Professional Pilot Questions 9/11 Scenario - Video

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Let me guess, there were no planes and it was all an illusion perpetrated by unknown forces that designed this to be a " conspiracy"? There was no point to this thread.

THREAD fail!

I misspoke earlier. It wasn't Rumsfeld who spoke of the Pentagon missile because after all, he was briefing us on the Shanksville missile.






It was the Commissioner who confessed to the missile at the Pentagon.





And the Prez admitting explosives at the twin Towers.





So if you want to be upset over the 'no plane' theory then I suggest you direct your anger where it rightfully belongs. Within our government!




Ex-plo-sives and mis-siles oh my!
Ex-plo-sives and mis-siles oh my!
(Have we reached Emerald City yet Dorothy?)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

Source of the bottom photo?? The overhead view of the Pentagon??

Oh, and why would a "missile" need a [ahem] "chalk line" to follow??

Oh, and...."chalk line"??

Who said anything about 'following' a chalk line????
I certainly didn't.

Instead of 'trying' to trip me up (which you fail miserably at) why don't you try to explain it then?

What's that you say?
You can't?
Didn't think so.


That's okay Weed. Glad to see you come down a rung from your know-it-all ladder. Because most of us don't have the answers and can't fully explain let alone comprehended what happened that day. Instead we have a pretty good idea of what DIDN'T happen though.

You see, it tends to be the debunkers who pretend to have all the answers so, welcome to our side....even if it's momentarily

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Perhaps you never saw that Dutch documentary, where they had a very low-time pilot, a college student if I'm not mistaken,

You are mistaken. The man's name is Mr. Ruigrok and he is not a "college student",he works for the National Aerospace Laboratory where the simulation was conducted.

Dutch Pentagon Attack Recreation A Fraud? - Simulator Not Certified, Not A 757

Now if you wish to see a simulator reconstruction based on actual data reported with a 757/767 Capt from United Airlines who has actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11,watch this.

Scroll forward to 16:55

No plane, another straw man to discredit the "official story" doubters/non-believers.
Control of the aircraft at speed was always the most obvious flaw in the official story.
Immediately post 9/11 there were internet articles on how 'remote control' was the only way to control aircraft at the alleged speeds. That using remote control blocked out recordings on the cabin voice recorder? and the alleged difficulty finding same seemed to strengthen this argument.

reply to post by markjohnconley


I thought this nonsense thread would die?? Oh, dear....then this showed up:

Control of the aircraft at speed was always the most obvious flaw in the official story.

NO, it wasn't.

___

Immediately post 9/11 there were internet articles on how 'remote control' was the only way to control aircraft at the alleged speeds.

And THAT is as ridiculous as the claims of any "difficulty" of control. Besides....do you not see how contradictory that is??? Does it need to be spelled out for you??

___

That using remote control blocked out recordings on the cabin voice recorder?

!!!! Well, THAT'S a new one!! And, like the rest, nonsense.

Originally posted by Human_Alien

And here's what the wings of a plane looks like when encountering resistances (like 5 lamp posts)

Here is what a wing looks like hitting one light pole in flight:



go forward to 05:00 !

It sheared off the wing tip!

This outcome condtradicts somehow the pentagon scenario. Just one more point that does not add up.
Sure not r the same condition (other plane, other speed, other light poles) but it makes one wondering hard.

Abut the OP video. Thank you I liked this information.

I don't get why people try to imply more into a statement than what is presented.

It really doesn't matters what they believe or speculate what alternatives could have been, and I am glad they didn't do that mistake. They just give their statement that the official scenario is impossible to their best knowledge.

reply to post by MrHerbert


More hand-waving from yet another Rob Balsamo (of "PilotsFor9/11Truth" ....is "fame" the proper term?? NO, better, "inglorious infamy").


Let's see....his club, that bunch of limp noodles who make all of the outrageous claims...oh, wait....it's really ONLY Balsamo, any more. Most of the rats have fled that ship.


The "analysis" of the Dutch video? Reading through it reminds me of a school project in "Debate Class"....where you're supposed to take an opposing viewpoint contrary to common sense and reason, and "argue" from that standpoint. As a learning experience. And, it's full of false innuendo, as usual...it is the typical M.O. of the "P4T" club.


The Dutch TV program at least went to the effort to do SOMETHING to counter all the BS about how "difficult" the final portion of flight American 77 was to accomplish. And, the "P4T" creative writer-cum "arguer" throws up so many red herrings in that diatribe, he puts the fish mongers of Seattle to shame!

It really makes NO DIFFERENCE whether or not the simulator they used was B-757/767, just for a demonstration. It makes NO DIFFERENCE that any overspeed warnings were disabled. In fact, THAT was merely just pulling a circuit breaker....the warnings are LOUD and distracting, when the point is you want to film something as a demonstration. The warnings are ONLY audible and visual....and certainly would have had no bearing on the real events, as the suicidal hijackers flew the airplanes into the targets.

It makes NO DIFFERENCE that the "crash logic" of the simulator was disabled...IN FACT!! It is necessary to do that, for the purposes of the demonstration!!!

The "light poles" so-called "argument"? Same thing. NO DIFFERENCE.

The "skill" of the pilot, and any "practice" he may have had, who actually did the simulator flying? Well, that may be the only possible claim by the "P4T" diatribe that could be used....but, SO WHAT?? It's the ONLY thing, in that entire screed, that comes close to being "valid" at all...and it's a pathetically weak one.

But, a simulator ---- while being VERY realistic in many ways, is still lacking in some vital motion cues that are present in real airplanes....and the visuals in a simulator, while increasingly great and incredibly accurate as technology improves, still pale in comparison to real life. Real life where you are looking out a REAL window, at the REAL world. And, you can move your head, crane your neck around, and look ALL OVER THE PLACE....you aren't just limited to the limits of the video screen displays that the simulator offers.

This results in better, more intuitive orientation, and spatial awareness, for a pilot in real life....in the context of maneuvering solely by outside-the-cockpit visual references.

Finally, the last red-herring ---- the claim about the DFDR data not being released at the time of taping that TV program. Ummmm....the Dutch show had a shot of them reviewing the approximate ground track of American 77, as drawn on an overhead map view....they used that as the basis of a "PROOF OF CONCEPT" demonstration. It wasn't intended to be an "EXACT" duplicate of the exact route and path and altitudes flown by American 77!!! But, the innuendo dropped, by Rob Balsamo (and Co.? IF there are any others left) is, sadly, typical of this pathetic excuse for a "response" to their outlandish, and thoroughly discredited, claims.

He (they?) must resort to the most ludicrous lengths, each time their woo-woo nonsense is exposed.......

reply to post by drepaesi


Once again, not understanding the differences from different accident types, and situations.

Firstly, once more....the American 1420 accident photo, form Little Rock, AR. That airplane broke apart in that manner, as shown when it came to rest, because of going off the runway, into rough terrain, and down a ravine.


The video? That is from a documentary about the Northwest Flight 255 crash, in Detroit, MI. Happened to same type (MD-80 series) as the AAL 1420 crash, but different scenarios.

Finally, NWA 255 struck a light pole (more than one, actually) that was installed in a rental car parking lot, AND at a substantially lower speed than the different type of light-poles struck by AAL 77, near the Pentagon. (Light-poles on highways are, as previously noted, designed to shear, as a safety/collision mitigation precaution. It isn't always the same situation with "light-poles" installed at locations, such as that rental car lot. "Auto safety" isn't a high concern, there....and airplanes AREN'T SUPPOSED to hit them!! Auto accidents on roadways, and light-poles, happen far, far more frequently than airplane accidents involving light-poles....)

Further, the strike was on the wing of a very different airplane than the Boeing 757. The MD-80's wings aren't required to be built to the same strength, as they do NOT have engines mounted on them. The portions well outboard (the pole struck at about 18 feet from the tip) are generally built lighter, as well. Where do you think the poles struck on the B-757 wing? You can research it.

(Total wingspan of the MD-80 is 107 feet, 8 inches. B-757 is 124 feet, 10 inches).


Here, let's peel off the skin from an MD-80, to see the internal structure:




And, the B-757, similarly:




Again, too....back to the speed of impact. At a MUCH faster speed, the dynamics of the physics are different, than when slower. We have seen for example after a tornado images of wooden 2X4s that have pierced concrete block walls. Velocity is an incredible factor, when discussing impacts, and which item suffers the most, from the impact, and the dynamics involved.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

Source of the bottom photo?? The overhead view of the Pentagon??

Oh, and why would a "missile" need a [ahem] "chalk line" to follow??

Oh, and...."chalk line"??

So WEED, do you think its just a COINCIDENCE that LINE or "SCAR" in the ground was almost EXACTLY
the TRAJECTORY of the Official Flight path?

which begs the question or perhaps tells/validates the MISSILE/DRONE and Fly-over theories of multiple aircraft having been involved at the Pentagon imo.

reply to post by lord9


Simple. It ISN'T an "almost exact match". It makes NO SENSE, in any case, as alleged. A vaguely shaped coincidental area of thin spots in a patch of grass?? Quite the leap of imagination, there. Besides, to what purpose would it serve?? Those who want to "believe" in an unmanned "missile"? What possible reason would such a "missile" need for a "line" on the ground???

For a pilot in an airplane, who is intent on suiciding into the side of a building....what purpose does some vague "line" on the ground serve?? Something which is, apparently, ONLY obvious from a directly overhead view? If you hop into your car, with intent to drive full speed into a bridge abutment....do you need a "line" on the ground to help you aim the car????

Finally, using that (unsourced, and UNDATED) photo with the innuendo-dropping is disingenuous, at best. It "says" noting, is just more and more noise, the kind that infests this topic......

Originally posted by weedwhacker

This is what should've happened (at minimum) at the Pentagon (and WTCs) seeing this plane was just taxiing.

At first I was going to suggest you're living in a fantasy reality....then I saw that you acknowledge, as if you comprehended, that the Continental jet was only taxiing. HOW can you get it right, and be SO WRONG at the same time?? Is it lack of experience? Has to be....and I can't help you, if you haven't figured it out by now...manybe someone else would like to take a crack?

BTW...I hasten to point out some history behind that incident. YES, both people in the cockpit are OK (but, thanks for not asking...). AND.....this was the result of two MECHANICS who did not properly follow the

I snipped the rest of your irrelevant rant that has nothing to do with the issue or question posed which you cleverly and predictably have once again side-stepped by writing another incoherent emotional diatribe to divert attention from the simple issue.

The illustration was used to show the fragility of a similar jet airliners composition versus that of a building which BTW isn't near the advanced steel and concrete design of the WTC or reinforced design of the Pentagon.

the speed dynamic in this example doesn't negate crash physics that the example shows which your ego and denial appear to be the driving force behind your emotion and opinion that has nothing to do with reality.

You assert you're an authority and have expert knowledge on such subjects, but the evidence proves your OPINION and expertise have little credibility.

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Finally, using that (unsourced, and UNDATED) photo with the innuendo-dropping is disingenuous, at best. It "says" noting, is just more and more noise, the kind that infests this topic......

Weed, your are once again making Balsamo look like the fraud that he is. (Lord9 & markjohnconnoly) Bob, when was the last time you were medically cleared for flight?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by markjohnconley

 

I thought this nonsense thread would die?? Oh, dear....then this showed up:
Love your attitude. Only 'nonsense' if you're not able/willing to comprehend.

Control of the aircraft at speed was always the most obvious flaw in the official story.

NO, it wasn't.
For me, and undoubtedly others, it was.
___

Immediately post 9/11 there were internet articles on how 'remote control' was the only way to control aircraft at the alleged speeds.

And THAT is as ridiculous as the claims of any "difficulty" of control. Besides....do you not see how contradictory that is??? Does it need to be spelled out for you??
Not according to 'jet pilots' that posted. And please elaborate on the contradiction, yes i'd like it 'spelled out' for me.
___

That using remote control blocked out recordings on the cabin voice recorder?

!!!! Well, THAT'S a new one!! And, like the rest, nonsense.

edit on 30 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

Then you aren't as informed as you try to make out

reply to post by lord9

I snipped the rest of your irrelevant rant....

SO DID I!!! All the rest of the diatribe, after the word "rant"...how apt.

The illustration was used to show the fragility of a similar jet airliners composition versus that of a building .....

Then you didn't pay attention. To the (I'll whisper it, for emphasis)....SPEED.

Speed. At. Impact.

Velocity. Physics. Kinetic. Energy. Momentum. Force.

...which BTW isn't near the advanced steel and concrete design of the WTC or reinforced design of the Pentagon.

?? Huh? Sources. (Nah!! Just pulling your leg. Oh, and psssssst: SPEED Shhhh, pass it on.....)


___

...the speed dynamic in this example doesn't negate crash physics that the example shows...

Oh? Do tell.

You truly want to sit there and tell everyone that a vehicle (airplane, car, locomotive, whatever) that impacts a structure at, say...5 knots velocity, versus the same vehicle striking the same structure at, say, 500 knots velocity....that there is NO difference in the "crash physics"?!?

Really??

Speaking of your next rant (that I decided to leave in, for emphasis:

.... which your ego and denial appear to be the driving force behind your emotion and opinion that has nothing to do with reality.

"denial"? Well, well. "opinion", eh? I suppose, to those who haven't taken time to actually learn physics and science, then yeah.....that "stuff" might just be someone's "opinion". That darn Newton!!! What a fool, huh?? That "apple" hitting him on the head probably gave him brain damage?



Oh wait, thought you were done, Rob...ermmm, I mean, "lord9":

You assert you're an authority and have expert knowledge on such subjects, but the evidence proves your OPINION and expertise have little credibility.

Gosh, you used the word "evidence" and "proves" as if you understood their definitions....

This, from the same person that doesn't realize (or pretends not to...which is it?) that impact velocity has a tremendous effect, in physics, on the outcome.

Tell ya what......if someone were to ask you which you preferred, a shotgun blast to the leg, from a muzzle distance of five feet, or the same exact amount of buckshot dropped from a static start, from a height of 5 feet.

Would you consider them equally as destructive, and potentially painful??

:shk:

Weed, apart from yourself on this forum, is there a universally recognised authority in the aeronautical engineering / airline pilot field that also claims that the alleged 9/11 pilots were capable of handling, not only Flight 93, the four known 9/11 planes, at the speeds and manoevres they are claimed to have had.
Yes I am genuinely interested as the remote control hypothesis has always been the 'tipping factor' in my estimation of the 9/11 activities.
The 'no planes' straw man arguments are very distracting, wasting a lot of energy / time. Please see through these, people.
I can't believe you haven't come across the 'remote control negates the voice recorder' query before Weed. When I was initially inquiring ~2002/3 it was quoted often,
all the best, I want the truth, mark

reply to post by markjohnconley



Fair questions.

To be perfectly honest, it is exceedingly difficult to convey, in writing on a Forum, what one knows from experience and "feel". Other ATS members who are pilots can "get it", usually.

The B-757/767 family (they are similar enough, intentionally designed that way from the beginning, by Boeing, to share a common type rating) are very sweet handling airplanes. NO bad habits, very straight-forward responses, and the control "weight" and "feel" is just right, and balanced. For me, post 9/11, at our company (as I'm sure similar hardships happened at others) were some "lifestyle disruptions" as airlines scrambled to cut financial losses. Seniority is THE big deal in the airline pilot profession, here in the U.S. especially. Every "job comfort" choice and position derive from that. There are differences in contracts, at different companies too. SO, it's sometimes a crapshoot.

I started this explanation because of the pleasant working environment I found the 75/76 to be, and the fact that post 9/11, my company parked a lot of airplanes, and my seniority, while pretty good then, meant that I STILL had to bid back onto the B-737 to stay in the left seat, at a reasonable seniority position and AVOID being on "Reserve". At some companies, their "Reserve" (it's similar to a Doctor's being "on call") is more "lenient" than at others....ours was a special kind of hell. Due to being out-maneuverd/out-smarted at the previous contract negotiations, the "clever" management had slipped in alot of loopholes that weren't evident, until the contract was implemented....all designed for management's benefit, and to the detriment of a pilot's ability to enjoy the lifestyle in the way intended. (You would think that staying home most days of the month would be nice, wouldn't you?? Well, reality was quite different....maximum ten days "OFF" per bid cycle, few "guaranteed" off specifically--- they could be jacked with, except for FOUR per month which were "immovable". Puppet on a string comes to mind.....). Pay as a "line holder" is more lucrative, too.

Long way to say that the B-737 is OK, but once you've "tasted" a machine like the 75/76, well.....I just don't enjoy the 737 as much, from a pilot's standpoint. Others? LOVE it, so....matter of taste.


Irrespective of the airplane involved, really if the intent is merely to "steer" it around the sky, that is so basic and fundamental, it takes little to no skill. The challenges of aviation lie elsewhere....and exhibiting the finesse and skills vary, individual by individual, and (usually) with additional experience. Still, even with those (mostly) Saudi Arabian men....having a few hundred hours meant that they had at least rudimentary knowledge, and even if they were very "rough" around the edges, in terms of finesse and overall judgement (well, we KNOW they had poor judgement!! I meant, in the way that professional pilots are rated and judged) they were still "adequate".


I still don;t know the reference to the CVR and "remote control", never ran across that particular "9/11 meme".

However, the "remote control" story? Completely unworkable, in a way to "explain" 9/11.

Why? Well, firstly, there were multiple, and conflicting, "scenarios" proposed (by people who, really, know nothing other than it was done once, on a B-720, in 1984). Oh, and they try to point to modern UAV technology...forgetting that retro-fitting is much more difficult than designing in from the start.....

One "scenario" is what I call the "take-over", and it supposes the poor, "hapless and helpless" real pilots were unable to wrest control, once the "bad guys" (the evil "Gob'mint" on the ground, presumably) "took them over". And, that is utter nonsense....though, it got lots of words devoted to it, on the Webz. Short explanation: Pilots know their airplanes VERY well; They are NOT prone to being docile and submissive; AND, any such "R/C system" would require a power source in order to function. Pilots, besides being tough SOBs, are also (knowing the airplanes well) creative....and removing the power source is dead easy....

Another claim, is similar....and has variations. The hijackers were duped, and "surprised", they thought there was a different "plan" that didn't involve dying, etc. Essentially, from there, identical to the one above...except, the hijackers would also not be very "resourceful", as real pilots would.

Some really ultra-silly (as if these weren't silly enough) "theories" include a knock-out gas, and things like that.

I may have missed other versions.....


Now....the "retro-fitting"?? Apparently these "theorists" have little to no idea of the amount of work that would be involved, for such a project. ALSO, repeated four times!! Man-hours at a facility, components that are not "off-the-shelf" so there had to be a supplier/contractor, the down time and suspicious nature of it all...and NO ONE EVER has come forward. Not one of the hundreds that would have been needed for such a large project.

This was covered very well, BTW, by ATS member 767Doctor, some months back. He/she is an avionics technician at a major U.S. airline that operates the B-757/767.

We also have a member who is currently a UAV remote pilot, for the USAF. Can't say a whole lot of details, I suppose, due to restrictions on what is public knowledge, and proprietary.



Finally, anyone who has EVER done any remote control operations, especially airplanes....I'm talking model airplanes....knows of the difficulty when compared to actually BEING INSIDE, where you have a host of additional sensory cues that all come together, and are used almost instinctively, by anyone with flying experience. Visual indications alone are a poor substitute --- and that's what all you have, in an R/C situation. The brain takes longer to process the information from your visual cortex, when that is ALL you have to rely on to make flying judgement decisions. In those cases, SPEED is your enemy!! Reaction times for human response remain the same, so increasing speed lowers the threshold for mistakes.


Lastly, we have the two DFDRs, and the clear records of various control manipulations, in the cockpits, that are exactly the same as would be done by a Human hand, at exactly the proper time and reason, to achieve the desired result from the airplane. I'm talking about using the Autopilot controls, via the Mode Control Panel...as well as the recorded changes of other things, like VOR tuning (switched out of "auto-tune" --- that can ONLY be done by rotating a particular switch). Autopilots being turned off (disengaged) then back on, etc....

Those of us experienced in the 75/76 can see it, clearly, in the DFDR Reports.



I won't post it (again), but one example of a non-pilot achieving some amazing flying success (in a simulator, of course) is the "Ricky Martin" example. Yes, the pop singer, former Menudo boy-band member. It's on the YouTube, you can search for it. And, yeah...he gets some coaching, and may have some "stick time" in other airplanes....still, he can take-off and land a B-737 NG simulator.....

Not online, that I can find, is an epidode of the "Mythbusters", where they investigate the possiblity of being "talked down" to a landing, in an emergency. They "try" it with no coaching whatsoever, first time (incredibly funny).

Then, they are "talked" through it by a pilot who isn't even IN THE SIM with them!! He's in another room, and simulating talking to them via the radio, as would be the case in a "real emergency" of that type.....no "pilots", just the average passenger fromt he back.

reply to post by weedwhacker


But Weedy the argument isn't just that they couldn't pilot the planes, it's that they did maneuvers with the planes that professional pilots say can't be done, or would be very difficult to do.

Just like you bringing up 'massive fires' in WTC 7, you don't address the full argument.

reply to post by ANOK


Skeptics tend to think just because something is possible, that it's very plausible too.

reply to post by ANOK

...the argument ...[is]... that they did maneuvers with the planes that professional pilots say can't be done, or would be very difficult to do.

[snip]..... you don't address the full argument.

I thought you'd been around the block long enough, by now, to have seen the many, many times when I HAVE "addressed the full argument"??

Do I have to repeat it each time?

Anyway....these alleged "maneuvers", again....sigh. (Did that guy, in the OP;s video, say it as well?? I may have dozed off....thinking this thread would die. Looks like I'll have to come back, with a play-by-play rebuttal, I suppose. Sigh, again.....).

I have trouble remembering exactly where this alleged "difficulty" nonsense started. Seems it mostly follows the AAL 77 and that last turn, before the line up and impact. SO, once again.....


The turn that was made? A quite normal right-hand turn. At very normal angles of bank. It is something you learn on your FIRST FLYING LESSON!! How to turn. It is fundamental. Then, (and I don't understand why "professional" pilots make this claim), the concept of the descending portion of the turn comes up. AS IF it's "difficult"?! All of it ---- turns, descents....even climbs and level flight....ALL are an aspect of every flight. EVERY flight. They are basic, basic. Like I said, your very first (actual hands-on) flying lesson is mostly devoted to those very simple concepts. To promote familiarity with the concepts (the three-dimensional aspect of flying, versus driving a land vehicle), and foster confidence in the machine, and its controls.

The turn was made, as I said, at normal bank angles (I say "angles" because, yes...it was "sloppy". But, that didn't matter, he wasn't being "graded"). Watching the NTSB video made from the DFDR information, I saw at most about 35 degrees of bank. Perfectly normal, and only slightly more than is proscribed for airline operations. (30 is the suggested "max", 25-30 is "normal max"). For a light airplane, it's about the same too, and the point where it is considered to become a "steep" is from 45 degrees, and more. Commonly, Private Pilot training involves some advanced "air-work" of 60-degree banked turns, to increase skill and ability and confidence. Airliners, in simulator training, we only need to demonstrate the 45-degree bank....and our standards are higher, required to exhibit precision on altitude hold, and airspeed control. AND, these "air-work" demonstrations? It is actually more "difficult" (if that's the right word..."demanding" is better) to maintain a specified altitude, within tolerances. (Because, due to the aerodynamics, you have to co-ordinate by adding just enough, but not too much power --- in order to hold altitude AND airspeed tolerances).

But, IF you wish to descend? Simplicity personified. Reduce power (the nose will tend to drop slightly, based on the elevator/stabilizer trim setting....assuming initial trim state was correct for level cruise flight) and the drop of the nose initiates a descent....AND the energy of gravity keeps the airspeed about the same....depends on how low the nose gets. Lower pitch attitude, more speed will increase (at a fixed power setting). It's all usually subtle, too....like steering your car to stay in a lane, at highway speeds.

AAL 77's "numbers' in that wide descending right turn? Varied from between less than 30, to about 35 degrees of bank. He was tense (wouldn't you be??) and likely shifting around in his seat, leaning forward to look and judge and gauge his position, relative to the Pentagon, as he continued the turn...common low experience type mistake is to alter the control wheel position involuntarily, when you move around (especially if you have that tense "death grip" on the controls). Same with his airspeed....varied about +/- 10 knots.....again, his power remained at Flight Idle, until just the last seconds of the straight-in run at the building. Speed averaged around the 300-knot mark. THAT is perfectly normal, and it IS a typical speed in every 757/767 descent. Only thing is, for those of us who follow the rules, there is a "speed limit" when below 10,000 feet MSL. Completely arbitrary, it is merely there because of traffic density, at lower altitudes, and the reaction times of pilots, and air traffic controllers.

SO, that's about it. Every time you look at a map of the area, what stands out very clearly (and probably did to THEM, too, when they were planning this) is the roadway "Columbia Pike", in Virginia. It lines up directly at the Pentagon, on almost the exact same heading as is seen on the DFDR info, and agrees with the impact track into the building, as the impact and crash damage trajectory shows.

BTW....learning to use ground-based landmarks for navigation? ANOTHER very, very basic aspect of flying. It is also fundamental, and is taught on the first lesson too....finding your way back to the airport you left, for instance!!

Back when I was young and (relatively) inexperienced, I got to go out to pick up some new airplanes (small General Aviation types) from their factory, usually in the Midwest (Cessna, in Wichita, KS. I picked up a Rockwell 114 once too, in.....near St. Louis, MO if I recall...) and "ferry" them...in my case, back to Los Angeles. Many times, when someone purchases an airplane, they don't want the avionics (radios) offered by the factory, and prefer other brands. SO, the airplanes come with NO radios...no communications, no navigation. Proper planning, you don';t need them (in the USA, at any rate). SO, how to "navigate"? Landmarks, highways, railroad tracks....anything prominent, and marked on your aeronautical charts.

Daytime only, good VFR weather. Takes about two-three days, since you're limited. And have to sleep, too.

Plenty of small airports don't have Control Towers. Same procedures in place, since the early days of aviation, they still apply today. "Rules of the Road", so to speak. Back in LA? Land at a nearby uncontrolled field, find a payphone (back then....cellphone?? That was Star Trek fantasy stuff!) and call the Control Tower....you give them an ETA, they're expecting you....and light signals then used, for landing clearance. Now, of course, we DO have cellphones. But, the market is different, not sure they build all that many new small single-engine airplanes anymore....(**)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(**)....Hmmmm...well, seems they still do!!

www.cessna.com...

Learn something new, every day....yes, even me!!