on the points mentioned though so I conceded them. However, even assuming that you were right on the points I conceded, there are other points that I still find to be viable, so we'll get to that next...

Quag said:
phoenyx said:

Yes, but you may have noticed that she never claimed to be a pilot of commercial airliners. Perhaps this was the problem.

Click to expand...

phoenyx said:

She -is- a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft

Click to expand...

From your post. There aint a heck of a lot of heavy aircraft in the world. 300000lbs or more, I just googled an AN124 cockpit and to no surprise to me it is very similar to any large passenger plane. A C5 Galaxy as well, most of the other large cargo planes are basically derivatives of the passenger planes with correspondingly similar cockpits. iIn fact you will find any large aircraft cockpit to be similar in layout (enough differences that you cant jump from one to the other but I'm talking about the difficulties they would have in defending themselves against attacks If they even tried to which i seriously doubt,)

Alright, well, I don't know why she apparently made those statements then. If I ever meet her, I'll try to ask her, laugh

.

Quag said:
phoenyx said:

Personally, I've found that there are a -lot- of strange things concerning Flight 77. For this reason, I haven't assumed that the reason that they didn't hit the PTT is because they never had the chance.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not one of the last things pilots do is inform atc of the problem. Pilots are taught to deal with the emergency first inform atc afterwards. I said it would probably be easiest I shoudl have specified that it would probably not have occured to them even if they had the time.[/COLOR]

Well, again, I'm not that knowledgeable on that point, so I'll concede that one for now.

phoenyx · Sep 21, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

Quag said:
phoenyx said:

I've heard it said more then once that Hani Hanjour was the best of the pilots. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?

Click to expand...

Nope but it doesnt mean he wasnt

True. I noticed that Rob Balsamo, an experienced pilot and one of the founders from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, has also said that Hani Hanjour was the "best hijacker pilot" in the video he just linked to; I -have- spoken to Rob Balsamo in the past. I sent him an email asking him why he believes Hani Hanjour was the best hijacker pilot; he told me that the 911 Commission report was the source for this information.

Quag said:
and again, failing a check ride is not indicative of their inability to do what they did, most of the check ride has nothing to do with the small skill set required

I'm not overly familiar with all the things one has to do in order to pass a check ride, but some of the comments made by the aircraft instructors of the various alleged hijackers seem to be pretty relevant to controlling flying aircraft to me. Rob Balsamo's video that Shanners posted also seems to make it pretty clear that the maneuvers they had to make at the Pentagon, and especially at the World Trade Center buildings, were incredibly difficult even for very experienced pilots to make at the speeds posited by the official story.

Quag said:
phoenyx said:

You don't actually know what they worried about. Honestly, I think the alleged hijackers may well have never boarded the planes at all. If they did, they may have -thought- they were going to hijack the planes, but I believe that the planes were all taken over by remote control. If this was the case, they really didn't have to know much at all; they just had to take the fall for what happened, which wouldn't be hard, because they'd be dead and so unable to argue that they didn't actually do it (whether they tried or not). Personally I think they may have even thought that the whole thing was simply a simulation. But anyway, this is going way beyond what we're talking about right now.. I just thought I'd reveal my theories here so you could see where I'm coming from on this point.

Click to expand...

WOW! your mind must be a scary place

Very funny, laugh

. I've done a lot of research on this though, I can understand how coming out of the blue like this may make it sound incredibly far fetched.

Quag said:
phoenyx said:

I'm not willing to assume why Nila apparently made some mistakes here. However, I would like to point out that Nila, as far as I know, is -not- a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, as far as I know. She just wrote an article, published on prisonplanet.com (a rather famous site for those who don't believe in the official story) that seemed to be quite knowledgeable, given my understanding of the things she was talking about. I would like to point out that she still has more points that you haven't yet tarnished.

Click to expand...

Thats why I said learn about aviation, to someone who doesnt know she could make sense but If you knew you would realize that she is making this stuff up

Well, I think you've definitedly made me think about a lot of what she said.. but we're not done with her article yet

.

Quag said:
phoenyx said:

[From Nila's article]:
Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get. Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

Click to expand...

No basic is flying straight and level, the hijackers did not need to know how to take off/land or do any preflight/inflight checks. nor would they have to do coordinated turns etc. There is a reason as a student pilot you spend so much time doing circuits, it's because thats what you need to practice the most!

Well, making four gentle left turns doesn't seem incredibly taxing to me. When comparing this with what the (allegedly) hijacked planes of 9/11 did (i'm not sure if it involved any coordinated turns, but the turns made were apparently virtually impossible to pull off even for very experienced pilots), that's a positive cakewalk.

Quag said:
phoenyx said:

[From Nila's article]:
In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.”

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

Click to expand...

opinions based on instructors comparing them to people who wanted to learn to fly not crash aircraft

The comment made of Hani Hanjour was based on what he allegedly did (the Pentagon was even mentioned). As to the others, they don't seem to be the stuff of stellar pilots, to say the least; and that's apparently the only type of pilot who could have pulled off the stunts that happened regarding these 911 planes.

Quag said:
phoenyx said:

And yet, these incompetent pilots somehow managed the following:

***
According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).

Click to expand...

Why do you assume he had to do this all himself, there are 2 seats I would be surprised if they werent both occupied so while 1 is performign the turn the other is lookign for/turnign off the transponder, not that difficult or extrodinary.

Alright, never mind the transponder. Do you truly believe that making "an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level" is simple stuff for a transport size aircraft?

Quag said:
phoenyx said:

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “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.”

Click to expand...

because no one turns liek that with passengers aboard not because it is difficult! btw flying without passengers is always more fun

You really believe that these maneuvers were simple? To be honest, you're the first (alleged) pilot that I've spoken to that thinks these maneuvers were child's play and aren't done more often by passenger airliners simply because it might upset the passengers. I'm afraid that I'm not willing to take your word on this one.

Quag said:
phoenyx said:

And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.

Click to expand...

again huge building on the Potomac a very large river with highways around it etc. youd have to be pretty blind to not se eit from very very far away

I'm not that good with google maps, so I've conceded the possibility that Hani Hanjour would have been able to find the Pentagon by eyesight alone. I'm much more interested in hearing your theory as to why he allegedly did the following though:
[Nila's article]:
***
But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).
***

Quag said:
ran outta time will try but expect no more before tuesday

Ok, that's fine. I'm actually liking this conversation. You've definitely taught me some things, but I'm thinking that we may be getting to the point where I may teach you a thing or 2 about the 911 planes

.

shanners · Sep 22, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

Remember what Rummy said about the missile hitting it?

Video of Missile Hitting Pentagon Leaked | Veterans Today

phoenyx · Sep 22, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

shanners said:
Remember what Rummy said about the missile hitting it?

Video of Missile Hitting Pentagon Leaked | Veterans Today

I've seen that video, it's good stuff

. Rob Balsamo, one of the founders of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, is one of the people who talks to Jesse Ventura. I think I should say that CIT (the makers of National Security Alert) -don't- believe that the pentagon was hit by a missile; they say there's no evidence that a missile hit it. Personally, I'm not completely sure whether a missile may have been involved. There is some discord in the truth movement as to whether or not a heavy aircraft hit the pentagon; there are those, such as CIT, PFT and others (such as myself) who believe it was impossible for a heavy aircraft to hit the pentagon on the official trajectory, and there are those (who in my view haven't really studied the issue thoroughly enough) who believe it could have. However, almost everyone agrees that explosives within the pentagon may have been involved; this is something that virtually all groups within the truth movement agree on.

shanners · Sep 22, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

phoenyx said:
I've seen that video, it's good stuff . Rob Balsamo, one of the founders of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, is one of the people who talks to Jesse Ventura. I think I should say that CIT (the makers of National Security Alert) -don't- believe that the pentagon was hit by a missile; they say there's no evidence that a missile hit it.

Perhaps it was both. Explosives and a missile. With a missile they have an airborne object that they can then doctor the video of it, leaving enough to show there was an airborne object, at the same time not showing clearly what it really was.

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Sep 22, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

phoenyx said:
I've seen that video, it's good stuff .

MEGA FAIL ...

The wee video you are so proud has the supposed "missile" hitting the WRONG bit ... trust you lot to fall for an OBVIOUS HOAX !!!

The building was hit the OTHER side of the heliport ...

And the moron narrating it doesn't have a clue he is speaking about the PUNCH OUT WALL either ... AND it uses poor fakery in the supposed faked-up missiles ... well done you two, falling over yourselves to pretend you are good at research and know what you are talking about ... how gullible of you both.

Funny for us though to watch how easily you buy into stuff the SIMPLEST of fact-checking would show you fake ... you are SOOOO desperate for this to be true you are actually blinded by it ... waaay tooo funnny !!!

It's not even good Photoshop ...

AGM-86C/D Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile

Gotta love truthers ... eleven years later STILL falling for OLD fakes and lies !!!

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Sep 22, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

phoenyx said:
Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

The probmem here for you is that you are taking ONE POINT IN TIME and trying to make it the whole !!!

Just because at one point in his training he was bad does NOT preclude him from IMPROVING ... from moving on in time and ability.

I bet even when you first, let's say, were learning to drive, there would have been a POINT when your instructors classed you as useless.

You simply CANNOT in genuine intellectual honesty take ONE POINT IN TIME as the whole.

ALL the hijack pilots had PASSED the certified FAA tests to become full pilots ... so there was obvios improvement BEYOND that point in time you truthers all latch onto.

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Sep 22, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

phoenyx said:
In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.”

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”
.

When you rely SOLELY on SELECTIVE cherry-picked bits of longer quotes and interviews it is easy, too easy, to make out-of-context and misleading claims.

Reading the FULL quotes and interviews always shows how much "spinning" truther sites do ... they NEED to mislead though, they NEED to misrepresent ... for FULL words paint a different picture to the ones claimed by truthers ...

Flight School Dropouts - 911myths

Isn't it funny and telling that for Da Twoof to fly requires so much lying and spinning !!!

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Sep 22, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

phoenyx said:
And yet, these incompetent pilots somehow managed the following:
***
According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level.

And what EXACTLY is so difficult about a descending turn that is a full 360° ... a full circle covering miles of sky ???

If anything the amount of correction and over-steering he does, shows how inexperienced he was ... a more skilled pilot could have done it better, for it is far, far from a Top Gun type manoeuvre ... and certainly nothing beyone the aircraft capabilities.

phoenyx said:
Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).

I bet you have NO idea how a transponder even works or what you need to do turn it off ... surely even truthers should realise that turning something off is NOT rocket science.

And I would like to see proof of your claim that his instructors referenced him not even being able to spell the word.

phoenyx said:
The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “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.”

WHY is it you truthers ALWAYS leave out the last bit of that comment ... almost like you are dishonestly trying to make is seem as if the controller actually thought it a military aircraft ... surely, since you all claim to be truth-seekers and honest then you understand that you NEED the FULL quote.

Or are you trying to misrepresent what was said, which IF you were right you would not need to do !!!

FULL QUOTE ...

(I stated, "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. You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe.")

http://www.911myths.com/images/5/50/OBriensLetter.pdf

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Sep 22, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

phoenyx said:
But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).
***

There's more as well, but I think that's good for now...

Meanwhile ... back in the real world, sane and sensible people realise that DUE to his LACK of experience in flying he just MISSED and so turned for another run at it.

What fantasy is next ... the Pentagon reinforced "rings" that "supposedly" would have been in the way of an aircraft getting actually inside ... or my personal favourite, the "missing" trillions ???

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Sep 22, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

phoenyx said:
Well, making four gentle left turns doesn't seem incredibly taxing to me. When comparing this with what the (allegedly) hijacked planes of 9/11 did (i'm not sure if it involved any coordinated turns, but the turns made were apparently virtually impossible to pull off even for very experienced pilots), that's a positive cakewalk.

None of the hijackers made anything approaching difficulty in flying ... hitting the two TALLEST most visible things on the skyline is beyond easy ...

Hitting the utterly unmistakable and huge Pentagon is easy too ... crashing IS easy ... and now that aircraft are fitted with systems that basically fly the damm thing for you ... NOTHING the hijackers did was outwith either their own level of experience nor the aircrafts capability.

phoenyx said:
Alright, never mind the transponder. Do you truly believe that making "an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level" is simple stuff for a transport size aircraft?

There was NOTHING precise about those turns ... you CAN'T get bigger than a FULL circle ... 360° is a FULL CIRCLE ... it gives you the maximum space taking up miles of open sky ... his descent rate was a bit steep, but nowhere near unmanagable.

And it is a fact that flying low and fast is more than possilbe, in fact the "ground effect" makes an aircraft somewhat more aerodynamic at speed ... so much so that the Russians tested WING-IN-GROUND effect (WIG)aircraft, which flew incredibly well ... the Ekranoplan ...

phoenyx said:
You really believe that these maneuvers were simple? To be honest, you're the first (alleged) pilot that I've spoken to that thinks these maneuvers were child's play and aren't done more often by passenger airliners simply because it might upset the passengers. I'm afraid that I'm not willing to take your word on this one.

Yes, they were ... take-off and landing are really the most technically challenging things, the hijackers had no intention of landing and the take-off had been done already for them ... go to ANY pilot forum or flight school and find out ... no need to only take one persons word ... do some finding out by speaking to other pilots ...

Airline Pilot Central Forums

http://www.911myths.com/images/7/73/Another_Expert.pdf

Try to book yourself some time on a flight simulator ... not that dear and see just how easy what they did was ... flying INTO big targets is NOT hard.

This is just not hard to do ... the bank is NOT steep and the craft never exceeds 1G ... but the amount of corrections shows how inexperienced he was ... (music dreadful though) ...

phoenyx said:
but I'm thinking that we may be getting to the point where I may teach you a thing or 2 about the 911 planes .

Sorry, but no truther anywhere on Planet Earth has ever taught a debunker something they didn't already know and understand better ... if anything debunkers are more up to date and current than truthers ... most truthers are stuck way back in the past regurgitating the same tired old claims that eternally get shown wrong.

Sorry phoenyx ... ain't gonna happen !!!

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Sep 22, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

phoenyx said:
Rob Balsamo,

Is a clown !!!

phoenyx said:
However, almost everyone agrees that explosives within the pentagon may have been involved; this is something that virtually all groups within the truth movement agree on.

Yet NONE of the damage is consistent with explosives ... but then again truthers tend NOT to know what they are talking about, none of those proposing these things are actually real world experts or have knowledge of them.

The damage inside is NOT in a 360° pattern ... and since explosives work by a chemical reaction that EXPANDS gases in ALL directions at the EXACT same time then damage inside would NOT look like this ...

Columns and damage clearly from a DIRECTIONAL objects such as an aircraft ... even many truther groups have now conceeded that it was an aircraft impact ...

(What about the physical damage? A very thorough study of the damage is to be found on the website of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. It certainly looks to me as though the damage is consistent with impact and penetration by a large twin-engined plane. When you think about it, how could a plane weighing 100 tons, travelling at over 550 miles per hour, do anything but burst right through the wall. The shape of the damage shows that only the wing tips and tail fin failed to penetrate. The parts that failed to penetrate all left marks. 550 miles per hour! Think what a loaded truck travelling at 100 miles an hour would do. Then think about the way energy increases with the square of the speed. So at 200 miles per hour the energy is 4 times as great. At 400 miles an hour it is 16 times as great, and there is still another 150 miles an hour to go! Would anyone be willing to stand near the C-ring if they knew the plane was approaching? I don’t think so.)

(The case that a large commercial passenger twin engined jet did hit the Pentagon is now very strong. All arguments used against it have been shown to be flawed, so there is no scientific proof that it did not hit. There is just the highly respectable probability that it did.)

Pentagon | The Science of 9/11

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 1

Roll rate - PPRuNe Forums

Quag · Sep 25, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

phoenyx said:
True. I noticed that Rob Balsamo, an experienced pilot and one of the founders from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, has also said that Hani Hanjour was the "best hijacker pilot" in the video he just linked to; I -have- spoken to Rob Balsamo in the past. I sent him an email asking him why he believes Hani Hanjour was the best hijacker pilot; he told me that the 911 Commission report was the source for this information.
As I have already stated hsi ability to pass a flight check was irrelevant to the task he set out to do. Also as IGATB pointed out that was a snapshot and unless taken jsut a couple days at most before 911 it is pointless as it assumes they could not improuve. Though I will stress again the ability to pass a flight check is irrelevant to what they actually did

I'm not overly familiar with all the things one has to do in order to pass a check ride, but some of the comments made by the aircraft instructors of the various alleged hijackers seem to be pretty relevant to controlling flying aircraft to me. Rob Balsamo's video that Shanners posted also seems to make it pretty clear that the maneuvers they had to make at the Pentagon, and especially at the World Trade Center buildings, were incredibly difficult even for very experienced pilots to make at the speeds posited by the official story.

OK that video was again done by peopel like Nila that either don`t know squat about what they are talking about or are lying their asses off on purpose to decieve people like you. I can`t acces the video from this puter but from memory they used MPH when talking about the speed of the jets and KTs when talking about the speed of a Cessna. To top it off they used the approach speed of a cessna not the cruising speed. So yes flying at approach speed (slow flight) the charactgeristics of a Cessna will be quite different from a jetliner. However flying at cruise speed the controlls will behave in the same manner. If you reverse it and fly the B757 at it`s approach speed of 127 Kts and the Cessna at it`s cruise of 120 Kts you will find their flight characteristics reversed. but if you fly them both at approach speed or both at cruise speed their handling isnt that radically different. There was nothign overly difficult abotu what they did after they succeded in hijackign the airplane.

Very funny, laugh . I've done a lot of research on this though, I can understand how coming out of the blue like this may make it sound incredibly far fetched.

it sounds far fetched because well it is

Well, I think you've definitedly made me think about a lot of what she said.. but we're not done with her article yet .
Please I think Ive pointed out enough errors to state emphatically she is either lying on purpose or not a pilot

Well, making four gentle left turns doesn't seem incredibly taxing to me. When comparing this with what the (allegedly) hijacked planes of 9/11 did (i'm not sure if it involved any coordinated turns, but the turns made were apparently virtually impossible to pull off even for very experienced pilots), that's a positive cakewalk. Actually I think you will find the reverse is true. The circuit is flown normally in a left hand pattern, there are 5 parts the climbout, cross wind, downwind, base, final. Goes liek this climbout runwayheading to 500' agl (above ground level) do a rate 1 turn to the left (3 degrees/second taking 2 minutes to complete a 360. for heavy aircraft this ROT takes 4 minutes then about 700-1000' they turn left again ROT onto downwind which is done 100 AGL. on downwind you perform your downwind checks (in a Cessna is quite basic and vary slightly from flying school to flying school) They are compeltely unnecessary for someone planning on flying a plane into a building! So then you turn base and slow down entering your approach speed onto final and prepare for landing. Note depending on the flight instructor/school these steps vary but the circut pattern doesnt. All these turns to be done at 3 degrees a second give or take for student pilots. Now when you band a plane more than that at do a rate 2 turn or more the plane banks over much more sharply and the plane has a tendancy to LOSE altitude. Yup it takes time and experience to pull off harder turns without losing altitude. So these guys do a sharp turn and lose 3500 ft/min. I would expect no less from poor pilots and in fact would say that if they had failed to lose altitude whiel performing a sharp turn it woudl be more an indication of something fishy!

The comment made of Hani Hanjour was based on what he allegedly did (the Pentagon was even mentioned). As to the others, they don't seem to be the stuff of stellar pilots, to say the least; and that's apparently the only type of pilot who could have pulled off the stunts that happened regarding these 911 planes.

No the pople wo are lying or knwo squat about piloting an aircraft say only great pilots coudl have done so, In fact most anbyone could hit the largest building in the world with a plane, i`d bet you could probably do it with 10 mins of flying time.

Alright, never mind the transponder. Do you truly believe that making "an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level" is simple stuff for a transport size aircraft?

You are stuck on the word precise. what do you think that means? that it was a coordinated turn or that he did exactly 350 degress not one more or one less? FYI there is no way a controller can tell if the pilot does a coordinated turn from a radar screen, as to a precise 360 well I suppose if the controller has the radar trail on long enough eh can tell roughly if it is circular but without a long trail (little dots left after last position of plane on radar display, usually set at 4-5 which means about 30 seconds) As to levelling out at ground level, hmm based on the radar display? he turned the transponder off the controller if he still has PSR (primary surveillance radar or commanly called a splat) on the plane, has no clue of the altitude but I think youll find he finished the turn still descending then levelled out at low altitude. something that isnt that increadibly hard it is not like trying to land. the plane couldnt care less if its at 100 or 10000 feet it handles basically the same (get real high there is some difference but as Pentagon starts at ground level and they lost altitude fairly quickly this is not important

You really believe that these maneuvers were simple? To be honest, you're the first (alleged) pilot that I've spoken to that thinks these maneuvers were child's play and aren't done more often by passenger airliners simply because it might upset the passengers. I'm afraid that I'm not willing to take your word on this one.
I dont think it was complete childs play but it was no hurculean task that the truthers make it out to be. Of all the things you can do in a large plane what they did required the least skills/training to pull off. People who use misinformation, look up approach/cruis espeeds for a C172 and a B757, then look up what approach speed and cruise speed are and you will see the peopel telling you this stuff and using approach speed for the C172 and cruise speed for the B757, are obviously uninformed or being manipulative on purpose. You really really dont have to take my word for this just google those 4 things for yourself.

I'm not that good with google maps, so I've conceded the possibility that Hani Hanjour would have been able to find the Pentagon by eyesight alone. I'm much more interested in hearing your theory as to why he allegedly did the following though:
[Nila's article]:
***
But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).
***
Umm ignore the Rumsfielfd crap to begin with, I mean if it was rummy who did this why even take the chance of ebing anywhere nearby or any of the generals? If they coudl pull all this off and used a cruise missle who sent it to wrong side to begin with? hwo can they have such great planning but screw up soemthign so simple? Now a better and more obvious answer is the pilot (whoever it was) though they were gonmna miss the pentagon (you are the one saying it was a near impossible hurculean task) so they pull up and have a 2nd go at it. Seems to me very sensible thing to do (well assuming you are trying to fly a plane into a building which is IMHO inherently unsensible)

Ok, that's fine. I'm actually liking this conversation. You've definitely taught me some things, but I'm thinking that we may be getting to the point where I may teach you a thing or 2 about the 911 planes .

So far all you have shown me is that truther so called pilots are either not pilots or are lying on purpose,. But I will not say that I know everything and that I cannot learn. However I think I have made my case strong enough against Nila that there is no more point in using anything from them as they spout too much complete idiocy, even you must admit they have no right/qualification to talk on the subject.

shanners · Sep 27, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:
Is a clown !!!

Yet NONE of the damage is consistent with explosives ... but then again truthers tend NOT to know what they are talking about, none of those proposing these things are actually real world experts or have knowledge of them.

The damage inside is NOT in a 360° pattern ... and since explosives work by a chemical reaction that EXPANDS gases in ALL directions at the EXACT same time then damage inside would NOT look like this ...

Columns and damage clearly from a DIRECTIONAL objects such as an aircraft ... even many truther groups have now conceeded that it was an aircraft impact ...

(What about the physical damage? A very thorough study of the damage is to be found on the website of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. It certainly looks to me as though the damage is consistent with impact and penetration by a large twin-engined plane. When you think about it, how could a plane weighing 100 tons, travelling at over 550 miles per hour, do anything but burst right through the wall. The shape of the damage shows that only the wing tips and tail fin failed to penetrate. The parts that failed to penetrate all left marks. 550 miles per hour! Think what a loaded truck travelling at 100 miles an hour would do. Then think about the way energy increases with the square of the speed. So at 200 miles per hour the energy is 4 times as great. At 400 miles an hour it is 16 times as great, and there is still another 150 miles an hour to go! Would anyone be willing to stand near the C-ring if they knew the plane was approaching? I don’t think so.)

(The case that a large commercial passenger twin engined jet did hit the Pentagon is now very strong. All arguments used against it have been shown to be flawed, so there is no scientific proof that it did not hit. There is just the highly respectable probability that it did.)

Pentagon | The Science of 9/11

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 1

Roll rate - PPRuNe Forums

You can huff and puff as much as you like but it all comes to naught as the govt. refuses to release one, just one video which clearly shows what hit the building. Instead they release five individual, non-sequential still frames. What logical reason, besides suppression of what the complete and unedited videos would show, can explain this action?

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Sep 27, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

shanners said:
You can huff and puff as much as you like but it all comes to naught as the govt. refuses to release one, just one video which clearly shows what hit the building. Instead they release five individual, non-sequential still frames. What logical reason, besides suppression of what the complete and unedited videos would show, can explain this action?

You again are somewhat late to the party shanners, for ALL videos pertaining to the Pentagon have been in the public domain since 2006 ... why DON'T you know this ???

And simple mathematics explains WHY you don't have clearer imagery ... were you expecting IMAX !!!

Thoreau72 · Sep 27, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

I have no idea what hit the Pentagon, but it was certainly not a 757.

I have no idea what blew up the Pentagon, but I know there was a reason for it, and I know that once again, and for the umpteenth time in my life, the government is being deceptive.

Quag · Sep 27, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

Henry David said:
I have no idea what hit the Pentagon, but it was certainly not a 757.

I have no idea what blew up the Pentagon, but I know there was a reason for it, and I know that once again, and for the umpteenth time in my life, the government is being deceptive.

How do you know it wasnt a B757?
As to what blew it up... well nothing blew it up it wasnt blown up

I will agree that govts can be deceptive but that does not mean complicit.

mike2810 · Sep 27, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

Henry David said:
I have no idea what hit the Pentagon, but it was certainly not a 757.

I have no idea what blew up the Pentagon, but I know there was a reason for it, and I know that once again, and for the umpteenth time in my life, the government is being deceptive.

No idea, yet you are so certain it wasn't a 757 ?
Care to share "there was a reason for it", or is that just a simple statement that many use when they really have no idea.

Yes our govt., can be deceptive. The deception is not as bad as some truther web sites.

Thoreau72 · Sep 28, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

Quag & Mike

Obviously this is a somewhat complex subject with many facets, and I have to sign off shortly, but to me the debris does not appear consistent with a 757. No engines, none of the huge landing gear assemblies, or at least an insufficient number of wheels associated with such landing gear.

And there appears to be rather "planted" evidence on the lawn. I don't see how the same airplane that managed to bore through several rings of the Pentagon leaving a fairly well defined "exit hole" could be shedding pieces out on the lawn whilst travelling at very high rates of speed.

Plus, I am very skeptical that the character known as Hani, with his reputation and experience as we have been told, was capable of doing what he is alleged to have done.

Quag · Sep 29, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

Henry David said:
Quag & Mike

Obviously this is a somewhat complex subject with many facets, and I have to sign off shortly, but to me the debris does not appear consistent with a 757. No engines, none of the huge landing gear assemblies, or at least an insufficient number of wheels associated with such landing gear.

And there appears to be rather "planted" evidence on the lawn. I don't see how the same airplane that managed to bore through several rings of the Pentagon leaving a fairly well defined "exit hole" could be shedding pieces out on the lawn whilst travelling at very high rates of speed.

Plus, I am very skeptical that the character known as Hani, with his reputation and experience as we have been told, was capable of doing what he is alleged to have done.

Not that complex, hijackers took over plane and flew it into the pentagon.

As to the debris, Ill let others play with that sillyness.
Not sure what you mean by shedding pieces onto the lawn. I find it amazing that truthers think there was some vast (often they claim small, but relaly ot would have to be vast to do all they claim they do) conspiracy that gets so many incereadibly obvious errors wrong. I mean seriously are these guys evil geniuses or is this all done by Beavis and Butthead?

As to Hani, well go back a few pages and read my psots to see why the truthers are barkign up the wrong tree on that one.

Lets go to another level though, If it wasnt a B757 that flew into the pentagon, what ahppened to the plane? what happened to the passengers? what happened to the crew? Are you tellign me that some evil conspiracy types thought it would be smarter and easier to make a plane, its crew and passegers dissapear than to just have it flown into the Pentagon? Thsi is where the huge numebr sof peopel involved coem in. You ave to eliminate the crew and passengers (take several people) have plane dissapear, hwo flying low under radar so peopel on ground can see it?

Basically what I am asking is why on earth would you think it is more plausible for some (many) shadowy figures to make a plane, its crew and passengers dissapear then fly a missle or whatever you think it was into the pentagon, add some parts from non B757 planes to act as decoys, all in an effort to convince people that said plane actually flew into the pentagon, than it would be for said planes to have just been hijacked and flown into the pentagon?

mike2810 · Sep 29, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

Henry David said:
Quag & Mike

Obviously this is a somewhat complex subject with many facets, and I have to sign off shortly, but to me the debris does not appear consistent with a 757. No engines, none of the huge landing gear assemblies, or at least an insufficient number of wheels associated with such landing gear.

And there appears to be rather "planted" evidence on the lawn. I don't see how the same airplane that managed to bore through several rings of the Pentagon leaving a fairly well defined "exit hole" could be shedding pieces out on the lawn whilst travelling at very high rates of speed.

Plus, I am very skeptical that the character known as Hani, with his reputation and experience as we have been told, was capable of doing what he is alleged to have done.

The planted evidence has been debated and pretty much put aside as bunk.
The flyover theory has also been pretty much been disproven.

What is interesting is it seems most CT sites are adds for selling some DVD/book/seminars. Debunking sites seem to be more linked to research sites and not selling any product. Wonder why that is?

I am still waiting for the CT people to take the theory to court. If they have the evidence seems they can prove it.:mrgreen:

It is like I state I can fly. You ask me to fly for you, I say not today, I don't feel like it. Still doesn't disprove I can fly.
You can't disprove a negative statement.

Thoreau72 · Sep 29, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

You lost me on the flying lessons Mike, but otherwise all I can say is that I know, sometimes, when I have been lied to. And that's what happened that day. Shock & Awe, no doubt.

No Boeing at Shanksville.

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Oct 1, 2012

re: The Pentagon - National Security Alert [W:1426]

Henry David said:
I have no idea what hit the Pentagon, but it was certainly not a 757.

I have no idea what blew up the Pentagon, but I know there was a reason for it, and I know that once again, and for the umpteenth time in my life, the government is being deceptive.

Sorry but it WAS a Boeing 757 ... ALL the evidence supports it.

It most certainly WASN'T a missile ... damage is inconsistant with a missile ... EVERYTHING clearly shows it was a commercial aircraft.