'Truth Tellers Deserve an Apology'

[ex sheep]

Originally Posted by porridge

This same top gun has been caught lying several times in his very short stay on this forum, in his third post I caught him telling several porkys.. yet we are sposed to take his word for being a commercial pilot who really knows what he is on about, when what technical knowledge has he offered, infact site one post hes made that shows I should take him seriously?

So why is he allowed to take the forum off topic & be deBAITED just like what happens with every other shill who comes on here.. I for one refuse to any of them seriously & specially as the authority.

Clearly some on here dont have a clue how propaganda & shills in general work on forums.

This section will probably go back to how it was a few months back, very similar to the FMOTL section. Pure Orwellian lockdown on anyone who dares question the dinosaur fairytale.

Oh & this post is actually on topic admins!

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

Lets not discuss others on the forum, but, those who are intent on derailing this forum will be stopped, it simply will not be tolerated any longer.
Action is being taken.

[zhiba]

Originally Posted by macgyver1968

Honestly Z, I don't what your arguing. You have two examples..me and this chick of being able to control an aircraft with minimal training...but yet you choose to ignore this.

The terrorists didn't have to land or take off...they just had to guide the planes in.

Hanjour couldn't even pilot a Cessna around the basic training exersize: take off, hit four 90 degree turns and return to land - yet you ask me / us / truth seekers to believe that he took control of Flight 77, performed a 330 degree turn, dropped below radar, hit full throttle at less than 50 feet from the ground to hit the Pentagon?

i think Truth Seekers deserve an appology for even attempting to get us to swallow that lie

Dicussion started here.

[throatyogurt]

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.

-Giulio Bernacchia Experienced Air Force and Commercial Pilot

Contact info:
giulioberna@tin.it

As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

http://web.archive.org/web/200609162.../index_np.html

[throatyogurt]

One more....

I have flown the top-of-the-line 757 and 767 simulators (the big, full-cockpit versions used for commercial type-rating, not the PC-based toys) at Evans and Sutherland, having previously had only single-engine experience. A novice can certainly fly them well enough to hit a building. And yes, the novice's tendency is to overcontrol. My only problem in flying that equipment is that I'm too short to see over the autopilot easily

Jay Windley,-mechanical engineer, computer scientist,aeronautical engineer.

[zhiba]

Originally Posted by throatyogurt

One more....

Jay Windley,-mechanical engineer, computer scientist,aeronautical engineer.

Was Jay windley 5'6" like Hanjuour? When he says that he was short, was he that short?

Did Jay manage to bring the sim' down to ground level, did he have enough skill to maneuver it like a military craft through a 330degree turn and steep dive at 500mph, and then accelerate to fly 20 feet off the ground at 550mph? - The os claims that is what Hanjour did, but hanjour had never flown a plane that was capable of more than 125mph, he'd flown nothing heavier than 1010lb (a boeing weighs 127,520lb) ......

This guy Hanjour also managed to overpower a pilot, Capt. Burlingame, who was an ex vietnam and Gulf war vet, was extremely fit and physically strong, he weight-lifted and boxed, was trained in anti-terrorism and a Top Gun graduate - Capt. Burlingame's familly and friends are both on record as saying that he would not have given up his plane, we have testimonies from two passengers on board Flight 77 who rang their families - not one of them mentioned the Capt being attacked or injured.

Every aspect of the OS in regards to Hanjour and Flight 77 is in error of the most basic of facts, and when you start to look at those facts with a critical and analytical eye you can see the errors.

For every pilot who says that Hanjour could pilot Flight 77 in the way the OS suggests, there are ten others who will say the OS is wrong, that Flight 77 could not be flown that way even by experienced pilots.

But, what is more damning for the OS is that for every pilot who says that Hanjour could pilot Flight 77, the people who trained Hanjour, people with first hand experience of the man, say that he could not.

I'm more inclined to believe first hand witnesses, those with first hand and direct experience of Hanjour's lack of skill and competance than i am some guy who posts on the interwebs that he can fly a sim.

[zhiba]

Originally Posted by throatyogurt

One more....

Jay Windley,-mechanical engineer, computer scientist,aeronautical engineer.

just to put it all into some kind of context:

So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed.

So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...

Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.

So, who pulled off this stunt?

Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches.

Later, a week after Sept 11. Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, "although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon." What?? Bernard, who didnt even fly with Hani, doesnt know the maneuver involved, where the plane hit, the speeds, etc etc.. says he has no doubts that he could hit the pentagon? Sure, my grandma could hit the pentagon. How about looking into the maneuver before making that statement? He made that statement while the pentagon was still smoking for petes sake. A bit of monday morning quarterbacking if you ask me. A common theme among inexperienced pilots. This also can be verified via google searches.

So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.

My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C'mon...


For anyone wanting to do further research on the subject. Almost all the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have similar scenarios. Hell, they didnt even match up the parts found at each site to their airframes via maintainence logs. There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why... so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You dont give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

Just in case you missed it:

Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.

It would take a seasoned pilot 'a few tries to pull it off' - a guy with experience frlying large Boeing airliners, Hanjour had 0 hours experience frlying large Boeings.

Ground effect: In fixed wing aircraft, ground effect is the increased lift and decreased drag that an aircraft wing generates when an aircraft is within one wingspan above the surface.

The plane, when flying 124ft 10in (757 wingspan) from the ground was in Ground Effect, applied lift at 550mph (3x normal landing speeds) would have been generated, forcing the plane upwards: yet a novice Pilot, who had never flown at speeds higher than 125mph is claimed to have piloted a 757 @ 550mph, @ 20 feet from the ground, despite the mathamatical and aeronautical dynamics? Hanjour would have needed to counter the up force by powering down-wards - and like the guys says, an error in applied instrumentation would have put him 50 feet off easilly.

The aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the surface are real-time, physical factors that show the ground level assault by a 757 @ max speed is imposible.

Applied math and aeronautical dynamics deny all factors of Flight 77's alleged assault - and where applied math and aeronautical dynamics debunk your theory, throatyogurt, i think you can consider that your theory is debunked.

Next.

[throatyogurt]

Originally Posted by zhiba

Was Jay windley 5'6" like Hanjuour? When he says that he was short, was he that short?

I don't know, I'm afraid he didn't give his stats.

Originally Posted by zhiba

Did Jay manage to bring the sim' down to ground level, did he have enough skill to maneuver it like a military craft through a 330degree turn and steep dive at 500mph, and then accelerate to fly 20 feet off the ground at 550mph? - The os claims that is what Hanjour did, but hanjour had never flown a plane that was capable of more than 125mph, he'd flown nothing heavier than 1010lb (a boeing weighs 127,520lb) ......

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Hanjour was an awful pilot. I don't think anyone will say otherwise.

The FDR confirms this. The people that are able to read the data state that he flew the plane recklessly - like an inexperienced pilot.

Originally Posted by zhiba

This guy Hanjour also managed to overpower a pilot, Capt. Burlingame, who was an ex vietnam and Gulf war vet, was extremely fit and physically strong, he weight-lifted and boxed, was trained in anti-terrorism and a Top Gun graduate - Capt. Burlingame's familly and friends are both on record as saying that he would not have given up his plane, we have testimonies from two passengers on board Flight 77 who rang their families - not one of them mentioned the Capt being attacked or injured.

Now, I am assuming you have been in an airplane? Have you ever been in a cockpit? Have you ever seen a pilot strapped in?
this is a picture of a 757 cockpit.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._deck_view.JPG

Bruce Lee and Chuck Noris would be defenseless against some goons hacking them up as they are restrained in a small area.

With that being said, you should now realize (since you have been told already in this thread) that Hanjour was the pilot, not the mussel hijacker.

Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Majed Moqed were also there and were in charge of controlling the hijacking. 5 Men armed with knives - attacking 2 men restrained in seats. (we can't know for sure how many men attacked the pilots.)

Originally Posted by zhiba

Every aspect of the OS in regards to Hanjour and Flight 77 is in error of the most basic of facts, and when you start to look at those facts with a critical and analytical eye you can see the errors.

For every pilot who says that Hanjour could pilot Flight 77 in the way the OS suggests, there are ten others who will say the OS is wrong, that Flight 77 could not be flown that way even by experienced pilots.

Can you back this up? Without sending a link to the "core" members of PFT,(they are more than 10 pilots, but not all of them are on record as stating what you are claiming. I would like you to provide me with the names of 10 commercial pilots that have come forward and stated that what Hanjour did was not possible. If you find an experienced commercial pilot, you will see that what he did was what would be expected from an inexperienced pilot.

Originally Posted by zhiba

But, what is more damning for the OS is that for every pilot who says that Hanjour could pilot Flight 77, the people who trained Hanjour, people with first hand experience of the man, say that he could not.

I'm more inclined to believe first hand witnesses, those with first hand and direct experience of Hanjour's lack of skill and competance than i am some guy who posts on the interwebs that he can fly a sim.

Here is one of the first hand witnesses:

Marcel Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, "although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon."

There you go... someone that knew him and his flying abilities.

Also, from the PENTTBOM report:

Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation.

- Eddie Shalev interview (Apr.9, 2004).

More later.... heading to dinner

[rodin]

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

Hi Dave. With the type of aircraft involved, and the speeds involved, yes I would expect pretty much what occurred. You cannot think of this as some light aluminum aircraft hitting a steal wall. When forces of this magnitude are involved, its construction is irrelevant. The only way you can think of it is Mass and Velocity. A small mass with a high velocity will have the same momentum as a large mass with a small velocity. In other words, if a marble was going fast enough, it would punch through a concrete wall. On 9/11, the aircrafts had both a very large velocity, and a very large mass.

The Boeing 767-200 is a very large, wide bodied aircraft, a take off weight of over 140,000 Kg. When a huge mass is traveling close to 260ms, such as flight 175 was after it had just finished diving towards the South Tower, I would expect to see exactly what I have seen.

To say however that the aircraft 'glided in' with no buckling, I would argue there is no way to say it didn't. There is no footage so highly detailed that we could see this buckling occurring as the aircraft tore into the building. You wouldn't be able to tell, because even when the aircraft was buckling, its massive forward momentum still pushed the entire aircraft into the building. Similar, in a way, to how Flight 93 was pushed by its forward momentum up to 20 feet into the ground.

With the type of aircraft supposedly involved flight at this altitude and speed is impossible. Ever heard of 'ground effect'?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0274.shtml

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by rodin

With the type of aircraft supposedly involved flight at this altitude and speed is impossible. Ever heard of 'ground effect'?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0274.shtml

Did you read the whole page?

"That brings us to the question of whether an essentially untrained pilot like terrorist Hani Hanjour could have made these adjustments to fly the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. While such fine corrections do require some degree of finesse and familiarity with an aircraft's flight characteristics, the level of expertise required is not excessive. We have shown that any influence of ground effect would have been quite small on Flight 77 given its high rate of speed and small angle of attack. The 757 was apparently in a shallow dive as well, further reducing its angle of attack such that any impact of ground effect would have been extremely small. "

[porridge]

So where were the engines again when top gun Honi managed to fly the plane into the ground floor? For this to have happened of course the engines would have been buried in the untouched pentalawn..& serious amounts of wreckage everywhere.

[throatyogurt]

Bump for Zhiba...

[drkmatter]

you do know the trolls in this thread are only interested in disrupting this forum no amount of posting you do will amount to anything so stop trying to prove something to them.

[ozpixie]

Originally Posted by drkmatter

you do know the trolls in this thread are only interested in disrupting this forum no amount of posting you do will amount to anything so stop trying to prove something to them.

Yes we do.

[throatyogurt]

Originally Posted by drkmatter

you do know the trolls in this thread are only interested in disrupting this forum no amount of posting you do will amount to anything so stop trying to prove something to them.

Am I trolling? I responded to a moderator here and have yet to get a response. Stop worrying about other people on other forums and deal with the facts.

[dave52]

Originally Posted by throatyogurt

Am I trolling? I responded to a moderator here and have yet to get a response. Stop worrying about other people on other forums and deal with the facts.

Yawn... Facts...

Why did Hanjour make an insane cork-screw circular dive, level out and fly, at ground level into the recently re-enforced section of the Pentagon...? Why not just dive directly down into the top of the building...?



How did he leave the lawn so perfectly pristine given the straight, low-level flight...?



The man was clearly a God...

[throatyogurt]

Originally Posted by dave52

Yawn... Facts...

I know, aren't facts boring when they prove an insane conspiracy theory.... false?

Why did Hanjour make an insane cork-screw circular dive, level out and fly, at ground level into the recently re-enforced section of the Pentagon...? Why not just dive directly down into the top of the building...?

Actually, real pilots state that his maneuver was not as difficult as idiots from Pilots4 911 truth claim it to be. I have shown this in previous posts.

You other questions presented can only be answered hypothetically, as the pilot is in fact dead. But, all me to speculate:

When he made his initial approach - i believe he was too high to make impact with the Pentagon. This is the reason why he made the turn. Perhaps he plan was to hit the courtyard....and he failed? Is that possible? Sure!

How did he leave the lawn so perfectly pristine given the straight, low-level flight...?

You answered your own question. The FDR and almost all the witnesses showed that the plane did not impact the ground. Please, don't start with the "ground effect" mumbo jumbo.

The man was clearly a God...

Nope, just an idiot terrorist that was a good enough pilot to crash it into a large office building.

[dave52]

Originally Posted by throatyogurt

Actually, real pilots state that his maneuver was not as difficult as idiots from Pilots4 911 truth claim it to be

Aren't the Pilots at Pilots For Truth real pilots...?

Originally Posted by throatyogurt

But, all me to speculate:

Yes, all you...

Originally Posted by throatyogurt

When he made his initial approach - i believe he was too high to make impact with the Pentagon.

Too high to just nose dive into the building...? Surely an easier manoeuvre...? Of course, this is all me speculating now...

Originally Posted by throatyogurt

The FDR and almost all the witnesses showed that the plane did not impact the ground.

How do you reconcile these two images...?

The straight, flat attack -


And the dive into lawn attack -


Which one is a true representation of the events?

[throatyogurt]

Originally Posted by dave52

Aren't the Pilots at Pilots For Truth real pilots...?

Yes, he has some that are his core members. I should have placed quotations are the word real since I would not get in a plane with Balsamo at the controls. - or if any pilots that agree with his math.

Too high to just nose dive into the building...? Surely an easier manoeuvre...? Of course, this is all me speculating now...

Yes, although I am not a pilot, I understand that with the speed he was going at, he could have reacted too late. This forced him to make the loop.

How do you reconcile these two images...?

The straight, flat attack -


And the dive into lawn attack -


Which one is a true representation of the events?

what is the bottom grainy picture?

[dave52]

Originally Posted by throatyogurt

what is the bottom grainy picture?

One of the stills that the Pentagon released.

[porridge]

They released the stills then a couple of years later all the media at the same time of course released the same stills as a video claiming it was new footage & somehow showed a passenger jet.

Even Fox news admitted they couldn't see anything that looked like a plane.

Surely all that psyop did was make more people who didn't have a clue go an investigate for themselves.