• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dylan on the hijackers

So, if there were no hijackers, how did the governement convince the air crew (all three of them) to fly their aircraft into buildings?
 
Mince said:
So, if there were no hijackers, how did the governement convince the air crew (all three of them) to fly their aircraft into buildings?
Click to expand...

Obviously, they were remote controlled. Possibly replaced by unmanned drones that only looked like passenger jets first. Or holograms. Or they didn't exist at all, and all the footage that shows them was faked (and the witnesses are all brainwashed or lying.) Or something else equally absurd.
 
ellindsey said:
Obviously, they were remote controlled. Possibly replaced by unmanned drones that only looked like passenger jets first. Or holograms. Or they didn't exist at all, and all the footage that shows them was faked (and the witnesses are all brainwashed or lying.) Or something else equally absurd.
Click to expand...

I mean really, if they used holograms, then surely they could have made the crash look less...skilled.
 
Now this all begs the question, What is he up to?
A couple weeks ago he said there were planes but it didn't matter, now this about the hijackers.:confused:
 
http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=55&fArticleId=3171841

Woman taught 9/11 hijacker how to fly

The manager of a US flight school told of the terrible moment she realised she had helped to train Hani Hanjour, the September 11 hijacker who flew a jet into the Pentagon.

"I knew in my heart that Hani was part of it," Peggy Chevrette said yesterday at the death penalty trial in Alexandria, Virginia, of al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.

She told of her dread as the attacks unfolded.

"On 9/11 my husband told me that a plane had gone into one of the Twin Towers, then before I left for work, the second plane went in.

"On my way to work, the third plane had gone into the Pentagon.

"I remember crying ... knowing that our company helped to do this."


Chevrette, manager of a flight school in Phoenix, Arizona, said she had telephoned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) three times to express concerns that Hanjour's piloting skills that were so bad she thought he would injure himself or others. But no action was taken, she said.

Witnesses told yesterday how, despite poor piloting skills and bizarre airborne antics, the hijackers had evaded detection by authorities as they learned to fly in the US in the months before the strikes.

end cut paste...


By the way, was it just by pure chance that these many hijackers just happened to be taking flying lessions.
Wow, what are the odds!
 
Last edited:
By the way, was it just by pure chance that these many hijackers just happened to be taking flying lessions.
Wow, what are the odds!
Click to expand...

The odds of something happening that has already happened are 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Meanwhile....

Straight Talk
Local experts refute conspiracy
Straight Talk By Travis Lupick
Publish Date: June 28, 2007

A retired Vancouver flight engineer has claimed that it is "absolutely, possibly feasible" to fly a plane into a building with minimal flight training. Jeff Morris, who has 33 years of flying experience, told the Straight that he rejects the view of 9/11 conspiracy theorists who say it would have been impossible for the 9/11 hijackers to crash airliners into the World Trade Center office complex.
Click to expand...
Continued at: http://www.straight.com/article-97191/local-experts-refute-conspiracy
 
This sounds familiar.. oh yes.

Dylan Avery:
"Exactly. They wouldn't leave an operation of this magnitude in the hands of the actual hijackers. Anything could have gone wrong. Especially at the Pentagon. They'd NEVER have trusted Hani to accomplish that kind of maneuver."

Jim Hoffman:
"It would not be rational for the planners of such an attack to entrust a key component of the operation - the piloting of the jetliners - to any human pilot"

They are all carved from the same wood.

 
ref said:
This sounds familiar.. oh yes.

Dylan Avery:
"Exactly. They wouldn't leave an operation of this magnitude in the hands of the actual hijackers. Anything could have gone wrong. Especially at the Pentagon. They'd NEVER have trusted Hani to accomplish that kind of maneuver."

Jim Hoffman:
"It would not be rational for the planners of such an attack to entrust a key component of the operation - the piloting of the jetliners - to any human pilot"

They are all carved from the same wood.
Click to expand...

I can't believe they allow actual human pilots to land aircraft. I mean - anything could happen.

:hb:

BTW, I wonder what JDX would think of the Hoffman quote? Any human pilot?!!? :D
 
gumboot said:
There's two parts to the question... where I address in my document Distortion of Fact.


A critical component of airframe survivability while manoeuvring is how much g-force is applied. During a turn, g-force is the force that pushes you to the outside of the circle, such as how you will tend to lean to one side as you make a sharp turn in a car. The tighter and faster the turn, the higher the g-forces. 1 g is equal to the force of earth’s gravity. So at 4 gs everything will feel four times as heavy.

Aircraft designed for high-g manoeuvres such as fighter aircraft have to be made very strong, otherwise the forces acting on them can tear them apart.

The g-forces applied to AA77 during its descending turn can be calculated fairly easily using a simple formula:

A = v2 / r

Where r = the radius of the turn and v = velocity during the turn.

As previously stated, AA77’s turn was approximately 8km across, and the turn was completed at around 300KT. As the speed varied somewhat we will use a higher value of 350KT. A higher velocity will result in higher g-forces.

Converting to international units we get a velocity of 180ms-1 and a radius of 4,000m.

A = (180x180) / 4,000
A = 8.1

A represents the constant acceleration that the turning object experiences due to centripetal force.

Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8ms2, thus we can determine that the average lateral g-forces experienced by AA77 during the descending turn were 0.82 gs.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

A minor, minor, minor nitpick. Although the lateral acceleration might have been .82 g, the airplane and the passengers wouldn't have experienced the forces as lateral forces. (They wouldn't be thrown to the side at .82 g) Because the airplane is banked, and in coordinated flight, they would have just been pushed down into their seats a little more. Due to the nature of vector addition, the result is not 1.82 g.
The easiest way to calculate this is to take 1 divided by the cosine of the bank angle.
So, for 20 degrees, 1.06 g. 30 degrees, 1.15 g. 41 degrees, 1.32 g.
If the pilot had taken it up to 60 degrees of bank (the onset of what the FAA determines to be aerobatic flight), it would have been 2 g.
These are steady state values, you could vary them a little momentarily by pushing or pulling on the stick.

I figure you probably already know this.

It's also worth pointing out that a "standard rate turn", marked on the turn coordinator, makes a 360 degree turn in two minutes. That's 3 degrees per second.
330 degrees/198 seconds is less than two degrees per second, so rather than being an abrupt aerobatic maneuver, it was actually a fairly bland turn, not inconsistent with a pilot who would like to nail the standard rate, but isn't comfortable with high bank angles, and then has to go to even higher bank angles to get things lined up again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom