Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Flight 77, Hani Hanjour and the autopilot.

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
One of the many arguments used by the Truth Movement is in regards to the alleged pilots and their ability or inability to fly the planes.

Hani Hanjour is a good example.

For example, his flight instructors had said that:


"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."


"...he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172."


"This guy could not solo a Cessna 150 ... and what I mean by solo is a pilot's first time out without anyone in the cockpit with him. It's the most simple, the most fundamental flying exercise one can engage in..."

Air traffic controllers noted that:


"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,"


"...the unidentified pilot [Hanjour] executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver."


"Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill..."

So we have a novice pilot (at best) displaying some highly technical skills in a commercial airliner reminiscent of a jet fighter...

If you've ever debated this point with pilots (and I have), their response is simple: he used the autopilot. One would simply enter the waypoint, engage the autopilot and voila!

But theres one problem, the autopilot was disengaged. And this is a point that I believe is intentionally obfuscated.

Take a look at the wikipedia entry for flight 77:


The hijackers set the flight's autopilot heading for Washington, D.C.[25]

en.wikipedia.org...

This is the only mention of the autopilot. So one is left to think that the plane flew itself. Who cares if he couldnt fly? He didnt have to.

However, the 9/11 Omissions report, tells a different story:


"At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged;..."

*9/11 Commission Report, chapter 1, page 9. www.9-11commission.gov...

"Couldnt fly, military plane, fighter jet, extraordinary skill, autopilot, no autopilot"...

Just another point in the search for the truth.

edit on 12-9-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


You say this is the search for truth. I say the same, but more specifically: this, for me, is the search for the answer to "Can we trust our government not to use us as pawns in its political game?"



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I do not know much in the way of auto pilots, I think if an aviation expert could chime in he could either support or disprove you argument here..

Without going into to much research here is some general info


Many modern autopilots can receive data from a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver installed on the aircraft. A GPS receiver can determine a plane's position in space by calculating its distance from three or more satellites in the GPS network. Armed with such positioning information, an autopilot can do more than keep a plane straight and level -- it can execute a flight plan.


Source

It says it could execute a flight plan, but i do not think a flight plan for an airliner includes jet like maneuvers.

There was another thread were the OP proposed that American Airforce pilots were unknowingly piloting the planes from a simulator and asked to conduct a similar mission.

I thought the idea was interesting, but cant recall how much credibility the idea had.

Edit: Here is the thread i was referring to www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 12-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
one thing I never understood about these clowns is WHY were they sent to the US to attend flight school? They (and please correct me where I'm wrong) were the group that arrived from Hamburg into Afghanistan to meet with Bin Laden/Mohammed and were then sent over to the US in 2000 to learn how to fly etc.

Now I'm not planning any events or running any terrorist groups but if I wanted to keep a low profile about something horrific that I was about to do, I would make damned sure to keep my assets as close as possible. I would NOT have sent them to another country, especially one that has advanced intelligence services and airport security (of sorts) for crist's sake.

Do they not have mechanical aircraft in Afghanistan they could be used for training? I mean, one little slip up which got those idiots caught would have sure ended Osman/Bin Laden's plans real fast now, would'nt it
edit on 12-9-2012 by TXRabbit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 



"Couldnt fly, military plane, fighter jet, extraordinary skill, autopilot, no autopilot"...
Just another point in the search for the truth.

How is that a point in the search for the "truth"? They turned off the autopilot at 9:29, the Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37. He flew the plane for eight minutes and managed to crash it into one of the largest structures on Earth. His only mission was to crash the plane, hopefully into a big building. How do you know that what the plane did was what he intended it to do? That's the sign of a professional.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
not a aircraft expert by any means, but i have flown simulators and understand the interface of the auto pilot. As I understand it, it'd be pretty easy to fly direct to Washington (DCA) using the flight computer and LNAV mode, but the tight turning circle at speed before it hit the pentagon would have to be flown manually. This is because the plane was flown outside it's performance envelope which the auto pilot will not allow, also i understand that the planes giros would have to be stabilised before the autopilot would engage. that is my understanding though an actual pilot would know better than me...



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Even if the auto-pilot was used, is it possible for the plane to fly in such a way, that even experienced Air Traffic Controllers thought it was a military fighter jet?

I'm not making any claims, I just cannot imagine flipping an autopilot on would allow a commercial jet to turn into a military-esque fighter jet.
edit on 12-9-2012 by Daemonicon because: Didn't meant to reply to



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daemonicon
Even if the auto-pilot was used, is it possible for the plane to fly in such a way, that even experienced Air Traffic Controllers thought it was a military fighter jet?

I'm not making any claims, I just cannot imagine flipping an autopilot on would allow a commercial jet to turn into a military-esque fighter jet.
edit on 12-9-2012 by Daemonicon because: Didn't meant to reply to


My understanding is that the reason controllers believed it was a military jet was its speed. The final turn was executed sloppily and far too quickly, exceeding normal safety margins. As no normal commercial aircraft would fly like that the logical assumption is military. There are much better pieces of evidence that make this 'expert pilot' theory fairly pointless as they dismiss the suggestion that it wasn't AA77 that hit the pentagon.

The question of expertise is questionable as students have recreated the impacts before now.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TXRabbit
 


Hanjour attended courses at JET TECH in Mesa Arizonia, Januaray/February 2001, where practiced flying in a
737 jet simulator

His flight instructor signed off as having completed "TIGHT TURNS"

Nothing was noted about taxiing or landing

Biggest problem most of the hijackers had was poor coomand of English, which is standard language of
air traffic



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 




"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,"

It's called over controlling. Go to airliners.net and read postings there (not 911 stuff). They state you have to control far ahead of what you want the plane to do. Other wise you over control in an attempt to put the plane in the position you want. ie lined up with the runway.

Everybody can fly a jet for a few minutes otherwise Microsoft's Flight Sim wouldn't be so popular.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 





Biggest problem most of the hijackers had was poor coomand of English, which is standard language of
air traffic

And since they didn't care what the people on the ground said... Nooo problem.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by gladtobehere
 




"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,"

It's called over controlling. Go to airliners.net and read postings there (not 911 stuff). They state you have to control far ahead of what you want the plane to do. Other wise you over control in an attempt to put the plane in the position you want. ie lined up with the runway.

Everybody can fly a jet for a few minutes otherwise Microsoft's Flight Sim wouldn't be so popular.


How do you line up with a specific target very low to the ground while over-controlling the plane? At that speed, and that altitude, over controlling the plane would have put it in the ground. It's not as simple as moving the stick too hard, and the plane suddenly does fighter plane maneuvers. Move the stick too hard and you have a stall to deal with, and an inexperienced pilot would be clueless as what to do. No replay in real life.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

Well I consider the opinions of experts in their respective fields. One of these people is Capt. Russ Wittenberg, US Air Force, who flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 30 years having logged 30,000+ hours:


"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower.

I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it.

The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn…

For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.

Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous..."


edit on 12-9-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 





Well I consider the opinions of experts in their respective fields. One of these people is Capt. Russ Wittenberg, US Air Force, who flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 30 years having logged 30,000+ hours:


1. He couldn't do it because he knows and cares about the design limits of the aircraft. His natural instincts are to bring the plane back in the same condition as he received it. Just like you don’t loan your new sports car to your neighbors 16 year old for drivers training. He may not wreck it but you know he’s not going to avoid curbs and pot holes.

2. If you are going to plot some grand conspiracy and the path of the planes are important would you...
a. Choose some wild corkscrew course that rides the edge of the planes abilities.
b. Choose a simple path with gentle turns and a long glide slope.


Just because the plane went beyond it's design limits doesn't mean it's going to break. The military knows about this and when ever their planes exceeds it's limits, it's grounded for inspection. It know this because at my daughters ROTC graduation the speaking general told us about a story about honor.

The story in short goes. The pilots were told they needed a certain percent of their planes flight ready on a certain date. And any pilot that caused his plane to be grounded would be written up and grounded. This pilot exceeded the G limit on his plane and he could have reset the limit gauge so no one would have known. But he didn't because he knew there might be hidden structual damage that might kill a later pilot.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 



Well I consider the opinions of experts in their respective fields.

No you don't. There have been literally thousands of people that have flown those planes over the years, where is the mass expression of disbelief? Or are they all "in on it"?

One of these people is Capt. Russ Wittenberg, US Air Force, who flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 30 years having logged 30,000+ hours:

One?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by gladtobehere
 



Well I consider the opinions of experts in their respective fields.

No you don't. There have been literally thousands of people that have flown those planes over the years, where is the mass expression of disbelief? Or are they all "in on it"?

One of these people is Capt. Russ Wittenberg, US Air Force, who flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 30 years having logged 30,000+ hours:

One?


I couldn't help but notice in your other reply to this post that you knew what time the pilot turned off the auto-pilot.
I will admit I don't know much about a lot of things, so I must ask 'How do you know that'??

As to listening to those who have experience in flying big planes, I thought you could, at least, be entertained by a short vid I just watched.

xrepublic.tv...

It is about the controllability of these aircraft. The guy make some interesting points which I think should be considered.

Hope those who watch will enjoy.

As For you Hopper



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 



I couldn't help but notice in your other reply to this post that you knew what time the pilot turned off the auto-pilot.
I will admit I don't know much about a lot of things, so I must ask 'How do you know that'??

Read the post I was responding to, they stated that the autopilot was turned off at 9:29 and I think they got that info from the 9/11 Commission Report. As for the time Flight 77 hit the building, thats pretty much public knowledge now.

As for the video, that's just more spam from a certain conspiracy website.

And it's Hooper.
edit on 13-9-2012 by hooper because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


My bad! Hopper.
I read right past the time that everyone else must have known.

I am a little surprised that you took this as fact, which would need to be varified by a witness, and yet seem to refuse to look at the opinions of those still alive who could point of any flaws in the OS.

I guess the auto-pilot sent a signal to ground control when it is turn off and on. I had not thought of this untill just now.

We'll talk more later, Hopper



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 



I guess the auto-pilot sent a signal to ground control when it is turn off and on. I had not thought of this untill just now.

We are talking about Flight 77, the flight data recorder was recovered and information regarding the autopilot is contained within the data.

We'll talk more later, Hopper

It's Hooper.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by hooper
 


My bad! Hopper.
I read right past the time that everyone else must have known.

I am a little surprised that you took this as fact, which would need to be varified by a witness, and yet seem to refuse to look at the opinions of those still alive who could point of any flaws in the OS.


There are certainly gaps in our understanding of the events of 9/11, but there are no "flaws in the OS" as you put it. The only discrepencies are those that have been manufactured by those damned fool conspiracy web sites to sow public unrest. "No plane wreckage was recovered from the Pentagon" has to be one of the most notorious examples, along with "the Pentagon sits within the strictest airspace in the world"." I see these almost on a daily basis from peopel who are simply repeating what they've been told. In the latter case, all you need to do is go there to see there's a nonstop stream of air traffic continuously flying by the Pentagon as planes approach Reagan Airport. I know this because I went there on vacation and saw this for myself.

Taken into context with all the OTHER falsehoods being passed around by the conspiracy theorists without question (I.E. "Pull it" is lingo for controlled demolitions, which is entirely an invention of Alex Jones) one can see there definitely is a disinformation campaign...but it's NOT coming from the government.

To the moderators: I'm presuming using the phrase "damned fool conspiracy web sites" is not a TOS violation, since it almost certainly reflects ATS' own opinion of a certain web site that caused the 9/11 forum to be shut down to begin with...
edit on 13-9-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join