• 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.

Going Down

Corsair 115 said:
Task difficulty rating: Medium.

(Navigating would require some knowledge of the aircraft's navigation system, but this knowledge is not hard to acquire. Computer flight sim programs will teach you the basics.)
Click to expand...

I'd hardly even class it as medium. If you know the general direction of the pentagon all you need to know is how to read a compass/DG.

It's a pretty conspicuous building.
 
It's sad that it even has to be pointed out to twoofers that a plane can in fact fly fast and low.

What exactly do these fools think knocked down the light poles?
 
CHF said:
It's sad that it even has to be pointed out to twoofers that a plane can in fact fly fast and low.

What exactly do these fools think knocked down the light poles?
Click to expand...

Tomahawk missile the ones on the left of me
A-3 Skywarrior Jet the ones on the right
here I am
stuck in the middle with you
 
Yes it's been well established here at JREF that most of you are self proclaimed over achievers who find just about anything and everything simple and easy to accomplish. lol
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
I flew a kite once. Does that count? But then again I'm not the only one questioning the hijacker skills. Some of the people from the schools where the hijackers received their training apparently found it hard to believe also.
Click to expand...

So what have we got here? A massive conspiracy full of incredible complexity which has fooled/involved huge numbers of professionals who don't/won't see how obvious the deception is?

Or a massive conspiracy full of incredible holes such as people who shouldn't have been able to fly planes the way it is claimed they did, planes which didn't crash the way they should have crashed, buildings which couldn't have come down the way it is claimed they did, and all so obvious that a handful of untrained internet 'experts' can see through it, but no one else cares?

Or a terrorist attack by highly motivated religious fanatics with enough training to pull it off?
 
wrong again

ZENSMACK89 said:
I flew a kite once. Does that count? But then again I'm not the only one questioning the hijacker skills. Some of the people from the schools where the hijackers received their training apparently found it hard to believe also.
Click to expand...
WRONG, the instructors actually said they would have no problem doing the flying done on 9/11. Your statement is the result of shallow research. Please try harder next time.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Yes it's been well established here at JREF that most of you are self proclaimed over achievers who find just about anything and everything simple and easy to accomplish. lol
Click to expand...

Zen, what knocked down those light poles?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Yes it's been well established here at JREF that most of you are self proclaimed over achievers who find just about anything and everything simple and easy to accomplish. lol
Click to expand...


It is not so much that I proclaim myself to be an over-acheiver (I'm not), so much as that you are claiming certain things are difficult with no experience at all. For example, many people think that brewing beer is difficult, my husband can show them otherwise. I am sure there are tasks you find easy, that most people do not try for themselves.

I am not suggesting that being a commercial airline pilot is easy (landings that don't make people puke are difficult and do require lots of practice), but that the maneuvers performed by the pilots are easy, as Corsair_115 has already summarized. ETA: And beachnut confirms as well.
 
Yes it's been well established here at JREF that most of you are self proclaimed over achievers who find just about anything and everything simple and easy to accomplish. lol
Click to expand...

Not entirely true, however I daresay that most if not all here do not struggle with comprehension of science and technology the way you do.

It simply does not take much doing at all to fly an aircraft, at a 3-4 degree desent angle, until it hits the ground, nor does it take much doing to fly that plane, with wheels up and trim set for cruise, at cruise speed, until you are sure it will hit the building annd then to push the throttle to max. The original pilots of the aircraft did all the hard work.

I'd address navigation but this thread does not concern navigation. I suggest you read the threads in which that was a topic.
 
CHF said:
Zen, what knocked down those light poles?
Click to expand...


[ZENMODE]
Read the OP. This thread is not about what knocked down the lightpoles.
If you want to discuss that, start your own thread. :teacher:
[/ZENMODE]
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Yeah sure that's all they had to do. Crash the plane. They didn't need to change or turnoff transponders, turn the plane around, navigate, change altitude, fly at breakneck speeds, nothing like that. What they did is exactly the same as flying around an airfield a couple of times and crashing into no particular target. Right?

Oh and that guy who crashed into the pentagon?

Wouldn't this be him?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B63

A Trainee Noted for Incompetence
JIM YARDLEY
Published: May 4, 2002

Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.

Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.

Records show a Hani Hanjour obtained a license in 1999 in Scottsdale, Ariz. Previous and sometimes contradictory reports said he failed in 1996 and 1997 to obtain a license at other schools.

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''
Click to expand...


That's why he took a plane with him.
 
Great backing music on your vid Gravy :-)

Incidentally what software did you use to edit it ?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Yes it's been well established here at JREF that most of you are self proclaimed over achievers who find just about anything and everything simple and easy to accomplish. lol
Click to expand...

Except understanding your tortured prose.

Will no one think of the language!
 
cyclonic said:
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler
Great video! You just proved that fly-by's at air shows are near take off and landing speeds not at 530 mphs.
Certainly low in altitude, but can you make another video with the plane a few feet off the deck traveling at 530 mph? Now that would be some work!
Click to expand...
the tap airbus was doing 700 kph/434 mph.
Click to expand...

I should be noted that the pilot of the Airbus also had a restriction on him that was self imposed. He wished to live beyond the time of that fly-by.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Yes it's been well established here at JREF that most of you are self proclaimed over achievers who find just about anything and everything simple and easy to accomplish. lol
Click to expand...



No, it's just that we're not complete morons. When you aren't a complete moron, it's amazing how easy it is to accomplish simple things......like turning off a transponder. If you think that is difficult, you must also find it difficult to turn off your car radio. Turning and descending an airplane is difficult? Actually, all you have to do is turn the control wheel, the plane will actually tend to descend on its own in a bank. Again, that's like saying steering a car is difficult. Zenny, how many pilots and aviation people here do you need to tell you that flying is easy before it sinks in? Don't believe them? Go to pprune.org and ask...or even airliners.net or flightlevel350.com. You'll get the same answer.

I'm probably what you'd consider an amateur pilot as I have no more than 30 minutes of stick time in a Cessna 172, but like a couple of the others here, I have "heavy" simulator time and I found it fairly straightfoward to fly and then land a 767...in a crosswind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom