The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

I did a search and was not able to find this article discussed. I think that it raises some red flags to one that would believe the official story. Its a great read and I think its very important to the investigation of a truther.

www.lookingglassnews.org...

reply to post by Jeff Riff


It is a pretty good read, but to me it's frustrating more than anything else.

We'll never know what really happened, what we WILL know are the results of that day and for a very long time I'm afraid. Unfortunately, we may be headed for another reminder of what 9/11 sparked before we can do anything to stop it:

www.middle-east-online.com...

reformer.com...

reply to post by Jeff Riff


Here's another good article too. Link

And another one. Link

reply to post by Boone 870


Hats off to you, star and I wish I could applaud.

IMO, these kinds of claims claims are best viewed under scrutiny of reality, context and the knowledge the "truth" movement is interested in neither truth or 9-11. It's a political movement that uses 9-11 as a rally cry to bind together otherwise disparate (far, far left political) interests.

A really good read thanks for the links,anybody who has flown or knows anything about flying and monuvering planes would know how difficult it is,to say these so called terrorists did it will relative ease is just wrong in so many ways.
years of training to become a pilot and they do it in no time atall..sorry i don't by it.

reply to post by Jeff Riff


Thank you for making the effort tolocate that article written by an aeronautical engineer and pilot. That should put to rest any further absurd notions, that anyone named by the US bureaucrats had the expertise or knowledge to fly any planes, much less commercial jetliners, pertaining to the events of 9/11/2001.

The advantage of hijacking a jet and crashing it into a building, of course, is that the most difficult aspects of flying the airplane, heavy or otherwise, are eliminated. That would be take-offs and landings. Otherwise, you can get a pretty good idea about the locations of the controls and what they do from something as simple as a Microsoft Flight computer program. It won't make you an expert, but with some minor training and a whole lot of luck, you should be able to get the job done.

reply to post by Nohup


Did you read the article? It soundly refutes everything you stated.

reply to post by rhynouk


Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opnion =)

Just something to consider: would you believe I hovered a Blackhawk helicopter with zero experience, on the very first try? FYI, helicopters are geometrically more complex to fly than fixed wing - which I do have experience in. BTW, at the time I got my chance, I had all of 20 hours or so in Cessnas. 20 hours is significantly less than the guys at the controls on 9-11.

Of course you wouldn't but here is the thing: it's absolutely true. I know you don't know me, or anything about my background so all I can do is tell you my integrity is intact and what I expressed to you is exactly what happened.

Now, flying a Blackhawk, unrated, while in the military (or out) is a definite career ender for all involved. How it happened, how I was in that position, etc is something I would be glad to share VIA U2U.

One of my buddies is still flying active duty and I wont share anything that could still jeopardize his career.

Believe me or not, it's your choice but, it is absolutely the truth. So, from my own personal experience in an aircraft that truly is difficult to fly (compared to fixed wing, IMO) I see it as entirely possible.

A few qualifiers: hovering a Blackhawk is not like flying say, a Huey. Hueys are all stick and rudder (and a lot of vibration). I know that from personal experience too. Your choice to believe me or not. There is no way in heck I could hover a Huey with no experience, none. How was I able to hover a Blackhawk? Technology, specifically the mixer on the hydraulic deck. I wont bore you with details but, the mixer essentially takes many inputs (manual in a Huey - meaning the pilot) from various sources and literally "mixes" them together. Bottom line: it does a lot automatically for the pilot. You don't even have to dial in counter-torque when you pull in power.......the mixer does it for you.

Okay, enough of that...here's my point: modern, fixed wing commercial airliners are no different. If your intention is point the aircraft in a certain direction and run it into something, without any concern for the structural integrity of the airframe, the safety of those on board, FAA rules, retaining your pilots rating/certification, other aircraft, etc........then yep, I think it's totally possible.

If you look at the various computer simulations based on the flight data recorders these guys weren't using a gentle touch - nor did it matter. They weren't concerned with safety, fuel burn rate, regulations or anything else.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Nohup

 

Did you read the article? It soundly refutes everything you stated.

\

Hi Orion, nice to see you again.

Did you read the article(s) provided by Boone directly under the OP? It soundly refutes everything you stated.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


You were solo in the helicopter with no assistance from anyone experienced. Is that correct? You appear to leave out a number of important details in your very brief statement concerning hovering in a helicopter.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


No offense intended. I prefer articles by professionals when I want to learn anything regarding someone's profession.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar



You are so far off base. Anybody in the truth movement here trying to push a far left political agenda? i think you will hear a resounding "NO." I think that we are honsetly trying to figure out why there are so many anomolies that took place that day, and why there are TRUTHS being hidden from us. I could give a crap about the left or the right. I do give a crap about this country and the people that live in it as honest citizens. The death of 3000 innocent people is something that should have been investigated.

Money spent investigating Clinton and Lewinsky.... Take a look
www.cnn.com...

Can anyone show me how much they spent on 9-11? Its hard to find a reputable source, but from what I have seen its far less. Does this make sense to you?

It not about left and right, it is about what was done wrong to Americans

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


I did not write the article. If you carefully read what I did write, I referred to the words of the author of the article as soundly refuting that poster's words.

You must learn to more carefully read the words of others. That way you will not be posting snide retorts to people which make no logical sense to others.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


When the author starts out with a statement like this, "And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.", you know something's not right.

Then in the next couple of paragraphs, he says this " the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)" the agenda shines through! Anyone who's ever flown in a commercial airline at cruising altitude knows that this is a very silly statement.

reply to post by OrionStars


Nope, that's not correct. There were other people in the aircraft with me.

reply to post by OrionStars


You claimed the article provided clearly refuted the other posters point. You asked if he read the article, I asked you if you have read some opposing view points?

Am I missing something?

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

Hi Orion, nice to see you again.

Did you read the article(s) provided by Boone directly under the OP? It soundly refutes everything you stated.

That means no. Even if he did read them, it wouldn't matter because it does not fit the conspiracy.

If one expert supports the theory, he is totally believable.

If two experts disprove the theory, they are considered invalid. You know how this works.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


So reality is not the impression you attempted to give until questioned. Which is exactly as the author of the article pointed out as well for those alleged people on alleged flights on 9/11/01.

When I was a small child, I had the opportunity to be transported in a military cargo plane. The pilot offered to let me "fly the plane". What that meant was he kept his hands on the wheel along with mine, and for a second he would remove his if we were level. But I would hardly run around giving the impression I flew a military cargo plane all by myself. That would be dishonest.

Note to Jeff:

Jeff, I feel certain you expressed the exact sentiments of us all never ceasing to investigate what actually did occur on 9/11/2001. Protecting the "official" version is politics. As you pointed out so well, politics have nothing to do with why we continue to do what we do. We actually care what happened to our own people.

reply to post by Boone 870


What is the agenda here? To point out the truth? How is this a "very silly statement?" Apparently I am not understanding. I have been a passenger in a plane at cruising altitude. You can be damn sure that I have no idea where I am, especially if I am not paying attention. If I am getting ready to hijack a plane, you can be sure that I am running through the scenario in my head, watching and planning. Not sitting there staring out the window, keeping track of speed and distance so I know exactly where I am. There is nothing silly about the statement.