Professional Pilot Instructors Discuss Airliner Approaches

The snopes.com article which is an attempt to refute claims made by Thierry Meyssan that no airliner hit the Pentagon quotes an eyewitness as saying that the plane hit the helicopter pad first before it hit the building. That is an interesting observation, if accurate, because it would indicate that the plane came in from a different angle than that claimed in the official version of events.

It would put the plane on a trajectory closer to the one described by eyewitnesses in the video the Pentacon. If the plane came in at an angle where it could knock down the various light poles that it is said to have knocked down then it could not have hit the helicopter pad, even with John Lear at the controls. Snopes.com haven't really debunked Meyssan, I don't think, but they have certainly put another stake through the heart of the government version of 9/11.

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
i used bounce pretty much to state that when it hit the ground...

Why do people make ridicules statements like this? There is zero evidence the plane hit the ground just like there is zero evidence one hit the pentagoon. Planes don't bounce, and a Boeing at 500mph with it's wheels down? Not positive about the 757 but most planes at that speed would have the landing gear ripped off. I would guess also that the on-board computer wouldn't allow the gear to lower at anything but a safe speed.

Originally posted by ANOK
Why do people make ridicules statements like this? There is zero evidence the plane hit the ground just like there is zero evidence one hit the pentagoon. Planes don't bounce, and a Boeing at 500mph with it's wheels down? Not positive about the 757 but most planes at that speed would have the landing gear ripped off. I would guess also that the on-board computer wouldn't allow the gear to lower at anything but a safe speed.

the theory behind landing a plane, is to stall at the same moment the wheels touch the ground. that is the perfect landing...however that doesnt always happen...and if a plane comes in to fast, it's still generating lift and when it hits hard it'll bounce back into the air...dont believe me...ask JL...

for the theory it's under "lets fly an approach" near the bottom
stoenworks.com...

for the bounce, 6th statement under "corrections"...
avsim.com...


i will admit when i am wrong....out of many eye-witness acounts i have read, only one mentioned gear down....everyone else says it was quick and clean...


this thread has a lot of statements from witness pulled off the internet starting at about 1/4 down...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and if you drop anything it has a reaction of coming back up...tho it may have caused the tail to break off....hmmm....i still say it coulda bounced...

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
...the theory behind landing a plane, is to stall at the same moment the wheels touch the ground. that is the perfect landing...

LOL I was a jet mechanic in the Navy, I know what happens when a plane lands, it's not the point. There is no way a 757 at 400+MPH is going to have its landing gear down. You ask John about that...

Big difference between 400+ mph and landing speed with flaps deployed. Seems like you only think you understand aircraft flight characteristics.

Also if it had its gear deployed, where is it? It sure as hell would not have gone inside the building through that little hole. There would be pieces of landing gear all over the lawn, as well has huge gauges in it. We have a pic of one wheel and one strut. Not enough to satisfy me, sry.

Have you ever actually had any kind of real experience with aircraft, or are you just throwing things together you think sound logical?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
...the theory behind landing a plane, is to stall at the same moment the wheels touch the ground. that is the perfect landing...

Wenfieldsecret, let me respectfully suggest that you check with somebody who knows something about airplanes before your post something like this.

Modern airplanes, including turboprops and jet aircraft are flown on approach to landing at 1.3 Vso which means 1.3 tmes the stalling speed in the landing configuration (flaps down, gear down). Any slower and you are violating normal and standard aircraft operating procedures not to mention asking for big time trouble. The statement you posted refers to Wright Flyers and subsequent light aircraft.

posted by ANOK
LOL I was a jet mechanic in the Navy, I know what happens when a plane lands, it's not the point. There is no way a 757 at 400+MPH is going to have its landing gear down. You ask John about that...

There was no indication on the tabular data of FLight #77 that the pilot had extended the gear or that the landing gear handle had been placed in the down position. Had the gear been extended at 400 kts on approach to the Pentagon there would have been large pieces of landing gear doors, torn off by the windstream, strewn along the alleged flight path. Not to mention the fact that there is no indication that Flight #77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Also if it had its gear deployed, where is it? It sure as hell would not have gone inside the building through that little hole. There would be pieces of landing gear all over the lawn, as well has huge gauges in it. We have a pic of one wheel and one strut. Not enough to satisfy me, sry.

Neither were there any pieces of large aircraft such as the center section where the fuselage is joined to the wing plank and center section and the horizontal tail section where it attaches to the aft fuselage. These are large, very thick and heavy parts that could not possibly have been burned up no matter how long the fire lasted. Just one photo of any of these parts would have verified the story that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

Have you ever actually had any kind of real experience with aircraft, or are you just throwing things together you think sound logical?

There are several posters in these 911/Pentagon and WTC threads that are attempting to extract information from the web about airplanes and airplane operations. They would do better and save themselves a little face if they first ran their theories by someone who has actually flown a large transport category transport.

johnlear,

Your expertise is always greatly appreciated.

Thank you for that information.

BeZerK

In the few flight sims I played the landing gear would be damaged if opened at 400mph.

But I'm not pilot. Any truth to that?

**Noticed john had stated that about 2 posts up. So nevermind.

[edit on 6-7-2007 by Sublime620]

just a few hours...didnt nor do i have the money to finish the flight portion....

even so...speed is not the only factor when it comes to stalling....when you flare you're increasing the angle of attack making the plane susceptible(sp) to a stall...and when you touch down you want the wings to stop producing lift do you not?....even in small planes we still land faster than the stall speed...but the "theory" remains the same...

large aircraft bouncing on landing....

www.youtube.com...

ps. i admitted that i was wrong about the gear...


[edit on 6-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret

and when you touch down you want the wings to stop producing lift do you not?

Thats why modern airplanes have spoilers and thats why they are automatic with landing gear strut compression on touchdown.

Most modern airliners, in the Landing Checkist have and item called "Spoilers". The response is "Armed". That means the interllink is electrically armed so that when the landing gear strut compresses on touchdown and activates the 'squat switch' the spoilers (like flaps) on the upper part of the wing are instantaneously raised/deployed thereby stopping any production of lift of the wings and transferring the weight of the airplane to the wheels so that the brakes can be as effective as possible.

so you guys dont consider the wheel and the piece of aluminum evidence? i respect both of your opinions and contributions but i think overlooking evidence is not the best idea.

Or, do you simply consider it evidence w/o merit? that would be another scenario completely.

re reading my question is mainly for John as Anok has answered, but anybody may take a stab at it.

my personal opinion is that there is not enough evidence to support an american airlines jetliner hit, and that the evidence found is highly suspect at the least.

Originally posted by jprophet420

so you guys dont consider the wheel and the piece of aluminum evidence? i respect both of your opinions and contributions but i think overlooking evidence is not the best idea.

I have seen an alleged turbine wheel, an alleged hydraulic cylinder and a small piece of aluminun painted red and blue. None of this would be evidence in a court of law without serial numbers. Serial numbers both on the turbine wheel and the hydraulic cylinder can be matched with maintenance records for the specific airplane. There are several hundred thousand other parts which cannot all have been burned beyond identification. That is technically impossible.

Or, do you simply consider it evidence w/o merit? that would be another scenario completely.

Please see above.

my personal opinion is that there is not enough evidence to support an american airlines jetliner hit, and that the evidence found is highly suspect at the least.

I would agree with you.

they also use spoilers inflight to drop altitude quickly or to produce roll...

i am not a "complete" idiot...and arguing with you is like the student arguing with the teacher....however they still flare at the moment before touchdown, which decreases speed, increases the angle of attack....and makes a shot at the "perfect landing"...spoilers are there because nobody gets the perfect landing all the time....


and as far as this thred goes...flight 77 is the only one i have doubts about..if it hit the ground the moment before impact...the tail possibly would have broke off and struck the pentagon seperatly...and the tail is almost always the most intact piece after a crash....

[edit on 6-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]

All of the talk about these issues misses the biggest airliner issue:

AS far as I am concerned, the biggest smoking gun from all the airliners is the FACT that NOT ONE pilot of all those in the cockpits, many military veterans and / or physically able to handle themselves, in a cramped area with a locked door behind them, was able to initiate the highjack code.

Recently I read ( forget where, probably here ) that it is an easy maneuver consisting of flipping a switch or perhaps a cover and a switch or pushing in a code. It is supposed to take just a SECOND to perform; obviously it would be that way for ease of use is an emergency situation.

The mere fact that all four transponders went out, and in the case of Flt. 93 just seconds after contact with Cleveland tower, without even one pilot being able to hit the switch says it all. What does that tell you? There is only one answer: Remote highjacking of the computers, probably using the system we have all heard about so much, but in any event, there is really no way to get out of the way of logic on this one.

If there were any " A-Rabs " on board at all, (and that is still in doubt due to the lack of names on rosters and autopsy reports) they were fall guys as suprised as anyone at what happened next. We KNOW that 77 never hit the Pentagon, thats a no brainer, ( and no luggage or bodies or aircraft there ), Flt. 93 had no bodies or plane ( or luggage either ), and I am unsure as to the status of 11 and the other that hit the Towers, as to whether or not they had passengers on them at the time of impact.

But it is plain and clear that if someone cannot come up with an explanation that is credible ( and that eliminates the story of superhuman A-Rabs with boxcutters all getting lucky enough to find the cockpits doors all open, managed to overcome and incapacitate all 8 pilots ( minimum ) and get them out of their seats and to then take control of the planes and turn off the transponders. To believe that this scenario could be mathematically possible is laughable, to believe it true with all of the other HUNDREDS of ' inexplicable anomalies ' surrounding this event, is not possible for a rational and honest person of intelligence. That is not meant to be an insult, but I believe that strongly in the impossibility of the story that all four transponders could be turned off before ONE pilot or other crew member could activate the alarm, it cannot be.

And if that is a fact, then that is empirical evidence of a conspiracy involving high tech government/corporate treason and muder at the highest levels. It means that we are at the brink of dissolving as a democracy and becoming a fascist police state with rights a thing of the past. One more ' terror attack ' and our worst nightmare becomes the crowing achievement of the perpetrators of these heinous acts. I apologize in advance if I offended anyone but this should be crystal clear or I am the one with absolutely no ability to judge plain facts and odds. Somehow I feel confident that it is not I who am failing to see the obvious. If I am wrong I will humbly reverse my judgement and apologize again.

Tell me please how it could possible be otherwise or talking about pilots is usless as the pilot(s) was at a screen(s) somewhere with a joystick(s) doing the flying, for sure.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
All of the talk about these issues misses the biggest airliner issue:

AS far as I am concerned, the biggest smoking gun from all the airliners is the FACT that NOT ONE pilot of all those in the cockpits, many military veterans and / or physically able to handle themselves, in a cramped area with a locked door behind them, was able to initiate the highjack code.

Recently I read ( forget where, probably here ) that it is an easy maneuver consisting of flipping a switch or perhaps a cover and a switch or pushing in a code. It is supposed to take just a SECOND to perform; obviously it would be that way for ease of use is an emergency situation.

The mere fact that all four transponders went out, and in the case of Flt. 93 just seconds after contact with Cleveland tower, without even one pilot being able to hit the switch says it all. What does that tell you? There is only one answer: Remote highjacking of the computers, probably using the system we have all heard about so much, but in any event, there is really no way to get out of the way of logic on this one.

If there were any " A-Rabs " on board at all, (and that is still in doubt due to the lack of names on rosters and autopsy reports) they were fall guys as suprised as anyone at what happened next. We KNOW that 77 never hit the Pentagon, thats a no brainer, ( and no luggage or bodies or aircraft there ), Flt. 93 had no bodies or plane ( or luggage either ), and I am unsure as to the status of 11 and the other that hit the Towers, as to whether or not they had passengers on them at the time of impact.

But it is plain and clear that if someone cannot come up with an explanation that is credible ( and that eliminates the story of superhuman A-Rabs with boxcutters all getting lucky enough to find the cockpits doors all open, managed to overcome and incapacitate all 8 pilots ( minimum ) and get them out of their seats and to then take control of the planes and turn off the transponders. To believe that this scenario could be mathematically possible is laughable, to believe it true with all of the other HUNDREDS of ' inexplicable anomalies ' surrounding this event, is not possible for a rational and honest person of intelligence. That is not meant to be an insult, but I believe that strongly in the impossibility of the story that all four transponders could be turned off before ONE pilot or other crew member could activate the alarm, it cannot be.

And if that is a fact, then that is empirical evidence of a conspiracy involving high tech government/corporate treason and muder at the highest levels. It means that we are at the brink of dissolving as a democracy and becoming a fascist police state with rights a thing of the past. One more ' terror attack ' and our worst nightmare becomes the crowing achievement of the perpetrators of these heinous acts. I apologize in advance if I offended anyone but this should be crystal clear or I am the one with absolutely no ability to judge plain facts and odds. Somehow I feel confident that it is not I who am failing to see the obvious. If I am wrong I will humbly reverse my judgement and apologize again.

Tell me please how it could possible be otherwise or talking about pilots is usless as the pilot(s) was at a screen(s) somewhere with a joystick(s) doing the flying, for sure.

the hijack code is input into the transponder...by squawking a certain number...(dialing it in) the number tells the ATC that this happend...depending on how fast they rushed the cockpit..and the pilots reaction time.....they might have been killed imeadiatly(sp)...

Are you kidding me? If they had been ' killed immediately' , how WERE they killed ' immediately'? If all the ' highjackers had were bladed weapons, and small ones at that, they must have been some superhuman A-rabs on steroids to : A. Use the deadly boxcutters to slash their way thru the cockpit doors. B. Use the boxcutters to slash both pilots in a cramped space so quickly that no response was possible. C. Remove the bodies from the cramped cockpit so fast that none of the controls were affected. D. Taken control and turned off the transponders and then flawlessly fly the planes to their destinations without a flight engineer or previous heavy jet experience. Yeah, right.

And this scenario had to happen FOUR times in a row at about the same time. Do you really believe that? If not then please tell me how they could have been killed ' immediately ' and the above facts accomplished.

No, that is even more of a stretch than the obvious facts , which are plain and clear: The planes were comandeered by a remote control system and flown to whereever they went. Since there was no plane at the Pentagon or in Shanksville the passengers were probably all diverted onto one flight and taken out to sea for ' burial '. This is a conjecture of course but no bodies at several sites mean that no passengers were there, so they went somewhere; only the perps know. Try asking Dick Cheney, he should have an idea.

But your answer is far from satisfying my friend and so until someone can come up with a better response than the supposition that the A-rabs were super lucky, super fast, super strong and with supernaturally aquired flying skills, I will believe that this is the PROOF of military black op shadow govt. guilt in this affair.

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret

the hijack code is input into the transponder...by squawking a certain number...(dialing it in) the number tells the ATC that this happend...depending on how fast they rushed the cockpit..and the pilots reaction time.....they might have been killed imeadiatly(sp)...

Might have been killed immediately? I don't think you gave this much thought. Even if it was conceivably possible to kill two human beings immedately with box cutters (which is unlikely) there would be so much blood all over the cockpit that it would be impossible to:

no. 1 remove the bodies without extreme difficulty
no. 2 then proceed to fly the airplane with blood all over the controls

Let me respectfully suggest that when you propose a possibility like "they might have been killed immediately' that you give it just a little more thought. Thanks.

i did not see reports of box cutters in the phone calls...i saw reports of knives....on flight 93....one of the hijackers are claiming to have a bomb... if they got knives..and a bomb...is it not possible they had other weapons?

only flight 77 and 93 have the phone calls

All 4 flights had phone calls that were placed and connected. Obviously not all were recorded.

I believe it was flight 77 that someone possibly smelled mace in the business class.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

All 4 flights had phone calls that were placed and connected.

I know of no evidence that any phone calls were placed and connected from any of the 4 planes. Could you please tell me where I can verify the facts and evidence that your statement is true? Thanks.

I think it is easy to safely sit away from the muderous events happening in those airplanes and think:" If I were there I would not be afraid --I would fight those terrorists" Kinda like a die hard movie.

In actuality the way the terrorists were positioned in the plane and where the reported "throat slashings" happened-- it would be hard to tell if the person sitting next to you was going to try and kill you. Once that fear subsided, reports from Betty Ong (flt 11) was that pepper spray was used in business class-- this is a tube (767) so to think the coach passengers would attack the terrosists blinded by mace on the other side of business class is an obvious deterent as well.

No, I feel the reaction of *most* would be that of subservience, in hoping the plane would land and they would be eventually set free.

I have read reports that state the reason that only Boeings were used on 9/11 was because of their "Universal" cockpit keys. it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine the terrorists had obtained a copy of the Boeing cockpit key. The ability to swifty attack the cockpit with several men --slashing throats and then removing the pilots is not that far fetched. The element of surprize is what won this battle.