• 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

parky76 said:
Does it not bother anyone at all that somoene who had troubled flying a tiny little Cessna would pilot a huge jet into a 5 story building, at an almost 90 degree angle? It is possible some other hijacker with better skillz flew the aircraft?
Click to expand...

Hell yes, it bothers me. Who would it not bother? It's been 5.5 years and it still bothers me. It was awful.

Do I have questions as to whether or not it would be possible for someone with mediocre-at-best piloting skills to crash a plane into a (particular) building? No. I've had piloting lessons myself and I've played with some professional flight simulators between my uncle who worked for McDonnell-Douglas and my college buddy who builds them for Uruguay. Controlling the plane once it's flying isn't all that difficult. I've actually flown a Cessna, and I've sim'ed a DC-10, and the basics aren't that different.
 
I'm convinced that to a 9/11 CTer, the following would make sense:

Let's suppose I throw a party and hire someone to do some light catering. Nothing fancy, just basic munchies. They send over a junior cook to prepare some popcorn. I watch him fill a big bowl with unpopped kernals, stick it in the microwave, and turn it on. After a few minutes of popping sounds, I see the cook remove the bowl from the microwave, now filled with what looks and smells exactly like popcorn. But then someone tells me the cook once had trouble making souffles in culinary school. Therefore the bowl must actually be filled with thermite.
 
qarnos said:
I have only about 60 hours flying under my belt, and haven't flown for over 2 years (too expensive :(), but I have absolutely no doubt I could fly an airliner into a building.

I won't, however, volunteer to test my hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Yep. Remember that Billzilla, a 747 captain and past instructor, said he could teach anyone to carry out the task with about 30 mins in the sim.
 
Let's face it - in 10 years time, who is going to remember the name Dylan... what's his surname again?
 
parky76 said:
Does it not bother anyone at all that somoene who had troubled flying a tiny little Cessna would pilot a huge jet into a 5 story building, at an almost 90 degree angle?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "90 degree angle"? I assume you don't mean the aircraft's bank angle or nose down angle since neither of those were even remotely close to being 90°.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Or about Mathias Rust, who flew a Cessna through Soviet air defenses all the way to the freaking Kremlin? Didn't he buzz Gorbachev's office while he was at it? How old was he when he did that, 18?
Click to expand...

From the Wikipedia entry on Rust

Several interesting events coincided with the final stretch of his route. The control system of the Central Air Defence District was unexpectedly turned down for unscheduled maintenance, and all flights around Sheremetyevo airport were forbidden for about twenty minutes — just for the time Rust was above it. The origins of these events are still unknown.
Click to expand...

OMG!!! A Stand-down order!
 
parky76 said:
Does it not bother anyone at all that somoene who had troubled flying a tiny little Cessna would pilot a huge jet into a 5 story building, at an almost 90 degree angle? It is possible some other hijacker with better skillz flew the aircraft?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? The plane that hit the pentagon did those things you would learn on the first flight. Anyone can do what Hani did. As you can gather, even the instructor said he could.

What 90 degree angle? The stuff the terrorist did was rookie flying.
 
Look - honestly: it's not that hard.

Hard is getting the aircraft down to a soft landing after battling shear winds on approach.

Hard is getting the aircraft safely back asymmetric.

Hard is 8 OCTAS of clag at 200 feet.

Hard is hydraulics out limited panel.

Crashing into a building without caring about yourself, anyone else, or tomorrow is not hard.
 
Last edited:
parky76 said:
Does it not bother anyone at all that somoene who had troubled flying a tiny little Cessna would pilot a huge jet into a 5 story building, at an almost 90 degree angle?
Click to expand...

90 degrees to what?

It is possible some other hijacker with better skillz flew the aircraft?
Click to expand...

Possible, but not likely. Hani was, for what it was worth, the best pilot of that bunch.

Hans
 
Obviousman said:
Yep. Remember that Billzilla, a 747 captain and past instructor, said he could teach anyone to carry out the task with about 30 mins in the sim.
Click to expand...

I miss Billzilla. He really knew his stuff.

The CFs really overestimate how hard it is to hit a building with a plane. The "pure pursuit" method (keeping the target in the cross-hairs) is infallible, though, admittedly, extremely inefficient.
 
As others have said here...

worse case scenario, 4 airliners crash, and several hundred people are killed in a terrorist attack on US Soil...The result would be fair near the same.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
As others have said here...

worse case scenario, 4 airliners crash, and several hundred people are killed in a terrorist attack on US Soil...The result would be fair near the same.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Probably, they had plan B targets. I would assume that just crashing the plane was plan C. Plan B would be to hit any populated area they could find. This, if they near-missed their primary targets, which were all in heavily built-up areas, they would automatically achieve plan B.

Actually, I think the terror effect of just hitting random populated areas would have been as big as hitting prominent targets like WTC and he Pentagon. Of course, the symbol value would be lower, but the common citizen would actually feel more targeted. For now, most people can think, "OK, if I stay away from typical targets, I'll personally be safe". But if they had hit random citiy areas, everone would feel insecure whenever a plane passed over (at least for some time, people tend to forget).

So, once they managed to get aboard the planes, some kind of success was actually ensured. Even if they did not manage to take over, they could have caused the plane to crash.

Hans
 
exactly...actually if pure numbers were what they were after, the Pentagon was not exactly a #1 choice.

TAM:)
 
parky76 said:
Does it not bother anyone at all that somoene who had troubled flying a tiny little Cessna would pilot a huge jet into a 5 story building, at an almost 90 degree angle? It is possible some other hijacker with better skillz flew the aircraft?
Click to expand...

It's possible that a clump of mice neurons in a petri dish flew the plane(s).
 
gumboot said:
There's two parts to the question... where I address in my document Distortion of Fact.
Click to expand...

Your post mentions Nila Sagadevan.

My hackles rise at the mention of Nila Sagadevan.

This so-called aeronautical engineer and "qualified" pilot made the claim that "If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn."

Apparently he doesn't even know the dimensions of a 757. The diameter of the fuselage is only 13 feet and the engines hang below the fuselage just a few feet. So if a 757 were placed on the ground on its engines, the nose would only be about 10 feet in the air.

Another statement by Sagadevan which shows his true colors is this: "I really don't understand how anyone could give the government's story any credibility after seeing the original pictures taken of the small hole left in the Pentagon wall by whatever flew into it."

What "small hole"? It was on the order of 90 feet across and nearly two stories high (where the fuselage hit). It was entirely consistent with the damage a 757 would have made in the building on impact given that only the portions of the wings with fuel in them would have penetrated. Plus there was damage to the exterior where those portions of the wing and tail lacking fuel would have hit. Sagadevan either doesn't know what he is talking about or he's a liar.

Sagadevan also tried to promote the notion that there wasn't enough wreckage saying "I think if someone just looks at the hole left and then looks at the size of 757, experts aren't needed to determine it was an impossibility that a big jet hit the Pentagon wall, especially when there was very little wreckage visible after the crash." This too is dishonest. There was plenty of identifiable wreckage in the locations one would expect wreckage after such a crash.

Finally, Sagadevan wasn't shy about adding his two cents where the collapse of the WTC towers was concerned either ... claiming their collapse to 9 seconds. Which is erroneous. He was just full of erroneous information. But he's apparently the best the *truth* movement has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom