• 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.

Flight 77 maneuver

tj15

Critical Thinker
T
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
425
This question is for the pilots here... How difficult was the maneuver that Hani Hanjour pulled off? Truthers like to point to experienced pilots that claim there is no way he could have pulled it off.

So, how difficult was that maneuver? Maybe on a scale from 1 to 10... I am interested in what the pilots at this forum have to say.
 
tj15 said:
So, how difficult was that maneuver? Maybe on a scale from 1 to 10... I am interested in what the pilots at this forum have to say.
Click to expand...

You are undoubtedly one of the worst researcher to ever make an appearance here. This has been covered umpteen times in multiple threads. I have explained it previously and so has beachnut along with several others.

I'm not going to waste my time explaining it again in detail.

It was easy = 1! If you want more then get off your lazy behind and search for it. Sheesh!
 
WildCat said:
Yeah, but he's German, not some cave Arab.
Click to expand...


I agree that performing that maneuver with a 757 would be difficult while inside a cave, even one of those massive underground bunker-caves Al Qaeda have.
 
Mr.Herbert said:
Here is a video of a novice doing it:
Click to expand...

To be fair, that "novice" did have some experience in flying small planes (as do I). I think it would be possible to take any person off the street and he'd stand a decent chance of hitting one of the Twin Towers, but the Pentagon is a little harder because you have to control for altitude.

A total novice would probably have a hard time making the 360-degree turn and hitting the Pentagon, because the first thing you learn in flight school is how to maintain the altitude you want during a turn. Control of airspeed, bank angles, and altitude isn't all that hard, but does take some amount of familiarization of the concepts.

In fact, a total novice at the controls, finding himself too high and fast when he identifies the target (like I think Hanjour did), would probably just try to point the nose down and hit it that way. And this total novice likely would have missed, either because he let his airspeed get way too high and broke the plane apart, or he wouldn't have been familiar with how the plane tends to stabilize itself and he'd have to fight it the whole way down.

Hanjour at least knew enough to make a circle to get rid of the excess altitude, but there wasn't anything difficult about the turn he made that a person who's had two weeks of flying lessons couldn't do.

As far as I'm aware, the Truther claim that it was a difficult maneuver were made *before* the flight data was released showing its true path. They had taken statements from ATCs about the turn they saw, and imagined all kinds of impossible scenarios from the omitted details. In fact, I used to play around at the old Loose Change Forum, and was in a discussion with JohnDoeX, whom we now know to be the infamous Rob Balsamo, and I got him to draw a diagram of what this maneuver looked like. Balsamo drew a 340-degree turn that descended 5000 feet, and this turn had a diameter of 1/4 mile! Since that's what these guys were imagining the turn to be, it's no wonder that they didn't believe Hanjour could do it. But they have very poor critical thinking skills, and didn't realize the faulty assumptions they were making in defining what the maneuver looked like.
 
Are you just JAQing off again? Really?

Why don't you put in 5 minutes of doing REAL research and find your own answers? They aren't hard to find.

For an experienced pilot with over 600 hours of flight time (which Hani had) it was a rather easy maneuver... In fact, you can see how bad of a pilot he was because he was all over the sky.

<beachnut> with dirt dumb ideas and failed math PFT has shown that they are incompetent pilots with failed math. Got math? </beachnut>
 
I asked a friend of mine (a pilot) if he could duplicate the turn. graze the VDT antenna, snap off the light poles, take out the generator and hit the wire spools. His response?

No ****way could he do that again!!!!!!!! Then he went on. This is something a rookie could easily do once but, no ones going to duplicate it.

That's the definition of the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy"
 
CurtC said:
To be fair, that "novice" did have some experience in flying small planes (as do I). I think it would be possible to take any person off the street and he'd stand a decent chance of hitting one of the Twin Towers, but the Pentagon is a little harder because you have to control for altitude.

A total novice would probably have a hard time making the 360-degree turn and hitting the Pentagon, because the first thing you learn in flight school is how to maintain the altitude you want during a turn. Control of airspeed, bank angles, and altitude isn't all that hard, but does take some amount of familiarization of the concepts.

In fact, a total novice at the controls, finding himself too high and fast when he identifies the target (like I think Hanjour did), would probably just try to point the nose down and hit it that way. And this total novice likely would have missed, either because he let his airspeed get way too high and broke the plane apart, or he wouldn't have been familiar with how the plane tends to stabilize itself and he'd have to fight it the whole way down.

Hanjour at least knew enough to make a circle to get rid of the excess altitude, but there wasn't anything difficult about the turn he made that a person who's had two weeks of flying lessons couldn't do.

As far as I'm aware, the Truther claim that it was a difficult maneuver were made *before* the flight data was released showing its true path. They had taken statements from ATCs about the turn they saw, and imagined all kinds of impossible scenarios from the omitted details. In fact, I used to play around at the old Loose Change Forum, and was in a discussion with JohnDoeX, whom we now know to be the infamous Rob Balsamo, and I got him to draw a diagram of what this maneuver looked like. Balsamo drew a 340-degree turn that descended 5000 feet, and this turn had a diameter of 1/4 mile! Since that's what these guys were imagining the turn to be, it's no wonder that they didn't believe Hanjour could do it. But they have very poor critical thinking skills, and didn't realize the faulty assumptions they were making in defining what the maneuver looked like.
Click to expand...

That's a good point... Those who say the turn was difficult likely don't know the path flight 77 took.
 
Jango said:
The only plane I could see the theory of remote control having any weight is with the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
If you had taken the time to look at the FDR, you will see it was pilot inputs. All 911 truth claims fail with simple research. The FDR shows control inputs consistent with aircraft movement - thus no remote control, proved by solid evidence.

Jango said:
I wanted to touch on this a bit more.

A Trainee Noted for Incompetence

Watching cjnewson88's American Airlines Flight 77 Reconstruction with ATC Recording - September 11 2001 video on, yes, Youtube, comes at me like a glaring contradiction.
Click to expand...
A new report from the MSM (which 911 truth is convinced the MSM is in on it) is evidence for remote control? not

Remote control? Add thousands more in on the plot. Total nonsense.

News stories which failed to show any details of the FDR, RADAR, and witnesses? News stories designed to grab attention and, sell soap.

Was Hani the worse pilot? Is this why he got the biggest target on 911, 900 foot wide Pentagon? Hani could not fly? He was FAA certified, quote mining some instructors is not a good sign of much more than a slick story. They left out other comments.

He was a poor pilot, yet is his final flight a good indicator? His bank control in the 757 sucked, his speed control was unsat, his pitch control unsat. His planning to get down in time, unsat, he had to do a ~360 let down turn to get down. Hani was bad, and his flying proved, topped off with crash, he committed suicide, his flying was so bad. Never saw a remote control that bad; sort of.

Hani was bad, look at his PIO in the final seconds...
Flt77G.jpg

Look; in less than 3 seconds a 200 pound person would feel like they were 80 pounds then to over 320 pounds.
Wow, Hani is a bad pilot, and he crashed - he almost crashed into the raised highway, missed it by 40 feet...

And here we have from 911, samples of the real pilots bank angle control, and Hani's bank angle control.
11BankAnglecompare.jpg


Remote control is a fantasy.
Flight 77 was flown by a pilot into the Pentagon, the FDR proves it. Evidence. 911 truth uses BS.

The news article you posted, left out the remarks of another more experienced instructor; who said Hani would be able to take over and crash the 757. I flew large jets for many years, it is easier to fly jets than prop planes, and the 757 has the poor flight qualities engineered out vs the KC-135 I flew for thousands of hours [IMGw=150]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/DSC_0808.jpg[/IMGw] - thus it was easier than my KC-135, a 707 variant.
Flight 93 was not shot down, or other nonsense; FDR, DNA, RADAR, and testimony proves 93 crashed, at the hands of terrorists in PA.

Hani's poor flying kind of confirms it was Hani - and backed up with instructors saying how poor he was; all goes to confirm the poor flying found in the FDR. BINGO
 
Last edited:
tj15 said:
This question is for the pilots here... How difficult was the maneuver that Hani Hanjour pulled off? Truthers like to point to experienced pilots that claim there is no way he could have pulled it off.

So, how difficult was that maneuver? Maybe on a scale from 1 to 10... I am interested in what the pilots at this forum have to say.
Click to expand...

For an experienced pilot - 0.25 to 1
For a novice pilot with small plane experience and some Sim on larger craft - 1.5
For a novice pilot with some small plane experience - 2
For man off the street with a couple hours training - 5

For a Pilots for 911 Truth pilot - 11
 
Holy Necro-thread Batman! Bumping a 5+ year old thread - ah, the good old days...
 
Metullus said:
Holy Necro-thread Batman! Bumping a 5+ year old thread - ah, the good old days...
Click to expand...

Moved some stuff from the "what happened on 911" http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10617090#post10617090. The OP wanted no discussion; thus the Zombie thread was used to move the discussion (ask not the mods can do for you; ask what you can do for the mods; moved by definition in the OP the off topic discussion to a thread near the same theme... Oystein was going to make me buy the beers... ) - some fence sitters after 13 years of BS.

The 911 truth world called the poor flying by Hani some fantastic maneuver no experienced pilot could carry out. 911 truth failed to realize the comments were opinions from people who never studied anything about the "maneuver". When I studied the "maneuver", I found out it was the easiest maneuver in the book, called a crash, preceded by "pink slip" flying.

With the BS claims on the Hani maneuver, 911 truth made me "look"; and I discovered "dumber than dirt" sums up 911 truth's best efforts. With remote control (of a stock 757 in commercial service) at a level of ignorance that defies definition.
 
beachnut said:
When I studied the "maneuver", I found out it was the easiest maneuver in the book, called a crash, preceded by "pink slip" flying.
Click to expand...

This is the important perspective. When other pilots try to gauge the difficulty of the 9/11 terrorist-pilots' maneuvers, they seem to evaluate them in the mindset that the pilot wants to perform the maneuver and then recover the airplane. This is reasonable. When most pilots climb into the flight deck, their primary goal is to exit the flight deck alive. Hence maneuvers that carry a substantial risk of death would be considered foolhardy or difficult in that context.

But if you have no fear of death, then you'll attempt more. This is the age-old difficulty of stopping suicide attacks. Most of our existing deterrents require the target to have some sense of self-preservation. But going beyond that, if your plan is to crash the plane then you aren't concerned with whether you can recover it after some maneuver. Hence the "difficulty" of flying it a dozen feet off the ground for some distance simply has no meaning in the context. The pilot wanted the maneuver to end as a crash.
 
beachnut said:
Moved some stuff from the "what happened on 911" http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10617090#post10617090. The OP wanted no discussion; thus the Zombie thread was used to move the discussion (ask not the mods can do for you; ask what you can do for the mods; moved by definition in the OP the off topic discussion to a thread near the same theme... Oystein was going to make me buy the beers... ) - some fence sitters after 13 years of BS.

The 911 truth world called the poor flying by Hani some fantastic maneuver no experienced pilot could carry out. 911 truth failed to realize the comments were opinions from people who never studied anything about the "maneuver". When I studied the "maneuver", I found out it was the easiest maneuver in the book, called a crash, preceded by "pink slip" flying.

With the BS claims on the Hani maneuver, 911 truth made me "look"; and I discovered "dumber than dirt" sums up 911 truth's best efforts. With remote control (of a stock 757 in commercial service) at a level of ignorance that defies definition.
Click to expand...
I understood why you bumped the thread once a backtracked your link to Jango's post. It was just déjà vu all over again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom