9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Here's more -

"weak student" who "was wasting our resources."

I didn't allow him to come back. I thought, 'You're never going to make it.'
He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable.Source

instructors regarded him as a poor student, even in the weeks before the attacks.

"He had only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do"

got overwhelmed with the instruments." He used the simulator perhaps three or four more times, Fults said, then "disappeared like a fog." www.capecodonline.com..."" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Washington Post, 10/15/2001

"He could not fly at all." -New York Times (5/04/02)

flying skills were so bad...they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.

" I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager."CBS News (5/10/02)

More here...
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Source - Click

Let us know when you check the data and actually have some evidence for your argument, then will get to the rest of your strawman arguments.

Why does "Tiffany" always leave out this part?

In spite of Hanjour’s lack of flying skills, chief instructor Marcel Bernard later claims, “There’s no doubt in my mind that once [Flight 77] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.”

Might it be because the CHIEF INSTRUCTOR'S opinion wouldn't mesh with "Tiffany's" view? Good thing CHIEF INSTRUCTOR Marcel Bernard is not a PfT member - he'd be kicked out.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Here's more -

"weak student" who "was wasting our resources."

I didn't allow him to come back. I thought, 'You're never going to make it.'
He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable.Source

instructors regarded him as a poor student, even in the weeks before the attacks.

"He had only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do"

got overwhelmed with the instruments." He used the simulator perhaps three or four more times, Fults said, then "disappeared like a fog." www.capecodonline.com..."" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Washington Post, 10/15/2001

"He could not fly at all." -New York Times (5/04/02)

flying skills were so bad...they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.

" I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager."CBS News (5/10/02)

More here...
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Source - Click

Let us know when you check the data and actually have some evidence for your argument, then will get to the rest of your strawman arguments.

Why does "Tiffany" always leave out this part?

In spite of Hanjour’s lack of flying skills, chief instructor Marcel Bernard later claims, “There’s no doubt in my mind that once [Flight 77] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.”

Might it be because the CHIEF INSTRUCTOR'S opinion wouldn't mesh with "Tiffany's" view? Good thing CHIEF INSTRUCTOR Marcel Bernard is not a PfT member - he'd be kicked out.

Unfortunately for you, Marcel Bernard didn't fly with Hani and made that statement when the Pentagon was still smoking.

He made that statement well before any of the maneuvers were known. A common trait among inexperienced pilots who never make it to the airlines and still instruct out of a grass field 10 years later, mostly taking out the trash.

You may want to actually visit Marcel. It's not pretty.

When you get done with that, you may want actually review the statements made by the instructors who actually flew with Hani.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Of course it is expected their conservative nature expects them to have varied opinions based on experience and data. But where they all agree (and when calculated statistically), they all agree the speeds reported need to be investigated. The "probability" when combined is less than .0001%.

And what was the scientific formula used to reach that .0001%?

Let's say....1 in 10

How many flips of a coin did that "Let's say...." need?

This is known in statistics as impossible. Are you familiar with statistics? Do you know how to calculate as such? Need a link?

As was pointed out elsewhere, you don't think that there is any difference between 1 chance out of 1000 (improbable) and Zero (impossible)?

Beautiful!

Deets pulled those numbers out of his rear. Whenever anyone says, especially in a detailed debate about probability, "Let's say...1 out of 10" for 3 possible events and then multiply them together to reach a further solution...it just adds to the hilarity.

Go ahead and post Deet's "credentials" again and then we can read about his scientific "Let's say..."

Please!

I do have to say he is a perfect PfT "expert". Houston, we *do* have a problem!

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Yet again, more "massaging" the facts, eh???

Let's take a look:

EA990, China Airlines 747SP, TWA 727, 737, Modified DC-8, all suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover...

"EA990" (Again, for airline purists...."EA" is NOT 'Eastern Airlines' (the old IATA code for the now defunct carrier. IN this case, it is "PfT"s shorthand for "EgyptAir").

This is the most blatant attempt by the "PfT" to twist the facts. EgyptAir 990 was an INTENTIONAL crash, instigated by the 'relief' First Officer (for unknown reasons. Hard to know if it was personal, or, as some theories have suggested, a "hit" on some passengers. Regardless, they all died).

Point is, no matter WHY the F/O was committing murder and suicide, the fact is he WAS directly fighting with the Captain, on the controls!! (Captai, naturally, had NO IDEA of the F/O's death wish....was trying to recover, and thought the "other guy" was helping!!).

THAT FACT ALONE accounts for the "inability to recover"!!!! AND, any structural failures prior to impact!!! Get past that example, it only works on those not knowledgeable enough to know better, the exact circumstances.

"TWA 727" refers to TWA flight 841 [Please, everyone, read this report).

The other "TWA 841" was a hijacking in the Middle East, so do not be confused. Also, to add to the above, another version of the "high-dive" in the USA (Wiki): The "Hoot" Gibson high-dive.

(BTW...only "structural damage"....actually, it was minor, and repaired, and the airplane was RETURNED TO SERVICE!!!! The slats, of course, ripped off in places. Gear door damage, because of gear extension at high airspeeds. Gear struts, at the mounts, bent a little also, if I recall. All fixable!!!).

The "China Airlines 747SP"??? Oh, man...what a treasure trove you've just handed to me!!! (Rubbing palms together...)

You DO realize the circumstances on THAT one, correct? I hope you can comprehend that the flight crew FAILED in their procedures....they STALLED the airplane at FL 410, resulting in an upset condition.

Here, no need to write it out, everyone can read for themselves....I'll be available later, if there are any specific questions related to HOW to fly jets, and what happens (something that some at "PfT" seem to not understand).

en.wikipedia.org...

I will venture an opinion (and this was formed right after I heard, and read more about it) that the crew in that case (although they were "satisfactorily trained and qualified") were VERY POOR PILOTS. (At least, maybe only the Captain was...and the others deferred to him, which is a problem with some hierarchical mindsets, wherein the "Captain is always right" is the norm).

Also, for those still interested, the NTSB report on China 006.

When viewing the photos of THAT incident (accident, because it's defined as "substantial damage") it's a testament to the INTEGRITY and STRENGTH of the Boeing product!!!

( Man, that was so easy! )

Something that was coined (anonymously) many years ago:

"If it ain't a Boeing, I ain't Going!"

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Of course it is expected their conservative nature expects them to have varied opinions based on experience and data. But where they all agree (and when calculated statistically), they all agree the speeds reported need to be investigated. The "probability" when combined is less than .0001%.

And what was the scientific formula used to reach that .0001%?

Let's say....1 in 10

How many flips of a coin did that "Let's say...." need?

This is known in statistics as impossible. Are you familiar with statistics? Do you know how to calculate as such? Need a link?

As was pointed out elsewhere, you don't think that there is any difference between 1 chance out of 1000 (improbable) and Zero (impossible)?

Beautiful!

Deets pulled those numbers out of his rear. Whenever anyone says, especially in a detailed debate about probability, "Let's say...1 out of 10" for 3 possible events and then multiply them together to reach a further solution...it just adds to the hilarity.

Go ahead and post Deet's "credentials" again and then we can read about his scientific "Let's say..."

Please!

I do have to say he is a perfect PfT "expert". Houston, we *do* have a problem!

"To me, it's impossible, you know, any pilot that has been in a commercial jet would probably laugh if you said 510 knots." - Capt Rusty Aimer
pilotsfor911truth.org...
(scroll forward to 23:20)

Capt Rusty Aimer Qualifications and Experience -

Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
www.AviationExperts.com

How much time do you have in a 757/767 trebor?

How much flight time do you have total?

Any chance you will ever put your name to your claims as the above?

Do you still think flying an aircraft at 1 million pounds is stretching the MTOW by a large margin when it is rated for 975,000 pounds?



To learn how to calculate statistics, click here -

Levels of Improbability

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This is the most blatant attempt by the "PfT" to twist the facts. EgyptAir 990 was an INTENTIONAL crash, instigated by the 'relief' First Officer (for unknown reasons. Hard to know if it was personal, or, as some theories have suggested, a "hit" on some passengers. Regardless, they all died).

Once again you demonstrate you refuse to read and study the data and blindly follow anything the govt tells you.

Eqypt Officials disagree with you.

Read it.

www.ntsb.gov...

Bottom line - Egypt Air 990 suffered in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS with a peak G load of 2.4.

This is well below the reported (alleged) performance of N612UA, an aircraft which was much older with many more cycles.

Here is the V-G diagram again. Study it, learn it. (be sure to scroll right using the horizontal scroll bar on bottom)



Source - www.pprune.org...

Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so..."

Let us also know when you understand that the speeds were reported for more than a "few seconds".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

--and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error -

I would like to add something else that no one ever mentions, and that would be that the pilot would not even be able to see the target the whole time. One could watch a rather short video I have on media-abovetopsecret, Last Minute of Flight 175, and you may notice that all this diving and banking makes the area above the windshield cover the spot that you would think you are aiming at.
media.abovetopsecret.com...
That's kind of an old video now, and I need to make a new one with the city scenery I made since this one was made, but you can get the general idea.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Erh, you DO realise that pilots in real life have a much less obstructed view than that presented in your video? And while I'm not entirely sure that the profile you've shown is entirely correct, the towers going out of sight could have been corrected by the pilot turning his head.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


As always, YOUR (and the "PfT") interpretation is over-simplistic. They (and "you", apparently on "their" behalf) are desperate to grasp at any straw, and then selectively cherry-pick what is wished, in order to bolster the "argument".

Eqypt Officials disagree with you.

No, not really. None of them know me, nor have they ever met me.

But, the most important thing (that the "PfT" don't seem to get...or maybe they do, and use the line of "Egypt Officials disingenuously, on purpose?) is that the "Egypt Officials" disagreed with the NTSB and Boeing!!!

Didn't you read the report?

The Egyptians simply could NOT stand by and let the Americans claim that one of their own, an (apparently) devout Muslim, would commit such an act. When you read their attempt to twist the facts (sound familiar?) you can see certain tactics that we've seen before....because the Egyptians, using innuendo and obfuscation, wish to point the finger of blame back to Boeing, and grasped at ANY straw in order to attempt to show that there was some (as yet undefined) "mechanical" reason for Egypt AIr 990's high dive.

BUT...the FDR clearly shows that it was an INTENTIONAL disconnection of the A/P (because the aural Master Warning did not sound. I'm certain "Rusty" [if he even still talks to "PfT"] will explain it. For those others reading along, it's buried in the report to explain it, but I will anyway; one way to disconnect the A/P ---this is specific to the B-757/767 family, is different on other airplanes, sometimes---is by using the button on the control wheel. First click, disconnect. Second click, within a certain time frame, cancels the Master Warning before it sounds. So, you learn to "double click"...kinda like using a computer mouse key).

So, when "Ace" pushes over he does so aggressively. (Did you read the report?)

ALMOST to zero G on the push-over. (0.2) The rest of the "dive" is hairy, many variable G forces...and NOT good for structural integrity, on the whole. (Compare to a SMOOTH use of the controls on United 175....the guy wanted it to stay together, and went well beyond what is "safe", airspeed-wise...but why would he care?)

AND, your "Pull out of a 10,000+ dive" nonsense is wearing thin. Egypt Air 990's rate of descent, at one point (according to the NTSB report) was as high as 39,000 fpm!!! Ummm...that's a lot! In order for United 175 to achieve its excessive airspeed, would NOT need that type of extreme pitch-down....he USED POWER! (The Egypt Air airplane's engines were at flight idle initially ---- also recorded on the FDR, as a deliberate action by the pilot----, then later the fuel levers were moved to Cut-Off!)

In normal flying, on the B-767 on a typical descent, if we choose, we can get the speed up to the barber pole very easily. THIS, with power at idle. It does NOT need any excessive nose-down pitch attitude, and isn't even noticeable to the passengers as "extreme" in any way. NOW....add full thrust? And let it accelerate....and you have an idea of United 175's situation. BTW, when flying a normal descent, at that speed (**)...YES, we actually also know how to level off ("Pull out of the dive", to use your colorful phrase) without any sort of excessive G loads. It is not difficult to level off from a descent, and to do it smoothly.

(**) Some may be asking "Why?" that speed? Well, because we can! Actually there are various occasions when this happens....usually it's because there's an ATC-mandated "crossing restriction" altitude up ahead that has to be complied with. And, either the descent was initiated a bit late (sometimes ATC does that to us....) or a new restriction is given, AFTER the originally planned descent had been started. And, of course, in turbulence, we can't go that fast. We also have the speed brakes available, but they're most effective to reduce speed after leveling off, if you need to bleed speed in a hurry. They add very little to rate of descent...a little, maybe several hundred fpm more.

Characterizing United 175's profile as some sort of "roller coaster" ride is flat out misrepresentation.

Bottom line - Egypt Air 990 suffered in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS with a peak G load of 2.4.

Once again, that "broad brush" and playing fast and loose with the facts. "Bottom line", my bottom.....

Care to point out EXACTLY, in detail, just what "broke" in flight?? (Hint: The wings didn't fall off...)

In any case....Egypt Air 990 experienced excessive airspeeds AND increased G loads. United 175's G loads were minor, as pointed out earlier. Merely levelling out a descent, even IF adding some angle of bank (up to 38 degrees) is STILL well below 2G's.......


EDIT: Oh, and your "source" now, for the "Vg diagram"???? Oh, my!

Talk about manipulation....I submit that when people go to the "pprune" link they will see that a screenname there, "Ralph the Mouth", is the one responsible for that. It was put up (just read the posts by that user) in order to (attempt) to give it "crediblity". How childish! "Ralph", if you're out there, you're busted, dude!!

Originally posted by jmdewey60
... Last Minute of Flight 175, and you may notice that all this diving and banking makes the area above the windshield cover the spot that you would think you are aiming at.
media.abovetopsecret.com...
That's kind of an old video now, and I need to make a new one with the city scenery I made since this one was made, but you can get the general idea.

You need to drop a note to and get in contact with Captain Bob Balsamo of the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Club via their email page.. You have just the right aerodynamic acumen and aeronautical experience that they could use. And by golly, do they ever need some flying expertise infused into their club.

I am totally serious here.

all these datails are secondary till we find more videos of the flight outlying area and then three or more videos of the impact.
i don't buy one view of the impact, show me four, please or it's a cover-up

like the view from inside released which shows a four engine on the wing 707 or dc-8 hitting.

reply to post by jmdewey60


have you ever sat in a 767 cockpit?, are you serious, you cannot compare MS flight sim with the real thing,

Wee Mad

reply to post by weemadmental


Actually they use microsoft flight simulator to train their pilots.

Here is a link:


www.microsoft.com...

How 9/11 was done.
how911wasdone.blogspot.com...

I found this article a couple of weeks ago, and found it very, very interesting. They have pieced together an alternative scenario, which, whilst not perfect, does put forward some amazing and credible hypotheses about what actually happened, and adopts a different approach from those I have seen up to this point.

So much of the focus is on the anomalies regarding the planes and the towers, but this article casts the net much wider and comes up with some pretty interesting and very plausible hypotheses. To me it makes much more sense than the OS, with all its inconsistencies and reliance on against-all-odds coincidences.

For example, what proof is there that the man alleged to have boarded the plane was indeed Atta and not an Atta look alike? Did they steal Atta's identity, replace him with a look alike, and then allow the look alikes to leave the airport by a back door and never actually board the plane?

reply to post by dragnet53


Does MS Flight sim have you sitting in a real cockpit, Can you see the proper field of vision on a flat monitor, can you actually feel the aircraft move and feel the grace of flying on a flat monitor, this is what i am getting it, you can use MSFX to get a feel of the controls, feel of how things happen and yes you can do the theory with this,but you cannot get a jist what you can actually see and all of the controls that are actually in the cockpit.

Wee Mad

reply to post by dragnet53


NO. "They". Don't.

The ONLY thing that MS simulator might be useful for is to the pilot who's newly working on his instrument rating. (Alternatively, perhaps, would get some used to certain aspects of more advanced FMS use....the kind of equipment you find on modern Boeings, for example. I really don't know, I've never used MS simulator....anyone out there who has??) My sense (from looking at many video uploads of screenshots that people have made), is it gets some basics correct, but certainly is no substitue for the real thing and proper training that goes with it.

At least, it is a chance to practice one's scan, and develop those skills for use later in the real airplane (or an APPROVED, per FAA, simulator. READ the very bottom of the link you provided!!!!)

The hijackers certainly had REAL experience in real airplanes, and also actual Boeing simulators....along with the manuals (and probably the training materials) specific to the Boeings, written for REAL pilots, so that they'd stay aware of the few things they needed to know....Autopilot, the FMC and MCP, etc.

But, MS simulator for "training" to any large extent??? It truly pains me when people who know nothing about aviation try to come along and act like they've "solved everything" and "know everything" from mis-reading something so benign as a "plug" for Microsoft.....

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

have you ever sat in a 767 cockpit?, are you serious, you cannot compare MS flight sim with the real thing,
Wee Mad

Yes, I am serious about using a desk-top flight simulation for checking theories about flights such as the ones on 911. But the better your model, the closer your results will be to real life. Like I mentioned earlier, that video is dated. I went over the 175 route just now in a very recently released plane model that does a nice fly by wire to where the processors do a lot of the flying. This takes out most of the unevenness seen in the video, and eliminates most of the blindness I was using as an example of one of the many problems involved in that pathway claimed by the official version of events.

reply to post by jmdewey60



These simulators are good for the average pc pilot, remember what you see on the monitor does not fully compare or match what you can see out of a 767 cockpit window, you get a better understanding using the applications virtual cockpit, but this still doesnt match the actual sitting in the pilots chair or the view this affords you, when you have a flat monitor, you would have a better understanding if you were able to get to sit in on the flight deck, if you want to simulate the fight, you would be better getting into a real simulator, with the correct panel, controls and screens, see below














Compare these images to your flat video, hopefully this will give you a better understanding of what you see when at the stick

And for Tiff, the runway in the middle video is approx 30 meters wide and approx 1,427 foot long, think of this standing up vertically and you practically have the WTC tower which was 1,368 ft tall by 27m by 41m, you think you would have a problem hitting it ?

Wee Mad

I have had a review of this thread, and looking at this video that you have posted tiff, they discuss the difficulties that students had in hitting the buildings (apparently they had thousands of hours behind the stick), but good old rob was able to complete this manoeuvre with a bit of practice, do you not think that someone that was serious in completing this this terrorist attack and that had access to flight simulators for a 767, over a period could practice and practice this manoeuvre over and over again and get it right, even bob and his pal on the video state that it is not an impossible thing to happen and that by looking at the data, the pilots that flew this mission flew like professionals and that the aircraft themselves could complete these moves. see question asked at the 8 minute mark.

This is what is stated on the video what has changed to have him not believe that this happened.

Wee Mad

reply to post by weemadmental
I think it is very difficult. That's just my opinion but that is not based on my actually flying a real aircraft, rather just something I noticed while trying to recreate it using whatever resources are available to me. The reason why I have gone to so much trouble over the whole thing has to do with me seeing the plane hit the South WTC tower. That in itself is not so motivating but the fact that it seems no one else did, or are not out talking about it.
I don't have something to show anyone, being just a memory in my head which does not improve over time. My plan was to make a video using a flight simulation program, then put it up on the internet, as what I think would be the best alternative to my own personal experience.
I do not have a big agenda to prove one thing or another but there are certain things I have noticed in this process which I would like to share. Someone could have flown that particular path but I don't think so because I saw the plane coming from a different direction and flying in something close to a strait, level line. It made total sense to me as I watched, that that was how it would be done. A couple years later I was aghast to find out that what was being promoted by what we may considered as "the authorities" were showing something different.
I did watch the videos you link to and the images and thanks for the help.