Going Down

[Swing Dangler]

the tap airbus was doing 700 kph/434 mph.

Source for speed please?

 

[Good Lt]

That is one of the most comical statements I've ever heard.

That's rich, because I and others find your endless full-of-sound-and-fury-signifying-nothing ramblings here and elsewhere pretty darned entertaining.

 

[ref]

Perhaps you should do the research. Not only that, fly the beast through several light poles, a trailer, and a fence and then hit the target without clipping the ground.

You can try hiding behind a light pole or a trailer when a jet flies full speed towards you.

That's just the path the plane took. It's not like Hanjour aimed at the light poles, then carefully tried not to cut the grass (in the nanoseconds after they hit the light poles). They just wanted to hit the building and they did.

 

[Good Lt]

The pilots lacked the experience to do even simple turns but perform one beautifully over the Pentagon area.

Source for this, please.

Why do you think this amateur pilot decided to take the most difficult route (low altitude through light poles, fences, and trailers) to his target against a newly renovated part of the building instead of slamming it into the roof area?

You tell us.

I would have thought the fear of death in the real thing might be a little more difficult to deal with along with the mechanical unknowns, atmospheric conditions, and the other planes in the air.

Who cares what you think? Your opinion doesn't change the facts in any way.

 

[Mancman]

No precision? How can you reconcile this with the flight path of 77 and the debris left behind by this lack of precision? Considering birds can punch holes through wings, this guy had great precision to run through light poles and keep the plane level enough and off the deck to hit the bottom floor after clipping a fence and trailer as well.

Hardly precision.

Flight 77 was travelling at 530mph, that is 5 times it's own length every second.
From the time it struck the first lightpole to the time it struck the building would have amounted to approximately 1.3 seconds. He hit the generator about 0.1 seconds before impact. Hanjour would never have had time to make a concious effort to keep the plane level after hitting the poles. He hit a pole and within a breath he was dead.

So simulators are now harder to fly than the real thing? ROFLMAO. That is one of the most comical statements I've ever heard. I would have thought the fear of death in the real thing might be a little more difficult to deal with along with the mechanical unknowns, atmospheric conditions, and the other planes in the air.

FEAR OF DEATH? You think Hani Hanjour had a fear of death when he was flying that thing?? Wow.

 

[The Almond]

[...]
Second, he couldn't find the White House but at altitude and several hundred miles away he can find the Pentagon?

The white house (55,000 square feet over 6 above ground floors) is about 1000 times smaller than the Pentagon (approximately 6,636,360 square feet covering 583 acres). The White House is quite hard to spot from the air, given its central location in DC and its small size. The Pentagon, however, sits outside the city limits, and is the largest landmark in that area, sitting next to the other largest landmark, that big river called the Potomac.

Anyone could flown like he did without training? ********. You are complete ball of contradictions. The pilots lacked the experience to do even simple turns but perform one beautifully over the Pentagon area. Facts? You just make **** up don't you and state them as fact?

Have you ever personally piloted an aircraft? What, other than personal incredulity, is the basis for your disagreement?

No precision? How can you reconcile this with the flight path of 77 and the debris left behind by this lack of precision? Considering birds can punch holes through wings, this guy had great precision to run through light poles and keep the plane level enough and off the deck to hit the bottom floor after clipping a fence and trailer as well.

I used this exact same argument in a game of darts once. I said, "Who could possibly have thrown this dart, knocked it off the wall and caused it to splash into the drink of that person over there?" I had an incredibly well timed, well placed and well executed shot, but for some reason I didn't get any points.

Your argument assumes that the purpose of the flight path was to hit the light poles in the precise sequence that he did, clip the fence and then crash. In truth, the purpose of that flight path was to hit the Pentagon, and the exact sequence of events that led up to it, while unique, would only be reproducible by an experienced pilot in the same way that my darts shot was only reproducible by an experienced dart player.

Why do you think this amateur pilot decided to take the most difficult route (low altitude through light poles, fences, and trailers) to his target against a newly renovated part of the building instead of slamming it into the roof area?

Because he was an amateur pilot. He wouldn't know the difference between the easy or the hard path.

So simulators are now harder to fly than the real thing? ROFLMAO. That is one of the most comical statements I've ever heard. I would have thought the fear of death in the real thing might be a little more difficult to deal with along with the mechanical unknowns, atmospheric conditions, and the other planes in the air.

Other planes in the air? You're kidding, right? That's what the terrorists should have been worrying about?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Just a couple of comments:

Anyone could flown like he did without training? ********. You are complete ball of contradictions. The pilots lacked the experience to do even simple turns but perform one beautifully over the Pentagon area. Facts? You just make **** up don't you and state them as fact?

Hani Hanjour had been training as a pilot since 1997, was FAA licensed as a commercial pilot and had IIRC 200+ hours of cockpit and simulator time. I think you're the one making things up and stating them as fact.

Why do you think this amateur pilot decided to take the most difficult route (low altitude through light poles, fences, and trailers) to his target against a newly renovated part of the building instead of slamming it into the roof area?

I could be facetious and say that if he'd stayed at high altitude he'd have had a hard time hitting the building, but from my understanding of aviation history low angle glide path approaches are well-known to be much easier to fly than steep angle diving approaches. Dive bombing is more accurate, but glide bombing is what inexperienced pilots are better off doing.

By the way, as I'm sure you know, your implication that Hanjour aimed at the newly renovated area of the building is a good example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

Dave

 

[TjW]

Anyone could flown like he did without training? ********. You are complete ball of contradictions. The pilots lacked the experience to do even simple turns but perform one beautifully over the Pentagon area. Facts? You just make **** up don't you and state them as fact?

Hani Hanjour held a Commercial pilot certificate. To earn that, he had to perform to this standard for an FAA designee examiner.

Speaking as a pilot who has taken people for their first flights ever, and allowing them to use the controls at altitude, I have never met a person who was "incapable of doing simple turns".

 

[apathoid]

Source for speed please?

Swing Dangler, starting watching at the :26 mark.




Now, are you seriously still contending that the A310 is going "near takeoff and landing speed"? Also, how is it flying so close to the runway? Ya know.....ground effect and all.

Anyone could flown like he did without training? ********. You are complete ball of contradictions. The pilots lacked the experience to do even simple turns but perform one beautifully over the Pentagon area. Facts? You just make **** up don't you and state them as fact?

My irony meter runneth over.

 

[AMTMAN]

Second, he couldn't find the White House but at altitude and several hundred miles away he can find the Pentagon?

.

He didn't have to find the Pentagon from several hundred miles away. All he had to do was put the aircraft on a heading that would take him to Washington D.C. Once there given the size of the Pentagon compared to the White House which one do you think was easier to spot? You expertise in avaition amazes me swing. Sounds like you are making things up as you go along.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Just a couple of comments:
Hani Hanjour had been training as a pilot since 1997, was FAA licensed as a commercial pilot and had IIRC 200+ hours of cockpit and simulator time. I think you're the one making things up and stating them as fact. By the way, as I'm sure you know, your implication that Hanjour aimed at the newly renovated area of the building is a good example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

Dave

Dave, please don't cherry pick my quotes and accuse me of making things up. If you had read the entire segment, BEACHNUT made the following statement at which I quoted below:
Do debunkers ever debunk members of their own team? From what I've read, they don't. Shame.

Would Hani, as a proto-typical terrorist choose to hit the most difficult or the easiest part of the target? I would say easiest.

Would Hani want to hit a part of the Pentagon that is greatly populated or one with very few people in it to cause the greatest loss of life? I would say the greatly populated area.

Would Hani want to do everything possible to complete a successful mission or aim his plane at an area that has a great measure of potential failure associated with it? And yet for some reason he took the greatest route for failure.

But instead Hani hits perhaps the most difficult part of the building along a difficulut flight path to hit a portion of the builiding with very few people. Not only that, he adjusts the flight pattern to do so.
This leads the reasonable person to believe the was aiming for that particular target. Texas Sharpshooter has now left the building.
What other explanation is there? Coincidence?

Beachnut-The flying you saw on 9/11 was not the best, it was inexperience pilot at best. You do not understand a bad flight, bad flying looks okay from the ground, but sucks if you are in the plane. These pilots lacked the experience to do even simple turns like you are use to.

In my 34 years of flying I know anyone could fly the way the terrorist did, and without prior flight training. I have trained new pilots in 300,000 pound aircraft. You are not correct, there was no precision at all you have failed to do research; you have failed to get the minimum knowledge on flying. Total failure.

Tjw-
Hani Hanjour held a Commercial pilot certificate. To earn that, he had to perform to this standard for an FAA designee examiner.

Where did he hold this certificate? Where was it located? What is your source? Has it been produced and verified by the examiner? Please tell me it wasn't at the flight school in Florida?
My grandfather was a FAA Flight Examiner so I have a little bit of knowledge on this subject.
Does that mean if I hold a Japanese Ninja Certificate it makes me a certified Ninja?

TjW-Speaking as a pilot who has taken people for their first flights ever, and allowing them to use the controls at altitude, I have never met a person who was "incapable of doing simple turns".

See the above quote. So does that mean you let them take the controls without input from yourself and they executed a simple term?

 

[funk de fino]

someone is in the deep end of the swimming pool without the water wings again

 

[apathoid]

Where did he hold this certificate? Where was it located? What is your source? Has it been produced and verified by the examiner? Please tell me it wasn't at the flight school in Florida?
My grandfather was a FAA Flight Examiner so I have a little bit of knowledge on this subject.
Does that mean if I hold a Japanese Ninja Certificate it makes me a certified Ninja?


See the above quote. So does that mean you let them take the controls without input from yourself and they executed a simple term?

Thats exactly how it's done. Serious question swingie, do you find it difficult to turn a car? I ask because the concept is exactly the same in an airplane. There is a wheel that rotates. Turning it either direction will start a turn in that direction.

 

[SDC]

Would Hani, as a proto-typical terrorist choose to hit the most difficult or the easiest part of the target? I would say easiest.

Would Hani want to hit a part of the Pentagon that is greatly populated or one with very few people in it to cause the greatest loss of life? I would say the greatly populated area.

Would Hani want to do everything possible to complete a successful mission or aim his plane at an area that has a great measure of potential failure associated with it? And yet for some reason he took the greatest route for failure.

But instead Hani hits perhaps the most difficult part of the building along a difficulut flight path to hit a portion of the builiding with very few people. Not only that, he adjusts the flight pattern to do so.
This leads the reasonable person to believe the was aiming for that particular target. Texas Sharpshooter has now left the building.
What other explanation is there? Coincidence?


Where did he hold this certificate? Where was it located? What is your source? Has it been produced and verified by the examiner? Please tell me it wasn't at the flight school in Florida?
My grandfather was a FAA Flight Examiner so I have a little bit of knowledge on this subject.
Does that mean if I hold a Japanese Ninja Certificate it makes me a certified Ninja?



See the above quote. So does that mean you let them take the controls without input from yourself and they executed a simple term?

This stuff has been dealt with so many times by such a number of experienced pilot types that it has lost any power to entertain.

Judging by what happened -- I am not aware that they left a detailed explanation -- what they wanted to do was hit the Pentagon. Somewhere. Your image of Hanjour trying to work his way through the building plans would be comical if it weren't so silly.

And your continued denial that he had certification is also boooooooooooooooooooring.

Please try to get some new material. My own advice, given free here, is that you work the 19 highjackers into an "Aristocrats"-style routine. (Nod to BenBurch for the reference.) When you make a fortune, I will not even ask for slice of it.

(Ps Grandfathers. One of mine managed the dredging of certain Canadian harbors during World War I. Therefore "I have a little bit of knowledge on this subject." Yeah, right. Knowledge is learned, young S.Dangler, not inherited.)

 

[Big Les]

The Jaguar, eh? Nice.

Not a huge fan of the jets, though. Give me a P-51D, P-38L, Bf-109, Spitfire Mk. IV, Fw 190, or an F4U, and I'd be happy.

Jets, while magnificent machines, just don't seem to capture the same beauty.

Did you mean Spit XIV?

Jets-wise (and this would still be true even if some other high-speed motor was being used), the need today is for high-speed and high-tech, so there's so much to pack into (and hang off of) an airframe and so many scientifically-determined aspects of a given design, that the sort of artistic expression is somewhat limited. With that in mind, I think a clean Viper is tough to beat and compares pretty favourably with the vintage stuff.

Now, anyone still under the misapprehension that turns, low-level flight, and even landings are beyond the wit of mere mortals, they should probably have watched the "Krypton Factor" gameshow here in the UK in the 1980s and 90s. They had plenty of contestants successfully land an airliner sim after only a couple of hours (if that) instruction. They also made use of an RAF Harrier sim. They even had one guy go on to land a real plane. We're talking commercial and military grade simulators here, not MS FSX, and a level of training well below that of the hijackers. Yet these plebs were able not only to fly the aircraft at low level, but pretty often land it too.

Flying is not hard. Flying well and consistently is hard.

 

[apathoid]

(Ps Grandfathers. One of mine managed the dredging of certain Canadian harbors during World War I. Therefore "I have a little bit of knowledge on this subject." Yeah, right. Knowledge is learned, young S.Dangler, not inherited.)

Yeah, I kinda winced at that too. My Grandpa worked in a shipyard for like 50 years and I don't know the first thing about boats, much less about assembling them. It's funny that swingie trusts his own gut feeling over the input from experienced pilots here.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Would Hani, as a proto-typical terrorist choose to hit the most difficult or the easiest part of the target? I would say easiest.

Would that, perhaps, be the nearest side to him as he approached the building after having made a turn to lose height? Quite possibly he thought he could get over the obstacles but failed because he wasn't a very good pilot.

Would Hani want to hit a part of the Pentagon that is greatly populated or one with very few people in it to cause the greatest loss of life? I would say the greatly populated area.

The Texas Sharpshooter is alive and well. What measures are you suggesting Hani took to determine the occupancy of the building before hitting it? What was he supposed to do, park the plane on the Pentagon lawn while he went round the building and counted empty desks? And have you been following the discussions on this very issue over the last few days? Two things have been pointed out: firstly, the attack was aimed at intimidation rather than necessarily inflicting maximum loss of life (back to that proto-typical terrorist stuff you mentioned above), and secondly, that part of the Pentagon had just been reoccupied and was nearly as full of people as any other section.

Would Hani want to do everything possible to complete a successful mission or aim his plane at an area that has a great measure of potential failure associated with it? And yet for some reason he took the greatest route for failure.

Some reason like, for example, not being a very good pilot and hence finding himself lined up on a course that resulted in him hitting things before he hit his target. One might think that a good pilot would choose his approach so as to go round them.

But instead Hani hits perhaps the most difficult part of the building along a difficulut flight path to hit a portion of the builiding with very few people. Not only that, he adjusts the flight pattern to do so.
This leads the reasonable person to believe the was aiming for that particular target. Texas Sharpshooter has now left the building.
What other explanation is there? Coincidence?

No, I'd say the best explanation was that you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation. Hanjour approached the Pentagon too high, made a diving turn to lose height, then aimed straight at the Pentagon from the point where he happened to find himself at the end of the turn. He very nearly screwed it up by hitting some things on the way in, but he got lucky and made it all the way. And the logical contortions you're going through to imply that only a really good pilot would choose a route that involved hitting a bunch of avoidable obstacles are as good a disproof of whatever it is you're trying to suggest as any counter-argument I could ever come up with. Don't ever go and get yourself banned from here, Swing, because your absolute desperation to disagree with every last trivial detail of the "official story", whatever the sophistry and mental gymnastics it requires of you, is one of the debunkers' greatest assets.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Did you mean Spit XIV?

Spit IX, I bet. Merlin 60 series, 400+mph but still the classic Spitfire shape. I think the Mk.V was prettier, but the writers say the Mk.IX was the best of all to fly.

Dave

 

[Swing Dangler]

Swing Dangler, starting watching at the :26 mark.




Now, are you seriously still contending that the A310 is going "near takeoff and landing speed"? Also, how is it flying so close to the runway? Ya know.....ground effect and all.



My irony meter runneth over.

One your using my statement to Gravy to apply to all videos. That is a no-no.

Sorry, I don't get Youtube at my NWO office. If the video doesn't display the speed of the plane, I won't bother watching it.

Two, does the video show the pilot correcting for ground effect or not? If he is correcting for ground effect, then that is a sign of an experienced pilot, while ground effect for an amateur pilot is very hazardous.

Thirdly, does Hani's plane show corrections in the attitude of the plane to counter the ground effect? Of this I'm unaware.

Have you ever personally piloted an aircraft? What, other than personal incredulity, is the basis for your disagreement?

Why yes I have, thank you.

 

[TriskettheKid]

Yes, I did mean the Mk. IX.

But there were so many good-looking planes that had the performance to match in WWII, like the P-51D (which I think is one of the greatest planes ever built).