The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

you got it.. What's more, when my wife and I met, I had only taken a 7th grade level Spanish class. She couldn't speak English at all.

She could write it though, and read it as well. She now works for a major US bank and is the most decorated member on her team.. She still only speaks in fragmented English, but her ability to understand and execute the company's goals has her in position for promotion.. I am proud of her , if you cannot tell.

As for me, reading Spanish is not that hard. As for speaking, my relatives say I sound like a trukatru (Caveman). Understanding what they say is hit and miss depending on the speed of their delivery and their personal accents. I have found I communicate/understand better with my students from Columbia and Venezuela than with people from certain parts of Mexico, and Spain.

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


Mr. Driver, I am very happy for you both.

AND, thanks for your contribution to this discussion, it is most welcomed.

spelling edit...

[edit on 25-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Sorry, the argument works both ways...how do you know the tapes WERE faked? That is your assertion, n'est pas?

You just admitted you are running on faith and nothing more. You cannot prove they were not fake, and I have no intentions of proving they were. That is what is know as impasse. That is as far as it can go at this time. You will have to find the proof beyond faith alone to break the impasse. I do not have to do anything but wait on you to do that.

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

No, it is just a half-baked question, sorry.

Tu piensas yo no puedo communicarme en espanol? e mi esposa no puedo habla, o leo ingles?

Obviously you have never been in a relationship with a person who is just beginning to learn english. You would be blown away at how wrong you are.

I do not recall writing anything about the metaphorical, unspoken language of love. Unfortunate for your illogcial retort, the reality is, if people are unable to go beyond the universal unspoken language of love, they are going to have a most difficult, in not impossible, time lf engaging in spoken and written communication.

Communication means being on the same metaphorical wavelength for mutual comprehension in spoken and written language/linguistics communication, not simply babbling at one another.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

It comes back to Occam's Razor...the simplest explanation is most likely the truth.

Occam's Razor is a double edge razor. Used with logical correctness, it works. Used illogically, it does not. Anyone using it, mandatorily has to be objective enough with him or herself, to be aware if he or she is correctly using it or not.

reply to post by OrionStars


OrionStars, you win.

I do not care to discuss anything with you because you are obviously correct and you know all, and be all, and have all of the answers.

So, I cede this discussion to you. If it were a game of poker, I would fold my hand, and walk away. Because this table is not a good table to play at...too much negative energy.

So, I fold my hand...take all of my chips. Go have a great dinner, on me!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Do not direct your frustration at me, because you cannot validate your declarative statements of such unvalidated certainty. If you are going to make statements of certainty, it is your responsibility to validly support them.

Originally posted by OrionStars

I do not recall writing anything about the metaphorical, unspoken language of love.

I don't either. ANY relationship.

Unfortunate for your illogcial retort, the reality is, if people are unable to go beyond the universal unspoken language of love, they are going to have a most difficult, in not impossible, time lf engaging in spoken and written communication.

Yeah, you are an authority..pffbt. Did you miss the part about her being up for promotion at her job-- where all instruction and training is done exclusively in English? Written and Oral English. Yet she cannot speak english very well.

Communication means being on the same metaphorical wavelength for mutual comprehension in spoken and written language/linguistics communication, not simply babbling at one another.

That sounds like something Instructors might be good at.. Ya think flight instructors might be good at it too? I bet they get a lot of aspiring pilots from afar.. For some reason only the 9/11 hijackers cannot seem to wrap these communication skills around their savage brains. I wonder how Atta was able to finish his Architecture degree in Germany.

Orion, god bless ya, you try so hard... I had to take you off ignore..I felt I might miss sumpthin' heh.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Do not direct your frustration at me, because you cannot validate your declarative statements of such unvalidated certainty. If you are going to make statements of certainty, it is your responsibility to validly support them.

Why is he required to answer your questions? Your posts are based on nothing but faith and denouncing anything that goes against your belief. Please provide some proof that holographs are at the level that could pull this off, and then provide empirical data that shows they were used to fake this event.

Your questions most of the time make little sense and do nothing but continually demand further proof without you providing anything in return.
REMEMBER! It is up to you to factually and empirically disprove the official story and not for us to defend it. NONE of us are defending it and you just do not understand that.

What we are doing is questioning is YOUR farfetched beliefs that have nothing supporting them.

Q: OrionStars, No one has yet explained how people, with little to no English comprehension skills, can learn anything taught in oral and written English. They simply keep dancing that pertinent issue.

A: Weedwhacker, Sorry, Orion...they could speak and read English.
Q: OrionStars, and you know that for certain exactly how?

A: Did you hear the tapes from ATC? Couple of times, the Saudis thought they were on the PA, but instead were transmitting on VHF Comm 1. Plus much more explanation…

Q: How do you know for certain they were not faked? Are you taking that on faith alone? Or do you have some way being certain the rest of us do not?

So that is your style here right? Just keep asking questions until it reaches your little “impasse” as you call it.

I think our main question to you is why do you need to disprove the real story when you can prove your hypothesis is real? Can you provide that information so we can be totally on your side in all this? We are not government disinfo agents and we would love to be with you in all this, but by doing nothing but questioning the real story does not provide us any answers.

If it is all fake PLEASE show us. As I said we are not defending the real story as much as wondering where you want to go with all this.

Well we are all ears…

reply to post by Richard Gizinu


Are you trying to be funny or sarcastic? i am not sure, but I wont take it personally.

Yeah of course planes can fly close to the ground, that I dont doubt.....I do doubt the skill and maneuvering of the terrorists. How many times are we going to have to point out this:

] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "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." [New York Times]

taken from: www.whatreallyhappened.com...

It must be incredibly easy to hijack a plane, navigate it a few hundred miles and crash it into a building with precision, and the aeronautical engineer that wrote the article must be out of his mind.....is that what we are coming to?

speaking of the flight that hit the pentagon, lets look at some of the questions raised from pilotsfor911truth.org...

Questions For NTSB/FBI Regarding Flight Data Recorder Information

The current FDR shows 480' MSL True Altitude, too high to hit the light poles. What are your findings of True Altitude at end of data recording 09:37:44. Why did you provide a Flight Data Recorder that shows the aircraft too high without a side letter of explanation? How did you come to your conclusion.
What is the vertical speed at end of data recording :44. How did you come to your conclusion.
What is the Absolute Altitude and end of data recording? How did you come to your conclusion.
Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set?(This is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it).
Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?
Do you have any video showing a clear impact and/or of the plane on its approach to impact?
Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?
Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44?
Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator?
How did you come to the conclusion of 09:37:45 as the official impact time?
What is the exact chain of custody of the FDR? What date/time was it found? Where exactly was it found? Please provide documentation and names.
Why does the hijack timeline show a 3 min interval for hijacking to take place? Why was Capt. Burlingame reported to have not followed protocol for the Common Strategy prior to 9/11?


Since there seem to be so many supporters of the official story on this thread, why dont we begin to take a shot at some of these questions.....

[edit on 26-1-2008 by Jeff Riff]

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

I don't either. ANY relationship.

That still has nothing to do with someone trying to learn even a simple job much less a complexity, when he or she cannot comprehend the oral and written language of instruction. Even sign language is taught in a deaf person's native language, or they could not communicate in their own native homeland.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Why is he required to answer your questions? Your posts are based on nothing but faith and denouncing anything that goes against your belief. Please provide some proof that holographs are at the level that could pull this off, and then provide empirical data that shows they were used to fake this event.

I did not require him to answer any questions. What I required was proof when someone has claimed something to be a fact, and has not validated any fact. Mere opinion is all that is stated withiout valid substantiation. It would do some people well to learn the difference between opinion and validation.

If people do not want to be challenged on their opinions, then precede the commentary with either "in my opinion" (IMO) or "in my humble opinion" (IMHO). That way, reasonable people will simple accept the words are opinion not statements of unvalidated certainty, and move on.

If people want to demand what they say is fact, they had best be prepared to validate it, or do not state something is fact, when refusing to validate. Or they best expect to be questioned, by at least one person in these discussions, with request to provide validation to prove fact.

If your side demands proof, expect the same from those with opposing views. What gives your side the perceived right to question others, quite belligerantly so many times, and yet not expect questions from your opposition?

reply to post by Xtrozero


Now i cannot speak for Orion but the reason I would argue against you is to get your perspective and gain from it. I may ask questions or play devils advocate, which might seem crazy from your standpoint, but in order to fully understand where you are coming from I am going to question at the most extreme levels.

Also, if you are not supporting the official story, then what is it that you believe happened on 9-11? So you have empirical data to prove your beliefs? Does the govermnet have empirical data to prove the official story? What empirical data is out there, and what does this data show?

Based on my obsevations.....two planes hit the WTC and they collapsed. Based on my observations of history, I have seen that no steel structure buildings have collapsed due to fire in the history of man, until that day. There were building fires that burned hotter and longer that the trade centers without a global collapse. www.serendipity.li...

I have no piloting experience so I cannot say one way or another what those pilots were capable of. However, there are the observations of their instructors: "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." www.whatreallyhappened.com...

So since empirical evidence is based on observation and experience, we can see that those who trained the pilots observed the hijackers inability to fly at all. We also know from experience that steel structures have not collapsed from fire until 9-11, where three steel structures collapsed due to fire.......

empirical evidence helps nobody in the case of 9-11, especially when the observations and experiences are skewed to fit any story in which you believe.





[edit on 26-1-2008 by Jeff Riff]

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
Are you trying to be funny or sarcastic? i am not sure, but I wont take it personally.

Yeah of course planes can fly close to the ground, that I dont doubt.....I do doubt the skill and maneuvering of the terrorists. How many times are we going to have to point out this:

Sorry Jeff,

Unfortunately he really wasn't being sarcastic or funny for if you go back in the posts you would see that OrionStars was stating that an aircraft the size of a 757 is incapable of flying at high speeds close to the ground because of physics. So you are kind of feeling some backlash from that series of posts.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by OrionStars
If your side demands proof, expect the same from those with opposing views. What gives your side the perceived right to question others, quite belligerantly so many times, and yet not expect questions from your opposition?

It seems like the questions are just coming from just your side, and you have been acting like this is a debate contest that you need to win without any care for the truth.

Let me ask you about that last series of questions of when you finally demanded proof that the tapes were not faked, how is he capable of providing that information? You then suggest in your own way that you win because you are at an impasse. If you feel the tapes are faked then it should be you to prove that they are.

Think about it for a minute my friend; faked tapes would be a smoking gun would it not? The problem is none of us are in the position to prove it and we could only rely on second hand information that could easily be bias in either direction. So yes we have an impasse in your demands that you treat as support for your case and it isn't, so why even ask the question other than to ground it out like a match on the ground.

If the way you want to win is to just frustrate everyone with this method then why post at all for you do not prove a thing in the end other than you are annoying without furthering the truth in any way.

Can you show proof that their English was a burden in learning other than just what you think with your zero experience in flight training? To give you some back ground on me I trained Iraqis in flying and their English was really bad. We train many aircrews from other countries with very bad English.

What they do is learn all the trigger words that they need in flying. This is much easier than learning the ability of full conversation. Much of their training is monkey see monkey do. I show you and you repeat it with little spoken except for trigger words. In all cases I have seen their reading capabilities are much better than their speaking.

One point I would like to bring up is that these guys lived in the states for many years, and if that was the case, then that alone would be a good example that they had some ability to communicate in English.

Just adding another point: All of these guys were either in the middle of college or had completed college, and many did their collage in Germany. To assume their English speaking capabilities hindered them or that they were not able to learn is ridiculous.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
Based on my obsevations.....two planes hit the WTC and they collapsed. Based on my observations of history, I have seen that no steel structure buildings have collapsed due to fire in the history of man, until that day. There were building fires that burned hotter and longer that the trade centers without a global collapse.

I have what I saw that day for one thing, so that is a rather big thing to disprove and I feel it is not up to me to prove it happened. But if you look at all this let me take you down a path of logic.

I talked about this in another non-9/11 related post. If you take the outcome of the towers collapsing and work it backwards with all parts of it either faked or preplanned the odds are in the impossibilities.

The fact that the towers fell is 100% or a probability of 1. All the factors that lead to their collapse are also a probability of 1 since it happened. Also in the case if I laid down 1 million cards the order they are laid is a probability of 1. The randomness involved in both events has nothing to do with the outcome for the outcome could have been many outcomes.

Now comes the impossible part. If I predict the random outcome by predicting the order of the cards before I randomly laid them down then the probability shoots up into the astronomical level of improbable.
With the towers, if I start with their collapse and preplanned all the randomness that happened for everything to happen as it did it is an impossibility too.

Just as an example of one random event of 1000s; the first aircraft hit higher than the second. The second tower collapse first because of all the additional weight in floors over the weaken section where the aircraft crashed into. Not knowing the outcome we have a probability of 1 since it happened. Knowing the outcome of where the planes would hit and then creating the timing and sequence of events to follow in a preplanned scenario is impossible.

As for steel; the initial kinetic forces most defiantly weaken those floors that were hit. The massive fire to follow though not hot enough to melt steel was still hot enough to reduce the weight bearing capabilities of that steel. To what level I do not know, but what I do know is the second tower collapse first and so the steel needed less time in the fire to reach the point of the greater weight above it to start the collapse that just dominoed on down as once again the energy of all those floors exceeded the weight bearing capabilities of each floor below the initial start of the collapse. Then some time later the first tower collapsed as the steel in it reached a point it could no longer bear the weight above it.

Right or wrong this is what I believe….



[edit on 26-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero


If the twin towers fell according to the "logic" your side maintains, they would have fallen on the order of the structures in the photos at the following site. In at least a couple, those look as it would look if controlled demolitions only blew at the base:

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

As for commercial jetliners flying at high speed at sea level, apparently your side has not a clue that atmospheric conditions play havoc on weight and mass at sea level. The heavier the mass the more havoc at high speeds. I already knew the aerodyamics of flight, but I confirmed what I already knew with actual professional commercial jetliner pilots before I started posting to these forums.

People can claim to the pilots or highly knowledgeable (from flight simulators only) on some anonymous board. It is amazing how when they start making claims how little that asserted knowledge shines through in what they present. Are they simply, purposely holding back or what?

Originally posted by OrionStars


As for commercial jetliners flying at high speed at sea level, apparently your side has not a clue that atmospheric conditions play havoc on weight and mass at sea level. The heavier the mass the more havoc at high speeds. I already knew the aerodyamics of flight, but I confirmed what I already knew with actual professional commercial jetliner pilots before I started posting to these forums.

People can claim to the pilots or highly knowledgeable (from flight simulators only) on some anonymous board. It is amazing how when they start making claims how little that asserted knowledge shines through in what they present. Are they simply, purposely holding back or what?

Hi Orion.... please tell me what "atmospheric condition" are affecting this airplane.

Thanks and have a nice day

Thought you guys would be interested in this as well: (Large Planes Flying Low)




This is pretty cool too: