The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
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?

No, just pointing out that I'm proud for you. You haven't slipped into the whole "it's impossible forplanes to go that fast close to the ground" garbage. You should be proud too.

As far as the rest, both sides have evidence. You have a quote from an instructor saying he wasn't that good. I have the fact that after the time period that involved that instructor, they all continued to train. Severa; of them had pilot's licenses.

So it's useless for me to argue, since it's all a matter of opinion and what evidence one chooses to believe.

Just take the thread title. The impossibility....... It's all about believing. No facts need apply.

Originally posted by OrionStars

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:

Wow! I don't know all those structures were built with exactly the same support engineering that went into the towers. They were not? Well I guess you need to follow your own advice..

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.

You are clueless as ever. Please post the data on how much air turbulence is created by a 200k aircraft flying at 500 mph within ground effect, and also post the empirical data of the area of effect of this turbulence.

With your older post that you would not want to be within a mile of a plane traveling as such, totally shows you have not a clue to how much or how small an area any turbulence from an aircraft in that scenario would create.

I’ll say it is a non-issue… please prove me wrong with your data that you must have.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Wow! I don't know all those structures were built with exactly the same support engineering that went into the towers. They were not? Well I guess you need to follow your own advice..

You have told us once again you know nothing concerning building construction, physics and quantum mechanics. You fall back on some of the lamest excuses I have had the misfortune to read in this forum. You can stay in self-denial all you wish. That is your entitled right to do so.

However, if no controlled demolitions were used in the twin towers, the photos I placed in discussion well represent the way the towers would have fallen, and partically intact splattered all over more of Manhattan.

That is what pancaking actually looks like when structures fall on their own. There would have been no molecular disintegration to witness. No pyroclastic blasts to witness. None of that which we saw on 9/11/2001. Perhaps, you did not, but the vast majority of us certainly did.

Any alleged planes, passengers, and other contents of planes would definitely have been found, IF the buildings had actually "swallowed" entire planes as touted by the "official" reports. No doubt about that whatsoever.

No one perpetrating the acts could afford to have those buildings fall on their own and have no evidence of alleged "planes" alleged to be completely inside those buildings, could they? What would happen to their "official" reports, when no evidence of planes and contents would be found had those towers fallen on their own? Had those buildings fallen on their own, these discussions would not be taking place over 6 years later. On that, I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by OrionStars
You have told us once again you know nothing concerning building construction, physics and quantum mechanics. You fall back on some of the lamest excuses I have had the misfortune to read in this forum. You can stay in self-denial all you wish. That is your entitled right to do so.

You are right, but you also know little, but what I do know is that a wide four story building or a bridge is not the towers.

What I have are two towers collapsing at the exact floors that were hit by the planes and then continuing the collapse from the sheer weight above.

What you have is a hypothesis with nothing backing it up. Show me 1 inch of the miles of det cord needed, show me an ounce of the 100 ton(s) of explosives needed, show me one person of the 1000s (10,000s) involved to make your hypothesis come try. Show me the technology to create the holographs, SHOW ME SOMETHING that is not riddled with bias opinions.

Any alleged planes, passengers, and other contents of planes would definitely have been found, IF the buildings had actually "swallowed" entire planes as touted by the "official" reports. No doubt about that whatsoever.

Well it didn't exactly swallow it. The plane was moving 800 feet per second. The aircraft was 155 feet long, so in less of a quarter second after the nose of the plane touched the building the back of the tail went into it also. The aircraft would disintegrate as it travelled through the building and then engulfed in its own fuel that exploded and burned.

On that, I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ok I have Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

This is what went into the 43 volumes where you rely on one guy who is a self proclaim pilot/engineer who doesn’t make his living in either of those fields.

How much proof do you want from me?

Also, once steel is heated to 1000c it only retains about 10% of its load bearing capabilities as it does at room temp. You totally ignore everything …



[edit on 26-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero



Xtro,

You will find that most truthers refuse to observe the evidence. The ABUNDANCE of evidence.

Most Truthers WANT there to be a conspiracy. They hold on to the littlest bit of hope so that they can be right.

You are right. There is ZERO evidence that supports the CD, hologram, flyover... whatever theory you want.

C.O.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Xtrozero, you are once again entitled to your personal opinion but have no entitlement to be wrong in fact. About me, you are are most assuredly wrong.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Xtrozero, you are once again entitled to your personal opinion

No you are wrong my friend for mine is based on 43 volumes of facts and yours is only a opinion that it was all faked.

Some difference there...

reply to post by OrionStars


Hi Orion,

Why are your opinions "facts?" When others present proof, you dismiss it!

I don't understand your agenda. I am not trying to be rude, but are you affiliated with Killtown?

C.O.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by OrionStars
Xtrozero, you are once again entitled to your personal opinion

No you are wrong my friend for mine is based on 43 volumes of facts and yours is only a opinion that it was all faked.

Some difference there...

Thank you for continuing to redundantly inform us, that the "official" reports are your abstract concept of "facts". Many us got that sharp point long ago from your own words.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Well since you are going to say that, then I challenge you to show me ANY proof that supports the official story is correct. GO ahead we are all waiting.
If you can sit there and say that there is no proof supporing the Truthers side of the story, then you are the one that is ignoring the evidence. If you want us to begin to start compiling the evidence then lets start a thread....In fact I am going to do that right now...lets have at it

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
reply to post by CaptainObvious

 

Well since you are going to say that, then I challenge you to show me ANY proof that supports the official story is correct. GO ahead we are all waiting.
If you can sit there and say that there is no proof supporing the Truthers side of the story, then you are the one that is ignoring the evidence. If you want us to begin to start compiling the evidence then lets start a thread....In fact I am going to do that right now...lets have at it

We seemed to spend a while here trying to drift off into a world where language skills impaired a pilot's ability to control an aircraft which is an exceeedingly weak point to push from the 'dark' side of this debate and hang your hopes on. I haven't seen any real evidence other than anecdotal that goes against the 'official' version of what happened.

Is there a 'possibility of flying heavy aircraft with training'?
I hope so.

reply to post by Pilgrum

well feel free to tell everyone what evidence there is to support the official story here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Jeff Riff


Jeff,

Please tell me what you would like proven? There are countless events on 911. Why don't YOU tell me what you think hasne't been proven and I will do my best to show you the evidence.

C.O.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
We seemed to spend a while here trying to drift off into a world where language skills impaired a pilot's ability to control an aircraft which is an exceeedingly weak point to push from the 'dark' side of this debate and hang your hopes on. I haven't seen any real evidence other than anecdotal that goes against the 'official' version of what happened.

Is there a 'possibility of flying heavy aircraft with training'?
I hope so.

Actually, it is a very strong point as anyone trying to communicate with someone speaking another language well knows. There will be no effective communication, but there will be the metaphorical meeting at the Tower of Babel. At least, until one or both begin to take foreign language instructions from a dual language speaking and writing instructor.

Where there is no effective communication, there is no effective training. That is reality not illusion.

Moderator note: Post removed due to violation of the site's rules.

1f.) Relevant Content: You will not post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums nor disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").

[edit on 27-1-2008 by dbates]

Originally posted by OrionStars
Actually, it is a very strong point as anyone trying to communicate with someone speaking another language well knows. There will be no effective communication, but there will be the metaphorical meeting at the Tower of Babel. At least, until one or both begin to take foreign language instructions from a dual language speaking and writing instructor.

Where there is no effective communication, there is no effective training. That is reality not illusion.

Surely you can't claim they had no command of english at all. It's documented that they could read, write and speak english unless that's a coverup too. They weren't perfect at it but did they need to be?

They had the training and took from it only what they needed perhaps as they weren't planning on making a career of it - well maybe just a short, spectacular career.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Surely you can't claim they had no command of english at all. It's documented that they could read, write and speak english unless that's a coverup too. They weren't perfect at it but did they need to be?

They had the training and took from it only what they needed perhaps as they weren't planning on making a career of it - well maybe just a short, spectacular career.

On what validated authority are you making your statements? There are articles, with alleged flight instructor comments, disputing your claims. What makes your claims valid? Thus, the only way of invalidating those articles citations, is if you can validly prove them wrong. Can you prove them invalid? If so, please do so.

Unless you can prove something invalid, any statements you make continue to be nothing more than your opinion.

Simply because people do not desire to accept anything as valid, does not make something any less valid by personal opinion. That is why I depend first and always on science. Science result never lies. People can lie with science results (pseudo-science). However, under thorough ethical peer review, science never lies. It is the same as this: "Figures never lie, but liars figure."

The following excerpts and quotes demonstrating the 9-11 hijackers use of English are from the 9-11 Commission Report....


Page 6 (AA 11)

Boston Center knew of a problem on the flight in part because just before
8:25 the hijackers had attempted to communicate with the passengers. The
microphone was keyed, and immediately one of the hijackers said, “Nobody
move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you’ll endanger
yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.


At 8:38, Ong told Gonzalez that the plane was flying erratically again.
Around this time Sweeney toldWoodward that the hijackers were Middle Easterners,
naming three of their seat numbers. One spoke very little English and
one spoke excellent English.The hijackers had gained entry to the cockpit, and
she did not know how.The aircraft was in a rapid descent.35

Page 10 (United 93)

At the same time, Boston Center realized that a message transmitted just before 8:25 by the
hijacker pilot of American 11 included the phrase,“We have some planes.”65

Page 12 (United 93)

At 9:32, a hijacker, probably Jarrah, made or attempted to make the following
announcement to the passengers of Flight 93:“Ladies and Gentlemen:Here
the captain, please sit down keep remaining sitting.We have a bomb on board.
So, sit.” The flight data recorder (also recovered) indicates that Jarrah then
instructed the plane’s autopilot to turn the aircraft around and head east.75

Since no one arguing has stated or affirmed he or she actually spoke with any alleged hijackers, isn't all else nothing but hearsay? He said/she said hearsay.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Since no one arguing has stated or affirmed he or she actually spoke with any alleged hijackers, isn't all else nothing but hearsay? He said/she said hearsay.

Isn't that what your're doing as well? "The flight instructors said Hanjour could barely speak english"......hearsay.