Final nail in the air phones coffin

[AMTMAN]

Posted Friday over at SLC.

< http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Airfones >

[twinstead]

This is a prime example of how truthers sometimes have to be dragged kicking and screaming into reality, even when shown to be totally wrong.

[Calcas]

When Balsamo and pft released the ECO I recall some of it was blacked out. Did they actually have the correct one and purposely black out the March 2002 date? In other words, did they KNOW the order came post 9/11 when they tried to peddle this the first time?

Hey A-Train, it looks like your boy DRG is proven wrong once AGAIN!

[AMTMAN]

This is a prime example of how truthers sometimes have to be dragged kicking and screaming into reality, even when shown to be totally wrong.

Reading yournightmare, who I assume to be Rob B, posts at SLC comments section I would say he's not going to admit he's wrong. His posts are basically a frontal assault on the facts and damage control.

When this all started I naively thought that I could get him to admit he was wrong and print a retraction. What I failed to take into account is that Rob Balsamo is nuts. That and the fact PfT is a source of income for him. Those two reasons alone means he will probably never admit he's wrong. Instead he ramble on about something which he knows nothing about.

If any good will come out of this is that Rob Balsamo has pretty much killed a career in aviation. His constant need for attention and praise from all those morons at the PfT forums means there's a wealth of knowledge about him on the web. All a potential employer has to do is punch his name into Google and they will find out what he is all about. He might as well not even bother to send a resume off to AA.

There's still one thing that bothers me about this. It's not Rob Balsamo anymore; he's just a nobody pretending to be important. What bothers me is that there is someone at AA who believes the BS Rob puts out. If that's the case this individual must either believe that AA is either in on the conspiracy or the people working for it are so totally clueless as to not figure out that it was not one of their aircraft that hit the Pentagon. Either way this person should resign his position at AA. Who would want to work at a company that is either incredibly evil or is populated by fools? However I suspect that this person will not do this. My guess is that this individual will continue to hide behind Rob Balsamo like a scared little girl and collect a paycheck from AA.

[T.A.M.]

Rob, as expected, rather than admit to being wrong, is now IMPLYING his sources are right, and IMPLYING AMTMAN's papers are forgeries, as he remains anonymous (as opposed to Rob's source, whom Rob knows by name).

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Reading yournightmare, who I assume to be Rob B, posts at SLC comments section I would say he's not going to admit he's wrong. His posts are basically a frontal assault on the facts and damage control.

When this all started I naively thought that I could get him to admit he was wrong and print a retraction. What I failed to take into account is that Rob Balsamo is nuts. That and the fact PfT is a source of income for him. Those two reasons alone means he will probably never admit he's wrong. Instead he ramble on about something which he knows nothing about.

If any good will come out of this is that Rob Balsamo has pretty much killed a career in aviation. His constant need for attention and praise from all those morons at the PfT forums means there's a wealth of knowledge about him on the web. All a potential employer has to do is punch his name into Google and they will find out what he is all about. He might as well not even bother to send a resume off to AA.

There's still one thing that bothers me about this. It's not Rob Balsamo anymore; he's just a nobody pretending to be important. What bothers me is that there is someone at AA who believes the BS Rob puts out. If that's the case this individual must either believe that AA is either in on the conspiracy or the people working for it are so totally clueless as to not figure out that it was not one of their aircraft that hit the Pentagon. Either way this person should resign his position at AA. Who would want to work at a company that is either incredibly evil or is populated by fools? However I suspect that this person will not do this. My guess is that this individual will continue to hide behind Rob Balsamo like a scared little girl and collect a paycheck from AA.

If he ever attempted to fly a commercial jet again, i would have to send an email to his potential employer, even if it meant coming out from behind my username, as the lives of hundreds could be at risk.

TAM:)

[JamesB]

Rob, as expected, rather than admit to being wrong, is now saying his sources are right, and AMTMAN's papers are forgeries, as he remains anonymous (as opposed to Rob's source, whom Rob knows by name).

TAM:)

He isn't actually saying that they are forgeries, that would actually require taking a stand, something you know truthers are loathe to do. He is just suggesting that not all parts of the story add up, without providing any actual proof that it is wrong.

[T.A.M.]

Sorry, you are right, he is IMPLYING that the documents are bogus because they contradict his source, who has revealed his name to Rob. He didn't actually, DIRECTLY claim they were forgeries.

TAM:)

[AMTMAN]

He isn't actually saying that they are forgeries, that would actually require taking a stand, something you know truthers are loathe to do. He is just suggesting that not all parts of the story add up, without providing any actual proof that it is wrong.

That seem to be the game he likes to play. Notice he will never directly address any of the information. You will never see him talk about the TR. Instead he will go on and on about everything but.

[AMTMAN]

Going back to the On Again Off Again Airphones I came across this post by Swing Dangler.

< http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85833&page=2 >

The burden of proof is now upon the debunker's shoulders.

Well Swing Dangler it looks like the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the CT's. Does Rob provide any documentation to refute the information provided? No he does not; instead he tries to deflect from the issue at hand and says that I'm just an anonymous poster. Which I find ironic because that's what his source is, anonymous. We have to take Rob's word that he knows the name of his source. Given his habit of lying and telling half truths his word does not mean much.

You of course would forget that the original burden of proof falls upon truthers. So ask yourself, what purpose would it serve to try to present faked evidence to support a cause that is based upon truth? Do you think these folks want to discredit themselves? Mistakes and further information is one thing, but to fake something that could easily be verified or debunked makes no sense at all and would only hurt the truth movement itself.

Swing you did not take into consideration that a tragedy like 9-11 would attract all kinds of charlatans, wackos and people looking to make a quick buck by selling DVD's and BBQ aprons.

[JamesB]

This has been going on so long, I forgot some of the details. Did anyone ever figure out what the 1/28/2001 actually stood for?

[AMTMAN]

This has been going on so long, I forgot some of the details. Did anyone ever figure out what the 1/28/2001 actually stood for?


That date was the last official update for that section of the manual. That's what truthers jumped on. They assumed that's how the manual appeared in 2001. What they did not take into account was the temporary revision that was added in April of this year stating the system had been deactivated. Here's where it gets a bit strange. His source, assuming his source is an AA A&P, should have known this. If he did not that means he's not very good at his job. If he did that means he's a little less than honest.

[JamesB]

Oh yeah, that was the TR you were talking about.

[AMTMAN]

That date was the last official update for that section of the manual. That's what truthers jumped on. They assumed that's how the manual appeared in 2001. What they did not take into account was the temporary revision that was added in April of this year stating the system had been deactivated. Here's where it gets a bit strange. His source, assuming his source is an AA A&P, should have known this. If he did not that means he's not very good at his job. If he did that means he's a little less than honest.

Then there's the possibility that someone set up Rob B to look like a fool. If this is the case then bravo my friend, bravo.

[Bell]

Then there's the possibility that someone set up Rob B to look like a fool. If this is the case then bravo my friend, bravo.

Rob = JDX if I'm not mistaken.

If so, how could anybody possibly make him look like a fool? He did/does a great job himself.

[AMTMAN]

Rob = JDX if I'm not mistaken.

If so, how could anybody possibly make him look like a fool? He did/does a great job himself.

Let me edit my previous statement......

Then there's the possibility that someone set up Rob B to look like an even bigger fool than he already is. If this is the case then bravo my friend, bravo.:)

[hellaeon]

lol. Melted Robbie.

Suffer the children.

[AMTMAN]

If anyone is interested in cheap entertainment check out the comments section over at SLC. It's basically Rob B in full meltdown mode. Funny how he will talk about it at SLC but not at PfT.

He will continue to prove me right by not providing any supporting documentation other than 23-19-00. Which has already been shown not to be what he thought it was. He will continue to harp on the fact that JamesB does not have my real name while he CLAIMS to know the name of his source. Not that it really matters one way or the other.

That seems to be his MO. Talk about everything, no matter how irrelevant, but the issue at hand. He sounds like a child throwing a temper tantrum quite honestly.

[AMTMAN]

Well I finally got an honest answer from Rob B. Just not the one I was looking for. I asked him for proof that he worked for Indy Air, and he provided it.

< http://ipilots.org/?page=20 >

What's sad is that while a lot of his former co-workers got jobs flying for UPS, Fed Ex, Jet Blue, Southwest, Air Tran etc his claim to fame is "Founder pilotsfor911truth.org". Almost feel sorry for him.

[Comsat Angel]

Is this the upshot of the manual JDX was touting as "Proof"?
Call me cynical, but the instant I saw the blacked-out area where a date would be, I smelt scam.

[AMTMAN]

It looks like Rob has finally posted an addmission that there is something out there that contradicts his side of the story.

< http://pilotsfor911truth.org/AA757AMM.html >

Here's what he says.

Update 09/18/07: A new document has emerged on the internet through an anonymous source which orders the phones deactivated dated March 2002. This new document is not referenced in the above 757 AMM page as the deactivation order. The document contradicts American Airlines Customer Relations Representative Chad Kinder, American Airlines Public Relations Representative John Hotard who states the deactivation order was issued prior to 9/11/2001 and of course the above 757 AMM page. We are currently in the process of analyzing the conflicts and will update this article as more information becomes available.

Now I know Rob loves to say that the documentation in question contradicts what Mr. Hotard said. In reality it does not. What Rob fails to realize that when the higher ups decide a piece of equipment is going to be removed and when it actually occurs are two different things. An example of the delay involved would be AA's 757 fleet. A couple months ago AA announced that it was updating the interiors along with the IFE equipment on it's 757 fleet. The work itself won't start until the begining of next year.

When it comes right down to it all Rob is doing is trying to perform a delaying action. He could have gotten a hold of his source back in July over this subject. Since he continues to play his little game it means he has not bothered to do so or has gotten an answer he does not like.

[Obviousman]

Is this the upshot of the manual JDX was touting as "Proof"?
Call me cynical, but the instant I saw the blacked-out area where a date would be, I smelt scam.

As soon as Doh! had anything to do with it, I knew it was a scam....

[A-Train]

Hey A-Train, it looks like your boy DRG is proven wrong once AGAIN!

You're right. The whole idea that the phone calls are faked because cell phones don't work from airplanes has been a big disaster for the truth movement. Dylan Avery's film Loose Change deserves most of the blame for starting it, and Griffin made a big mistake by following along.

I tried to tell Dr. Griffin before he published his book that the phone calls (most of them, anyway) are real, but he wouldn't listen.

"For our present purposes, the main implication is that the government has covertly admitted that most of the alleged cellphone calls on Flight 93 could not have occurred. This admission implies that these calls must have been fabricated. And if those calls were fabricated, why should we not assume that the Airfone calls, in which the same kinds of things were said, were also fabricated?" Debunking 9/11 DebunkingNo, Dr. Griffin; that the cellphone calls could not have occurred only means that they were airphone calls to begin with. The fact that the government may have lied about these calls being cellphone calls does not mean the calls themselves didn't happen.

As for the airphone calls, we should not assume they were fabricated because the evidence shows they were not. How could you fabricate Tom Burnett's calls to his wife?

David Ray Griffin and the rest of the truth movement need to start facing the reality that these calls did take place, and that therefore the planes were indeed hijacked by real people. Until they do that they will never be able to solve the all-important question of who those real people were.

[T.A.M.]

if we simply took all the truthers and placed them in an Arena Pit, they would all destroy each others theories, and the movement would cease to exist.

TAM:)

[defaultdotxbe]

if we simply took all the truthers and placed them in an Arena Pit, they would all destroy each others theories, and the movement would cease to exist.

TAM:)
nah, theyd all come out bragging that every theory was destroyed but their own pet theory

[AMTMAN]

You're right. The whole idea that the phone calls are faked because cell phones don't work from airplanes has been a big disaster for the truth movement. Dylan Avery's film Loose Change deserves most of the blame for starting it, and Griffin made a big mistake by following along.

I tried to tell Dr. Griffin before he published his book that the phone calls (most of them, anyway) are real, but he wouldn't listen.

No, Dr. Griffin; that the cellphone calls could not have occurred only means that they were airphone calls to begin with. The fact that the government may have lied about these calls being cellphone calls does not mean the calls themselves didn't happen.

As for the airphone calls, we should not assume they were fabricated because the evidence shows they were not. How could you fabricate Tom Burnett's calls to his wife?

David Ray Griffin and the rest of the truth movement need to start facing the reality that these calls did take place, and that therefore the planes were indeed hijacked by real people. Until they do that they will never be able to solve the all-important question of who those real people were.

Do you really think that Mr. Griffin will correct himself for a third time on this subject? Since he does not strike me as the most intellectually honest person in the world my guess is no. More than likely he will come up with another conspiracy theory to protect his no air phones fantasy. In the unlikely event that he does correct himself what are the chances Rob B will?

[A-Train]

Do you really think that Mr. Griffin will correct himself for a third time on this subject? Since he does not strike me as the most intellectually honest person in the world my guess is no. More than likely he will come up with another conspiracy theory to protect his no air phones fantasy. In the unlikely event that he does correct himself what are the chances Rob B will?

Do you think it's possible that Dr. Griffin may have made an honest mistake? What right to do you have to refer to his postion as a "fantasy"? He has stated his arguments for what he believes; that he may be wrong on this one issue does not give you the right to belittle him.

An intellectually honest person will admit it when he's made an error. He will continue to change his position if new evidence is brought forth contradicting his previous belief-- even if these changes of position bring ridicule.

Compare for example Popular Mechanics telling us that all the 9/11 pilots only had to point and go, and that Hani Hanjour was a certified pilot. When it was pointed out to them the adept maneuver performed by AAL77 before it hit the Pentagon, the PM boys simply ignored it. That's being intellectually dishonest.

And finally, don't group Balsamo and Griffin together. They are two different people. Griffin has an infinitely higher standing among 9/11 researchers.

[LashL]

Do you think it's possible that Dr. Griffin may have made an honest mistake? What right to do you have to refer to his postion as a "fantasy"? He has stated his arguments for what he believes; that he may be wrong on this one issue does not give you the right to belittle him.


Griffin is wrong about nearly every issue he pontificates on. See this thread, for example: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92030

[pomeroo]

Do you think it's possible that Dr. Griffin may have made an honest mistake? What right to do you have to refer to his postion as a "fantasy"? He has stated his arguments for what he believes; that he may be wrong on this one issue does not give you the right to belittle him.

An intellectually honest person will admit it when he's made an error. He will continue to change his position if new evidence is brought forth contradicting his previous belief-- even if these changes of position bring ridicule.

Compare for example Popular Mechanics telling us that all the 9/11 pilots only had to point and go, and that Hani Hanjour was a certified pilot. When it was pointed out to them the adept maneuver performed by AAL77 before it hit the Pentagon, the PM boys simply ignored it. That's being intellectually dishonest.

And finally, don't group Balsamo and Griffin together. They are two different people. Griffin has an infinitely higher standing among 9/11 researchers.



How honest is it to continue perpetuating myths about Hanjour's piloting skills without ever addressing Giulio Bernacchia's paper?

http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

I would suggest that, as usual, the fantasists are the ones doing the ignoring. How do often do these agenda-driven cranks confess their numerous distortions, misrepresentations, and outright errors?

Have you looked at Ryan Mackey's point-by-point critique of Griffin's chapter on the NIST Report? Can an intellectually honest author get everything wrong, as Griffin manages to do? Is he merely making one "mistake" after another?

Do you find it a problem that, according to Griffin, the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy screwed up absolutely everything it touched? This wide-ranging cabal, with unlimited resources, failed to conceal anything in their gigantic, Rube-Goldberg-esque, and ultimately pointless operation. Think about it: they strewed clues all over the landscape, committed errors in basic science easily discovered by low-IQ types with no scientific knowledge, and attempted to frame innocent Arabs, who, for reasons of racial inferiority, could not possibly have performed sophisticated tasks so capably. We will, of course, move quickly past the question of whether those Arabs actually claim credit for their victory, as it is an inconvenient question.

Does it strike you as unfair to characterize Griffin's grand vision as a "fantasy"? What does he get right?

[Reheat]

Do you think it's possible that Dr. Griffin may have made an honest mistake? What right to do you have to refer to his postion as a "fantasy"? He has stated his arguments for what he believes; that he may be wrong on this one issue does not give you the right to belittle him.

No, I don't think he has made NUMEROUS honest mistakes. As many falsehoods as are in his work can not be honest.

Compare for example Popular Mechanics telling us that all the 9/11 pilots only had to point and go, and that Hani Hanjour was a certified pilot. When it was pointed out to them the adept maneuver performed by AAL77 before it hit the Pentagon, the PM boys simply ignored it. That's being intellectually dishonest.

You have NO CLUE of what you are talking about. They all had licenses of one type or another and Hanjour had a Commercial ticket. Whether they were valid licenses is a matter left open for conjecture. Adept maneuver, my [rule10]. You can't ever get anything right.

And finally, don't group Balsamo and Griffin together. They are two different people. Griffin has an infinitely higher standing among 9/11 researchers twoofers.

There, I fixed that for you.

[Reheat]

An intellectually honest person will admit it when he's made an error. He will continue to change his position if new evidence is brought forth contradicting his previous belief-- even if these changes of position bring ridicule.

So, where is your correction about a NORAD stand down?

You soundly lost that argument. Even the twoofers at LCF no longer support that position. If anything, it seems that "birds of a feather flock together" meaning Griffin, Robbie, and you as "the parrot".

[CptColumbo]

And finally, don't group Balsamo and Griffin together. They are two different people. Griffin has an infinitely higher standing among 9/11 researchers.He has a high standing in the CT community, but little credibility outside of that group. This is mainly due to his numerous "honest mistakes." If "twoofers" truly were the researchers, that they pretend to be, they would know that.

[Jonnyclueless]

We're so far past the possibility of honest mistakes.

[ElMondoHummus]

When it was pointed out to them the adept maneuver performed by AAL77 before it hit the Pentagon, the PM boys simply ignored it. That's being intellectually dishonest.

Why do people keep calling that an "adept" or "acrobatic" manuver? I remember reading in, of all places, Democratic Underground (it restored some of my faith in the sanity of their membership) one pilot who kept on arguing that it was in fact the exact opposite, that a complete do-over go around is the province of amateurs, and that a sideslip (pilots, please correct my terminology if I'm wrong) would've been the move of an experienced pilot.

In short, the pilot kept on asking why people insisted on labeling an inexperienced move as an experienced one. Not only have pilots said that it was within the capabilities of the airframe, several have said it was also within the capabilities of a trained but inexperienced pilot, that in fact the maneuver is indicative of such.

[pomeroo]

I continue to invite, with no success to date, twoofers to comment on Bernacchia's paper.

[uk_dave]

I continue to invite, with no success to date, twoofers to comment on Bernacchia's paper.

Maybe you need to offer them chocolate chip cookies.......




...... and promise not to drink their blooood. :D

[A-Train]

I continue to invite, with no success to date, twoofers to comment on Bernacchia's paper.

Bernacchia at least deserves credit, in contrast to Meigs, Chertoff & Co., for at least attempting to explain the maneuver performed by AAL77.

First of all, let's look at this maneuver that old Hani allegedly did.

It required making a tight 320-degree turn while descending seven thousand feet, then leveling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts. After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level and at such a shallow angle that an engine penetrated three rings of the building, while managing to avoid touching the lawn. And he had to do all of this while flying over 400 mph.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/badpilots.htmlBernacchia contends that the 3500ft./min. descent rate, as well as the "tight" turn rate, are normal. But he doesn't mention that these two procedures were done simultaneously, making them more difficult for an inexperienced pilot.

Bernaccia bolsters his argument with a link to an analysis by an amateur pilot:

A question arises: could Hani Hanjour, said to be an inexperienced pilot, have done this type of turn and descent. In my opinion the answer is "yes." I am myself a pilot, and I practiced many times flying over the "Oisans" mountain range, coming back to the airport through a rather high pass (7500 ft), then dropping ~6000 ft in one of two turns before entering the airport approach. I could do this with high roll angle (~45°) and vertical speed -15 m/s, the pitch angle being closer to -20° than the -10° of the "tough" trajectory described above. I'm not an ace of aerobatics, just an amateur pilot. I tried this type of manoeuvre on a flight simulator, with a big airliner : no problem to fly at 45° angle and -60 ft/s vertical speed. It must be reminded also that the flight instructors of the hijackers were surprised that they didn't care learning take-off and land skills, but asked to learn to control the plane in short turns! Having learnt that specifically with their instructors, having trained themselves to do it on a flight simulator, they were able, in my opinion, to do it on 9/11. Of course this affirmation is not a proof that the plane which did this manoeuvre over Virginia on 9/11 was controlled by Hani Hanjour : it could have been remotely controlled by a professional pilot with even higher skills.
http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/trj-path.htmlSo the simultaneous turn and descent are doable according to this pilot; but note the last sentence.

We also have to consider that the turn and descent were just the beginning of the maneuver. The plane then leveled off close enough to the ground that it hit several light poles. Old Hani must have also instantly compensated for "ground effect," by lowering the nose a smidgeon at just the right second, then hit the Pentagon building at the first floor level with the plane level enough that an engine penetrated three rings of the building-- and he did this while the plane was traveling almost twice as fast as normal for an approach!!

Even Bernaccia seems a little embarrassed by this little detail about the plane's speed:

I can testify that it is absolutely possible to fly for miles on end at 50 feet at 250knots (287mph) with a low-wing-loading large plane, but I admit it, I never tried it at 400 mph.Bernaccia ends his discussion of Hani's feat by admitting that such a maneuver is exceeding difficult for a beginner, but that Hani just had some beginner's luck. He then tacks on a statement that is truly intellectually dishonest:

If I were to choose dedicated CIA agents ready to die in order to give their leaders a reason to start a war, I would select better pilots.He is using a ploy used often by anti-truthers: the official story must be true because the alternative is preposterous. He then proposes an alternative that is truly preposterous.

Of course he is avoiding the genuine alternative provided in the quote above from his own link. The maneuver was performed by the plane's own autopilot, or by a remote pilot not in the plane who wanted to carry out the 9/11 attacks. Such a scenario is completely consistent with all the known facts regarding the approach of AAL77 to the Pentagon building.

[AMTMAN]

Do you think it's possible that Dr. Griffin may have made an honest mistake? What right to do you have to refer to his postion as a "fantasy"? He has stated his arguments for what he believes; that he may be wrong on this one issue does not give you the right to belittle him.

An intellectually honest person will admit it when he's made an error. He will continue to change his position if new evidence is brought forth contradicting his previous belief-- even if these changes of position bring ridicule.

Compare for example Popular Mechanics telling us that all the 9/11 pilots only had to point and go, and that Hani Hanjour was a certified pilot. When it was pointed out to them the adept maneuver performed by AAL77 before it hit the Pentagon, the PM boys simply ignored it. That's being intellectually dishonest.

And finally, don't group Balsamo and Griffin together. They are two different people. Griffin has an infinitely higher standing among 9/11 researchers.

Then why hasn't he admitted to the numerous other "mistakes" that he has made? You yourself have said you wish he would just admit to the fact that the calls took place and the planes were hijacked. Seems to me if he were honest he would do so.

Why hasn't he corrected himself about air defenses at the Pentagon? Why hasn't he pointed out that VMFA-321 at Andrews was not tasked to stand alert duty? I could go on but I think you get the point I'm trying to make.

[beachnut]

Bernacchia at least deserves credit, in contrast to Meigs, Chertoff & Co., for at least attempting to explain the maneuver performed by AAL77.

First of all, let's look at this maneuver that old Hani allegedly did.

Bernacchia contends that the 3500ft./min. descent rate, as well as the "tight" turn rate, are normal. But he doesn't mention that these two procedures were done simultaneously, making them more difficult for an inexperienced pilot.

Bernaccia bolsters his argument with a link to an analysis by an amateur pilot:

So the simultaneous turn and descent are doable according to this pilot; but note the last sentence.

We also have to consider that the turn and descent were just the beginning of the maneuver. The plane then leveled off close enough to the ground that it hit several light poles. Old Hani must have also instantly compensated for "ground effect," by lowering the nose a smidgeon at just the right second, then hit the Pentagon building at the first floor level with the plane level enough that an engine penetrated three rings of the building-- and he did this while the plane was traveling almost twice as fast as normal for an approach!!

Even Bernaccia seems a little embarrassed by this little detail about the plane's speed:

Bernaccia ends his discussion of Hani's feat by admitting that such a maneuver is exceeding difficult for a beginner, but that Hani just had some beginner's luck. He then tacks on a statement that is truly intellectually dishonest:

He is using a ploy used often by anti-truthers: the official story must be true because the alternative is preposterous. He then proposes an alternative that is truly preposterous.

Of course he is avoiding the genuine alternative provided in the quote above from his own link. The maneuver was performed by the plane's own autopilot, or by a remote pilot not in the plane who wanted to carry out the 9/11 attacks. Such a scenario is completely consistent with all the known facts regarding the approach of AAL77 to the Pentagon building.
A six year old kid could do the turn by 77. That was the most amateur turn and descent I have seen. It was simple rough turn, and anyone who says it was difficult is an idiot and not capable of rational thought or able to research flying.

[Reheat]

He then tacks on a statement that is truly intellectually dishonest:

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, when are you going to admit there was no NORAD Stand Down?

It is the epitome of irony that you keep using this phrase! :rolleyes:

Your mostly cut 'n paste job from twoofer sites is not worthy of intelligent rebuttal. I have better things to do than play with such "mental midget" ideas.

[CurtC]

So the simultaneous turn and descent are doable according to this pilot;Doable? It's downright sloppy and amateurish. Have you watched the animation that shows it? It's just a plain descending turn, but the bank angle varies all over the place, and the descent rate does as well.

The plane then leveled off close enough to the ground that it hit several light poles.This is the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Just because he hit the light poles doesn't mean that was the plan. Let's take it to the extreme - some point on the wall of the Pentagon was the very first spot to make contact with the plane. Now there are jillions of little spots on the Pentagon wall, so the probability of its being that very one that it was defy any rational explanation. Therefore a plane hitting any spot on the Pentagon is virtually impossible. See, I can do it too!


Old Hani must have also instantly compensated for "ground effect," by lowering the nose a smidgeon at just the right secondWith ground effect or not, visual flying of an airplane is done by watching to see if you're going where you want, and making small adjustments based on that. Compensating for ground effect is no more remarkable than your ability to keep your car in a traffic lane when there's a crosswind.


...then hit the Pentagon building at the first floor level with the plane level enough that an engine penetrated three rings of the buildingAgain with the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. You're assuming that what happened was exactly what he planned. I see it the other way - he was aiming for the largest office building in the world, and almost missed. He almost hit the ground first. A competent pilot would have hit at least 50 feet higher.

[Nim Chimpsky]

We also have to consider that the turn and descent were just the beginning of the maneuver. The plane then leveled off close enough to the ground that it hit several light poles. Old Hani must have also instantly compensated for "ground effect," by lowering the nose a smidgeon at just the right second, then hit the Pentagon building at the first floor level with the plane level enough that an engine penetrated three rings of the building-- and he did this while the plane was traveling almost twice as fast as normal for an approach!!

What's intellectually dishonest is that you THINK that's what he was trying to do. Looking back in hindsight you can say that what happened may hve been difficult and lucky....but how do you know that's what he INTENDED to do? That he purposely turned that way, leveled where he did, clipped light poles and hit the first floor is WHAT HAPPENED and may not have been what he was trying to do. Do you really beleive that part of his plan was to clip light poles on the highway?

You hear experienced pilots saying that the moves were amateurish and he more than likely screwed up. Had we found a written plan that showed the plane impacting the roof of the building and Hani did what he did, we would say that he nearly screwed the pooch and he was lucky to hit the pentagon at all.

[Sabrina]

I've heard people speculate that he was actually aiming for the courtyard in the center and came in too low.

Hey, it's just as likely as most other theories.

[T.A.M.]

Take away DRGs PhD and ability to speak and he would be no more popular than joe truther. His evidence is the same list of tired, well debunk canards that the truth movement have been trying to sell for years. What makes me respect him less, is that he has enough brain power to know better, yet his verbal spew is the same spew it was 3 years ago...at least some of the other truthers, like Dylan, have adapted and made changes, dumping the old stuff...

TAM:)

[A-Train]

Then why hasn't he admitted to the numerous other "mistakes" that he has made? You yourself have said you wish he would just admit to the fact that the calls took place and the planes were hijacked. Seems to me if he were honest he would do so.

You're confusing a mistake with an opinion. It's his opinion that the calls didn't take place. He has a right to his opinion, even though I wish he would change it. That's different from mistakenly stating that airphones weren't on AAL77.

Why hasn't he corrected himself about air defenses at the Pentagon? Why hasn't he pointed out that VMFA-321 at Andrews was not tasked to stand alert duty? I could go on but I think you get the point I'm trying to make.

Perhaps because these errors-- if they are indeed that-- are trivial and do not detract from his overall argument that there was a stand-down on 9/11.

[A-Train]

What's intellectually dishonest is that you THINK that's what he was trying to do. Looking back in hindsight you can say that what happened may hve been difficult and lucky....but how do you know that's what he INTENDED to do? That he purposely turned that way, leveled where he did, clipped light poles and hit the first floor is WHAT HAPPENED and may not have been what he was trying to do. Do you really beleive that part of his plan was to clip light poles on the highway?

No. When did I ever say that hitting the light poles was part of his plan? I only pointed it out because it shows how low the plane was while still some distance from the building. What are the odds that the plane was that low then, then hit the Pentagon on the first floor, without even touching the Pentagon lawn?

It is said that if you put an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters, one of them will compose War and Peace. Hani's maneuver was a lot like that.

Deal with it guys. AAL77 was being piloted by its own autopilot, programmed by someone who wanted to hit the Pentagon building in that exact spot.

By all accounts the Pentagon attack plane approached the building's west side from the southwest flying in a descending trajectory that took it primarily into the Pentagon's first floor. Details of the approach path can be inferred from damaged objects such as the highway lamp poles and generator trailer.
The downed lamp poles indicate that the aircraft passed directly over the highway overpass and cloverleaf intersection southwest of the impact zone. Two of the clipped lamp poles were on the northeast side of the cloverleaf, about 600 feet from the impact zone center. Assuming that the ground at the base of the poles was elevated 18 feet relative to the Pentagon's foundation, and that the poles were clipped at a height of 20 feet, the aircraft's wings were 38 feet higher than the foundation at 600 feet before impact. Assuming that the plane's wings were at an average elevation of 8 feet upon impact, the plane would have lost 30 feet of altitude in 600 feet of travel, averaging one foot of altitude for each 20 feet traveled.
These calculations suggest that the plane was flying within a wingspan of the ground for at least its last thousand feet, but not "inches from the ground" as some have stated. Flying so close to the ground means the plane would have been experiencing ground effect -- an increase in lift and decrease in drag produced by proximity to the ground. These effects result from the fact that the ground partially blocks the trailing vortices produced by the wing, decreasing the downwash and increasing the wing's effective angle of attack.
The influence of ground effect may have required the plane to adjust its attitude in order to maintain a course toward the Pentagon's first floor. Since lift is proportional to angle of attack up to the critical angle of attack (at which the wing stalls), compensating for the increased lift due to ground effect is simply a matter of adjusting the pitch downward to cancel out the increased lift. Although the adjustments required to maintain the shallow angle of descent may have challenged a human pilot, they would seem an easy task for a 757's autopilot, with its ability to read instruments and adjust control surfaces accordingly with great speed and accuracy.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.htmlYou hear experienced pilots saying that the moves were amateurish and he more than likely screwed up. Had we found a written plan that showed the plane impacting the roof of the building and Hani did what he did, we would say that he nearly screwed the pooch and he was lucky to hit the pentagon at all.

Actually, I've never heard any experienced pilots say anything like that.

Saying Hani screwed up is like saying one of our infinite number of monkeys meant to compose Anna Karenina, but screwed up and came up with War and Peace instead. It's absurd.

[T.A.M.]

Deal with it guys. AAL77 was being piloted by its own autopilot, programmed by someone who wanted to hit the Pentagon building in that exact spot.


Waiting for your evidence before I deal with ANYTHING.

Its like me saying,

Deal with it A-Train, there is a Santa Claus, and nothing you can say will change it.

TAM:)

[lapman]

AAL77 was being piloted by its own autopilot, programmed by someone who wanted to hit the Pentagon building in that exact spot.

What? If it was the autopilot, the attitude of the aircraft would have remained steady throughout the turn. Then again, they would have programmed a straight in approach. Hani was all over the place. An experienced pilot would have also performed a straight in approach. A descending turn is not hard at all and any speed.

Also, why don't you lookup what ground effect is and how it changes with speed.

[pomeroo]

Bernacchia at least deserves credit, in contrast to Meigs, Chertoff & Co., for at least attempting to explain the maneuver performed by AAL77.

First of all, let's look at this maneuver that old Hani allegedly did.

Bernacchia contends that the 3500ft./min. descent rate, as well as the "tight" turn rate, are normal. But he doesn't mention that these two procedures were done simultaneously, making them more difficult for an inexperienced pilot.

Bernaccia bolsters his argument with a link to an analysis by an amateur pilot:

So the simultaneous turn and descent are doable according to this pilot; but note the last sentence.

We also have to consider that the turn and descent were just the beginning of the maneuver. The plane then leveled off close enough to the ground that it hit several light poles. Old Hani must have also instantly compensated for "ground effect," by lowering the nose a smidgeon at just the right second, then hit the Pentagon building at the first floor level with the plane level enough that an engine penetrated three rings of the building-- and he did this while the plane was traveling almost twice as fast as normal for an approach!!

Even Bernaccia seems a little embarrassed by this little detail about the plane's speed:

Bernaccia ends his discussion of Hani's feat by admitting that such a maneuver is exceeding difficult for a beginner, but that Hani just had some beginner's luck. He then tacks on a statement that is truly intellectually dishonest:

He is using a ploy used often by anti-truthers: the official story must be true because the alternative is preposterous. He then proposes an alternative that is truly preposterous.

Of course he is avoiding the genuine alternative provided in the quote above from his own link. The maneuver was performed by the plane's own autopilot, or by a remote pilot not in the plane who wanted to carry out the 9/11 attacks. Such a scenario is completely consistent with all the known facts regarding the approach of AAL77 to the Pentagon building.



Talk about "intellectually dishonest"! The "remote pilot" scenario has been demolished by Apathoid--remember?

To sum up, Bernacchia explains why Hanjour's maneuver was unremarkable. An uninformed conspiracy liar pretends that Bernacchia "admits" something he doesn't admit. Another wing of the fantasist sand castle has been washed away. The liars keep lying and drawing on professional expertise that they don't actually possess.

Business as usual.

[Shrinker]

A-Train, somebody is lying to you. Go out and take a flying lesson. After only 15 minutes at the controls of a plane, I was able to do a 270 degree turn while losing 1500 feet in order to align with the airfield for landing. It's very very easy. Banking causes the plane to lose altitude anyway. The hardest part is making sure that you're at the correct altitude once the turn is complete. There's a dial in the cockpit called an altimeter that helps with this. Depsite this high technology Hani may have got that part wrong, coming in too low, risking shredding his plane on the lightpoles, or plunging into the lawn.

[A-Train]

Talk about "intellectually dishonest"! The "remote pilot" scenario has been demolished by Apathoid--remember?

What I remember is myself demolishing Apathoid's paper. His entire analysis was based on the difficulty of remotely commandeering a plane in which the crew is still intact.

This scenario does not apply to what happened on 9/11 where the crew was taken out by hijackers on the plane.

[Dave Rogers]

Of course he is avoiding the genuine alternative provided in the quote above from his own link. The maneuver was performed by the plane's own autopilot, or by a remote pilot not in the plane who wanted to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

If the autopilot could have carried out the maneuver, why couldn't Hani Hanjour have programmed it to do so?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Perhaps because these errors-- if they are indeed that-- are trivial and do not detract from his overall argument that there was a stand-down on 9/11.

Unfortunately, if you take away all DRG's "trivial" errors, he doesn't have an overall argument left.

Dave

[pomeroo]

What I remember is myself demolishing Apathoid's paper. His entire analysis was based on the difficulty of remotely commandeering a plane in which the crew is still intact.

This scenario does not apply to what happened on 9/11 where the crew was taken out by hijackers on the plane.


Fascinating. You made a laughingstock of yourself by proposing utter nonsense, but you remember "demolishing" a paper by an experienced avionics tech.

Apathoid's analysis shows the near-impossibility of rigging Boeing 757s and 767s for wire-to-wire flight. You proposed, if I recall, super-James Bond types parachuting from the doomed airliners. You ignored the presence of the real hijackers as inconvenient to your silly fantasy.

Your "contribution" to this discussion is unserious even by the risible standards of your evil cult.

[WildCat]

What I remember is myself demolishing Apathoid's paper.
:dl:

[AMTMAN]

\

And finally, don't group Balsamo and Griffin together. They are two different people. Griffin has an infinitely higher standing among 9/11 researchers.

Griffin is co-authoring articles with Rob Balsamo so it's kind of hard to separate the two.

< http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html >

That brings up another point. You can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep, along with who they use as a source of information. There's Rob Balsamo who says debunkers should be put in jail, Mark Roberts who Rob says deserves to have bullet put in his brain. Not only does he go after debunkers but other truthers as well. We all know about that now famous phone call to Russell Pickering. Mr. Griffin has used people like Eric Hufschmid and the AFP as source for his books. Why don't you do a Google search of the two and see what you come up with.

[AMTMAN]

What I remember is myself demolishing Apathoid's paper. His entire analysis was based on the difficulty of remotely commandeering a plane in which the crew is still intact.

This scenario does not apply to what happened on 9/11 where the crew was taken out by hijackers on the plane.

This coming from someone who has never worked on a commercial airliner in his life and who thought the nose gear doors on a 767 were an exit point from within the cabin. RRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHTTTTT!!!!!!

[pomeroo]

Griffin is co-authoring articles with Rob Balsamo so it's kind of hard to separate the two.

< http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html >

That brings up another point. You can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep, along with who they use as a source of information. There's Rob Balsamo who says debunkers should be put in jail, Mark Roberts who Rob says deserves to have bullet put in his brain. Not only does he go after debunkers but other truthers as well. We all know about that now famous phone call to Russell Pickering. Mr. Griffin has used people like Eric Hufschmid and the AFP as source for his books. Why don't you do a Google search of the two and see what you come up with.



AMTMAN, would it be fair to summarize the whole "controversy" over the flight recorder data by stating that the missing few seconds explain why the impact isn't clearly indicated? Is that really all there is to it? Is there anything at all to debate here?

I ask this question before attempting to contact the NTSB. Does Rob Balsamo genuinely believe that he's on to something, or he is aware, like Craig Ranke, that he is promoting a fraud?

[AMTMAN]

Apathoid's analysis shows the near-impossibility of rigging Boeing 757s and 767s for wire-to-wire flight. You proposed, if I recall, super-James Bond types parachuting from the doomed airliners.


Every time I hear that I get a good laugh. Bailing out of a jetliner like a 757 or 767 is just a unique way to commit suicide. What was funny is that he tried to be clever by going to Boeing's website and digging up all the potential exit points on the 767. He mistakenly thought the nose gear doors were one of those exit points. All they are is just that, doors for the nose wheel well. So much for A-Trains hard hitting research.

[Reheat]

AMTMAN, would it be fair to summarize the whole "controversy" over the flight recorder data by stating that the missing few seconds explain why the impact isn't clearly indicated? Is that really all there is to it? Is there anything at all to debate here?

I ask this question before attempting to contact the NTSB. Does Rob Balsamo genuinely believe that he's on to something, or he is aware, like Craig Ranke, that he is promoting a fraud?

If he believes he on to something, he's stupid. Well, we already know that, but he's confirmed it in order to keep his fantasy going. It's playing right down his alley to keep selling those DVD's and coffee mugs! :D

All calculations based upon outside factors such as Beachnut suggested, the distance from DCA VOR, the altitude and the heading all place AA77 around the VDOT parking lot abeam the Navy Annex. That's roughly 3000' or so from the Pentagon. I'd say is not a debatable issue, yes. The reason for the missing data is because the NTSB deleted the data in order to cover up the flyover. Of course, Balsamo hasn't taken the position that there was a flyover, but that's the logical conclusion based upon his premise. The madness continues.

[pomeroo]

If he believes he on to something, he's stupid. Well, we already know that, but he's confirmed it in order to keep his fantasy going. It's playing right down his alley to keep selling those DVD's and coffee mugs! :D

All calculations based upon outside factors such as Beachnut suggested, the distance from DCA VOR, the altitude and the heading all place AA77 around the VDOT parking lot abeam the Navy Annex. That's roughly 3000' or so from the Pentagon. I'd say is not a debatable issue, yes. The reason for the missing data is because the NTSB deleted the data in order to cover up the flyover. Of course, Balsamo hasn't taken the position that there was a flyover, but that's the logical conclusion based upon his premise. The madness continues.


Again, to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, everyone agrees that the final few seconds of data are missing, right? What could account for the missing data?

[Reheat]

Again, to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, everyone agrees that the final few seconds of data are missing, right? What could account for the missing data?

Yes, based upon what I've seen there are several seconds missing from the data. I'd be reluctant to guess why, but if forced to I'd say it might be the electrical problem/rebooting Dennis Cimino mentioned. I do doubt his credibility and I don't know how he determined that there was an electrical problem (we haven't seen the raw data), but one would think he wouldn't blow smoke about something like that. One of our electronics guys might have a better idea.

[JimBenArm]

What I remember is myself demolishing Apathoid's paper. His entire analysis was based on the difficulty of remotely commandeering a plane in which the crew is still intact.

This scenario does not apply to what happened on 9/11 where the crew was taken out by hijackers on the plane.
Funny how the mind plays tricks on one, isn't it?

I remember myself kicking Chuck Norris's behind, too!

That's about as factual as your statement. Twice as likely to happen, as well.

[PhantomWolf]

Well from my flight experience, admittedly restricted to simulators, banking is a very easy way to lose altitude. Claiming that turning and descending is difficult is, to me, extremely dumb, because in a simulator I always have to keep the nose up when turning to avoid descending. Descending is what the plane naturally wants to do as you bank it and a good pilot has to arrest that to keep it level.

As to it being a tight turn, from all the flight path maps and simulated runs I have seen, it was nowhere near a tight turn, it was sloppy and poorly executed.

[Reheat]

As to it being a tight turn, from all the flight path maps and simulated runs I have seen, it was nowhere near a tight turn, it was sloppy and poorly executed.

Correct! It was fairly close to a standard 3 degrees per second rate of turn which is quite normal except it was sloppily executed.

Also, if you noted the troofer article combined this descending turn with the later descent to hit the poles, etc. They were quite separate maneuvers, but the author of that article obviously wanted to make it as complicated as possible, so he combined the two to make them appear as one maneuver.

[ktesibios]

Things have gotten to the point where I can no longer tell the PCTers without a program, so- is A-train the fantasist who thinks that Israeli commandos took over the planes and then bailed out of them after modifying them for remote control, presumably with items from their carry-on luggage? If so, then small wonder that he thinks that he "demolished" Ap's demonstration that accomplishing this would require, at minimum, very substantial modification work- sometimes when reality stubbornly refuses to conform to your beliefs, the simplest thing to do is to instantiate a new layer of fantasy.

I also haven't seen any actual evidence presented that flight 77 was intended to strike the particular point on the Pentagon where it hit. To claim this on the basis that it hit a particular point (rather than, say, striking the Pentagon's entire external surface area) is clearly circular reasoning.

I'm also wondering about the origin of the PCTer belief that being a kamikaze terrorist hijacker is just like being a figure skater, where you have to perform the sequence of maneuvers specified in your program and are judged according to how well you accomplish each one. If Hanjour had missed the light poles or clipped one too many, would he have been docked points (or virgins), or is it more parsimonious to conclude that his object was "take over plane, fly to Washington, crash into building" rather than "take over plane, fly to Washington, execute prescribed series of maneuvers, crash into building"?

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think I can see which side of Occam's Razor is the sharpened one.

[PhantomWolf]

I also haven't seen any actual evidence presented that flight 77 was intended to strike the particular point on the Pentagon where it hit. To claim this on the basis that it hit a particular point (rather than, say, striking the Pentagon's entire external surface area) is clearly circular reasoning.

You haven't seen the "line painted on the ground" argument?

[Corsair 115]

Correct! It was fairly close to a standard 3 degrees per second rate of turn...I think the confusion for CTers comes from seeing the figure of a 320° turn and thinking that means it must have been a tight turn. They seem to forget that the 320° figure only tells us how much the jet turned, not how tightly. To know how tight the turn was, you need to look at how long in terms of time the turn took. It's amount of turn plus how long it took to perform which determines how tight a turn is.

A 320° turn done over five minutes is a very different thing from a 320° turn done in just one minute.

[Reheat]

I think the confusion for CTers comes from seeing the figure of a 320° turn and thinking that means it must have been a tight turn. They seem to forget that the 320° figure only tells us how much the jet turned, not how tightly. To know how tight the turn was, you need to look at how long in terms of time the turn took. It's amount of turn plus how long it took to perform which determines how tight a turn is.

A 320° turn done over five minutes is a very different thing from a 320° turn done in just one minute.

Nah, I'm not convinced it's confusion. It appears to be deliberate obsfucation designed to support their ct delusion. After this long it can't be accidental. For example, the article A-Train referenced was obviously written by someone who has no clue and then A-Train quotes it as gospel. He does this repeatedly as he has no analytical skills and refuses to accept answers contrary to some troofer article that he has swallowed.

He comes here posts his crap and when he is "slammed dunked" he is gone.. Pooffff, he disappears and eventually when he comes back, he does not read the threads like this one to learn anything useful and it begins all over again.

That is why the "Troof Movement" is a cult. It happens over and over again with no end in sight.... *sigh*

[TjW]

I'm surprised the "maneuver" is still an issue. It's completely compatible with a pilot who:

Set up a fairly standard descent rate at a higher-than-usual speed.
Began a standard rate turn, but flattened it out a little because he wasn't comfortable with the higher bank angle required at the higher speed. The bank angle would increase the sink rate.
Intended to fly a descending 270, but because of the increased radius of the turn caused by his decreasing the bank angle, found himself not lined up with the target and had to continue turning a little more.

I've taken power pilots for rides in sailplanes, and some of them aren't comfortable with higher bank angles. But 40-45 degrees of bank is not uncomfortable, it's just more than they're used to.

The 270 degree turn is a strategy sometimes used in sailplanes to center thermals; that is, to successfully intercept a target you can't even see. It is routinely done successfully by pilots not yet signed off to fly solo.

Being able to see the target makes it easier.

[CurtC]

I think the confusion for CTers comes from seeing the figure of a 320° turn and thinking that means it must have been a tight turn.
I recall my participation in a thread at the LC forum with Rob Balsamo, then known as JohnDoeX and a forum moderator over there. He was vehemently posting that Hanjour, nay anyone, would be able to perform the turning, descending maneuver described. This was before the Flight Path Analysis data was released.

So I asked him to describe his idea of how the turn looked, and he drew it on a Google Earth map.

It was a turn, at 500 mph, that was approximately 1/4 mile (like 400 meters) in diameter! And while descending around 5000 feet. He actually thought the maneuver was that the pilot went into a sudden, near vertical dive while doing a vertical barrel roll, then levelling out at the Pentagon. There was nothing in the descriptions on which he based his fantasy to suggest such extremes. I had read the same descriptions and postulated a 5-mile diameter turn while descending (which turns out to be pretty close to the actual, if I may point that out).

My thought was that no wonder he thought it was impossible for Hanjour to do that! His problem wasn't that he thought Hanjour was a completely terrible pilot, it was that his mind had locked onto a downright bizarre scenario, and couldn't seem to see that this scenario was not mandated by the data.

[boloboffin]

His problem wasn't that he thought Hanjour was a completely terrible pilot, it was that his mind had locked onto a downright bizarre scenario, and couldn't seem to see that this scenario was not mandated by the data.

You would be surprised at how often these discussions are about things like this. Complete misunderstandings are hardened into "how it had to have happened that way." We can say strawman all day long, and it won't matter. Their idea of the "official story" is often directly contradicted in the official studies! But until you prove their version of the official story right, they feel fully able to pontificate.

Just understanding what they are thinking is half the struggle.

[CurtC]

I found it, Rob Balsamo's (JohnDoeX's) estimate of Flight 77's path to the Pentagon:
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3800&view=findpost&p=6063420

[apathoid]

I found it, Rob Balsamo's (JohnDoeX's) estimate of Flight 77's path to the Pentagon:
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3800&view=findpost&p=6063420




They don't call him D'OH! for nuthin'


Rob Balsamos Estimated Flightpath

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/pentagonmanpaint.jpg



^^^ Yes, that's his work


Actual Flightpath

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/wrongflightpath.jpg


:dl:

[Reheat]

I found it, Rob Balsamo's (JohnDoeX's) estimate of Flight 77's path to the Pentagon:
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3800&view=findpost&p=6063420

That's a Cessna 150 turn! Pardon me while I ROFLMAO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

ETA: A Cessna 150 is likely the bulk of his experience, so it really shouldn't be a surprise.....

[apathoid]

What was funny is that he tried to be clever by going to Boeing's website and digging up all the potential exit points on the 767. He mistakenly thought the nose gear doors were one of those exit points. All they are is just that, doors for the nose wheel well. So much for A-Trains hard hitting research.


I think the jackscrew compartment door would be a better option...:p

[CurtC]

Rob Balsamos Estimated FlightpathYes, that was his work.


Actual FlightpathNo, that one is not accurate either. 77 came in from the west, made a turn that was almost a complete circle, then hit the Pentagon from the west-southwest.

[A-Train]

I'm surprised the "maneuver" is still an issue. It's completely compatible with a pilot who:

Set up a fairly standard descent rate at a higher-than-usual speed.
Began a standard rate turn, but flattened it out a little because he wasn't comfortable with the higher bank angle required at the higher speed. The bank angle would increase the sink rate.
Intended to fly a descending 270, but because of the increased radius of the turn caused by his decreasing the bank angle, found himself not lined up with the target and had to continue turning a little more.

I've taken power pilots for rides in sailplanes, and some of them aren't comfortable with higher bank angles. But 40-45 degrees of bank is not uncomfortable, it's just more than they're used to.

The 270 degree turn is a strategy sometimes used in sailplanes to center thermals; that is, to successfully intercept a target you can't even see. It is routinely done successfully by pilots not yet signed off to fly solo.

Being able to see the target makes it easier.

I'm surprised you would say you're surprised the maneuver is still an issue-- then forget to mention the final approach of the plane, the leveling off at about 50ft, clipping the lampposts, compensating for ground effect, avoiding the lawn, and hitting the first floor in nearly level flight-- all while flying over 400 MPH!

[A-Train]

How honest is it to continue perpetuating myths about Hanjour's piloting skills without ever addressing Giulio Bernacchia's paper?

http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

I would suggest that, as usual, the fantasists are the ones doing the ignoring. How do often do these agenda-driven cranks confess their numerous distortions, misrepresentations, and outright errors?


I'd always thought Hani's maneuver was a right turn. But listen to what Giulio Bernacchia says about it:

Well, it is not what the official version says: ” American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon”. The plane flew a 330
degree turn, that is a circle less 30 degrees… It was a left turn, which is
what someone sitting on the left seat (captain’s seat) would do to keep a target to his left in sight. All this would require a bank angle of between 32 and 45 degrees, and a moderate rate of descent. Nothing that requires Iceman (remember Top Gun?) to do. Again, the hijacker decided to err on the undershoot side, and descended a lot more than what a good pilot would have done. Almost too much, since he had to fly the last seconds level at a very low altitude, clipping the lampposts along his way.
http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdfThe official NTBS report, however, states that it was actually a right turn:

9:34 AM the aircraft was positioned about 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon, and started a right turn 330-degree descending turn to the right. At the end of the turn the aircraft was at about 2000 feet altitude and 4 miles southwest the Pentagon. Over the next 30 seconds, power was increased to near maximum and the nose was pitched down in response to control column movements. The airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots (530MPH) at impact with the Pentagon. The time of impact was 9:37:45AM.
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdfNow just think if Griffin or I had made such an error!

So much for the credibility of 9/11Myths.

So much for the credibility of Giulio "Captains Chair" Bernnachia.

So much for the credibility of Ron "Live Free Or Die" Wieck.

[apathoid]

I'm surprised you would say you're surprised the maneuver is still an issue-- then forget to mention the final approach of the plane, the leveling off at about 50ft, clipping the lampposts, compensating for ground effect, avoiding the lawn, and hitting the first floor in nearly level flight-- all while flying over 400 MPH!


How do you know that Hanjour intended to clip lamposts and hit the first floor? How do we know that he wasn't aiming for the center courtyard and just missed badly?



Deal with it guys. AAL77 was being piloted by its own autopilot, programmed by someone who wanted to hit the Pentagon building in that exact spot.



Your autopilot theory has many many problems as well, which actually are real problems, unlike your red herrings. Since the bank angle exceeded 30 degrees for a good portion of the 330 degree turn, that would indicate to me that the autopilot was disengaged, as the limit for all lateral modes is 30 degrees. Also, the 330 degree turn was anything but smooth as evidenced by the FDR animation, so the only way the autopilot commanded that sort of turn would be using many unnecessary waypoints. I'd also like to hear what autopilot mode you think was used to hit these buildings and why the FDR showed an autopilot disconnect at 7000' with no subsequent re-engagements...

We won't even address the 757/767 position determining system and it's accuracy problems for these types of "approaches"

And of course, we still have yet to agree that it's possible to egress from a 757 or 767.

[T.A.M.]

The credibility is not in the err, per say, but in the refusal to acknowledge and correct the err when it has been show to be so.

TAM:)

[rwguinn]

...snip...
First of all, let's look at this maneuver that old Hani allegedly did.

Bernacchia contends that the 3500ft./min. descent rate, as well as the "tight" turn rate, are normal. But he doesn't mention that these two procedures were done simultaneously, making them more difficult for an inexperienced pilot.

Bernaccia bolsters his argument with a link to an analysis by an amateur pilot:

So the simultaneous turn and descent are doable according to this pilot; but note the last sentence.

We also have to consider that the turn and descent were just the beginning of the maneuver. The plane then leveled off close enough to the ground that it hit several light poles. Old Hani must have also instantly compensated for "ground effect," by lowering the nose a smidgeon at just the right second, then hit the Pentagon building at the first floor level with the plane level enough that an engine penetrated three rings of the building-- and he did this while the plane was traveling almost twice as fast as normal for an approach!!

..,snip....
Losing altitute is a turn is dead easy. It one of the first things that a student pilot does.
It's NOT losing altitude in a turn that takes a LOT of practice and some skill...

[CurtC]

I'm surprised you would say you're surprised the maneuver is still an issue-- then forget to mention the final approach of the plane, the leveling off at about 50ft, clipping the lampposts, compensating for ground effect, avoiding the lawn, and hitting the first floor in nearly level flight-- all while flying over 400 MPH!
I just don't get it. Do you think this was some kind of ideal, perfect approach? It would seem to me that the ideal place to have hit the Pentagon would have been somewhere other than the strong exterior wall.

[Sabrina]

Heck, any other wedge of the building would have been better; let's not forget that wedge is the one that they just finished reinforcing. You supposedly want a lot of deaths to forward your agenda (be it the ebil gubmint or the terrible terrorists); so why hit the one wedge pretty much guaranteed to minimize, at the very least, the effect of the plane hitting it?

[DGM]

I'm surprised you would say you're surprised the maneuver is still an issue-- then forget to mention the final approach of the plane, the leveling off at about 50ft, clipping the lampposts, compensating for ground effect, avoiding the lawn, and hitting the first floor in nearly level flight-- all while flying over 400 MPH!

A-Train;
If he didn't conpensate for ground effect he would miss the lawn.

[PhantomWolf]

Again the long level approach doesn't surprise me, most pilots I have heard speak on it say that it is evidence of a poor pilot that was navigating to the target by looking at it, that a good pilot would have matched his descent to the target's position so that all he had to do was drop the nose and hit the target as he come up to it, but because this would have meant that the pilot couldn't see the target during the manoeuvre it would have relied on skill and experience that the pilot of 77 obviously didn't have.

The navigation to Washington was done by the Autopilot, the turn was un-needed as a good pilot would have already prepared the approach and hit the target without the turn being required, the turn itself was sloppy and poorly executed, and the final approach was caused by the descent being too low with the pilot having to keep the target in sight due to his poor abilities. Add to that that he hit the generator and lawn milliseconds before the building anyway. A good pilot would have missed the lamp-posts and the generator and not nearly ploughed into the lawn. To claim that only a good pilot could have flown this route is laughable since it is the mark of a very poor one to have choosen it in the first place and the execution itself was very poor. Totally an example of Texas marksmanship, but then everything the 9/11 CTs claim is just that.

[TjW]

I'm surprised you would say you're surprised the maneuver is still an issue-- then forget to mention the final approach of the plane, the leveling off at about 50ft, clipping the lampposts, compensating for ground effect, avoiding the lawn, and hitting the first floor in nearly level flight-- all while flying over 400 MPH!

You don't fly, do you?
The "monkey skills" involved in flying an airplane at moderate to high speeds are not very complex. Airplanes generally like higher speeds. They respond quickly and predictably to control inputs, making it fairly easy to put it where you want it.
Once the pilot had straightened out from the turn, all he had to do was pick a window of the Pentagon -- any window at all -- and focus on keeping that particular window in the same spot on the windshield by making very small corrections. That's it.
A constant relative bearing will result in a collision. Every time.
B.F. Skinner trained pigeons to be bomb guidance systems. They pecked different spots to keep a simulated target centered in a window.
Clipping the lampposts is consistent with that sort of "focused on a spot" approach. He didn't clear the lampposts because he probably didn't see them.

Ground effect:
Ground effect does not push airplanes away from the ground. Ground effect simply lowers the drag of the airplane. You could think of it as giving the airplane a tendency to be more slippery the closer the wing gets to the ground. It's simply not an issue if you want to run into things.

Avoiding the lawn:
If he was keeping a window, or some other building feature centered in the windshield, the aircraft would fly a smooth line to that target point. It was early morning on an otherwise nice day. There wouldn't be a lot of turbulence from convection that early. What would push it down at the last second?

"Nearly level flight":
I guess I don't understand how this is a great piloting feat. Sorry.
And what if he hadn't hit in "nearly level flight"? Would that somehow have negated the attack? Why is it an issue?

Thinking of that, if the pilot had landed short by a hundred yards or so, killing everyone on board, but doing much less damage to the Pentagon, would that be evidence that he was a poor pilot, or would it just be evidence that "they" didn't want to damage "their" own building?

[Corsair 115]

I'm surprised you would say you're surprised the maneuver is still an issue-- then forget to mention the final approach of the plane, the leveling off at about 50ft, clipping the lampposts, compensating for ground effect, avoiding the lawn, and hitting the first floor in nearly level flight-- all while flying over 400 MPH!Why do you think that so amazing? That approach is basically that of a glide bombing attack — that's the kind of attack less skilled pilots would use during WWII rather than the much more difficult dive bombing attack.

Had the jet dived onto the Pentagon from a steep angle, now that would take quite a bit of skill to successfully execute. A low angle direct flight into a structure? That's what an inexperienced pilot would do because it's the easiest to accomplish.

[A-Train]

Why do you think that so amazing? That approach is basically that of a glide bombing attack — that's the kind of attack less skilled pilots would use during WWII rather than the much more difficult dive bombing attack.

Had the jet dived onto the Pentagon from a steep angle, now that would take quite a bit of skill to successfully execute. A low angle direct flight into a structure? That's what an inexperienced pilot would do because it's the easiest to accomplish.

Would it be easiest to accomplish at 460 knots?....

By the way, Hani Hanjour was not a "less skilled" pilot.

Nor was he an "inexperienced" pilot.

He was someone who had never been in the cockpit of a jet in his life.

[CurtC]

Would it be easiest to accomplish at 460 knots?....Absolutely. It would have been pretty much impossible to dive into the Pentagon starting at that speed. The plane would have broken apart before hitting.

By the way, Hani Hanjour was not a "less skilled" pilot.
Nor was he an "inexperienced" pilot.
He was someone who had never been in the cockpit of a jet in his life.
He had a commercial pilots license and had spent time in Boeing simulators, which are realistic enough that I believe time in those counts the same as actual flight time for a pilot's hours.

[Reheat]

He was someone who had never been in the cockpit of a jet in his life.

Every time you post you show your complete ignorance of things about airplanes or flying. As has been pointed out Hanjour had simulator time. How much, we don't know. Obviously it was enough.

Anyway, a jet cockpit is actually simpler than a multi-engine piston driven cockpit in terms of what one needs to actually crash it into a building. Jet cockpit = one throttle for each engine. Piston cockpit = Throttle, Prop control, Mixture control per engine. Otherwise, the control wheel, auto pilot switch, and transponder are likely the only other items Hanjour used.

All of the dozens of switches, tits, knobs, handles, and CRT's for the glass cockpit were/are not needed. Even without simulator time, the hijackers had aircraft flight manuals which would have given them enough knowledge to know the switchology needed to accomplish their mission.

Keep posting, your stupidity provides me with my laugh for the day. I need another one now....:D

[Reheat]

He had a commercial pilots license and had spent time in Boeing simulators, which are realistic enough that I believe time in those counts the same as actual flight time for a pilot's hours.

It is quite normal for an experienced airline pilot to fly a simulator only when transitioning to different aircraft. The first time in the actual airplane is a check ride.

[Corsair 115]

Would it be easiest to accomplish at 460 knots?.... It'd be a lot easier than steeply diving onto it at speeds much greater than that.

By the way, Hani Hanjour was not a "less skilled" pilot.

Nor was he an "inexperienced" pilot.

He was someone who had never been in the cockpit of a jet in his life.Already handled by previous posters, so there's no need for me to add anything.

[lapman]

By the way, Hani Hanjour was not a "less skilled" pilot.
Nor was he an "inexperienced" pilot.
He was someone who had never been in the cockpit of a jet in his life.
My first time piloting an aircraft was the MD-80 simulator. I hadn't had a single lesson beyond MSFS for the Commodore 64, so I knew less than the basics. I was able to take off, fly around and land with very little instruction from the instructor. I did it poorly, but I did it. It's not all that difficult.

[Hellbound]

Just to second the comments, like most things, it likely isn't all that difficult. Heck, even computer work, demolitions, or medicine isn't all that difficult. When things go right.

The reasons professional pilots talk about a demnading job is because they have to be trained for when things go wrong, and a plane with thousands and thousands of moving parts has a lot of "go wrong" it can find.

I'd venture to say that 90% of being certified as a pilot is not learning to take off, point the plane in the right direction, and land. I'd say that the vast majority, by far, is learning to be calm under pressure, to react appropriately to emergencies, to familiarize yourself with the problems that can occur in the planes and what needs to be done for them, and to learn how to handle the "oh [Rule 8]" situations. It's like the difference between living a healthy lifestlye and being a doctor. It's the difference between knowing that an explosive goes boom when you hit the detonator and knowing what type of explosive is best for what your doing (more powerful is not better). It's the difference between installing and using Microsoft Word and troubleshooting a computer that fails on the install.

[Reheat]

Hay A-Train,

I just discovered that Hanjour had at least 12 hours of JET Simulator time in his logbook. So, your statement that he had never been in a jet cockpit is FALSE similar to most other stuff you post.

I realize you don't know, so I'll tell you. Modern airline type simulators are exactly like the cockpit in the real McCoy. Visual displays are very realistic and at least 6 axis hydraulic actuated motion make them very similar to actual flying. As I said earlier Airlines use them extensively for transitioning pilots into new systems to save $$.

Where's that "Intellectual Honesty" you keep talking about? Surely it hasn't gone to the same place where your brain is located.

Come on, be a man and admit to all of the silly mistakes you've been posting. If you need reminding, I'll help out. Surely, as many times as you've advocated "Intellectual Honesty" for those folks who make mistakes you'll adhere to your own advice.

[Reheat]

Bump for A-Train.

[PhantomWolf]

Bump for A-Train.

You really expect him to be back?

[AZCat]

It is quite normal for an experienced airline pilot to fly a simulator only when transitioning to different aircraft. The first time in the actual airplane is a check ride.

Significant parts of the check ride can also be accomplished in the simulator (if it is at least a "C" level one). For example, FAR Section 135.293(f) states that Portions of a required competency check may be given in an aircraft simulator or other appropriate training device, if approved by the Administrator. Section 61.58(e) says something similar for pilots that test under that section.

[Dave Rogers]

You really expect him to be back?

Yes, he'll be back in about three weeks making exactly the same claims that just got debunked.

Dave

[SpitfireIX]

Bump for A-Train.


lgIB9XRaj0E

[A-Train]

Hay A-Train,

I just discovered that Hanjour had at least 12 hours of JET Simulator time in his logbook. So, your statement that he had never been in a jet cockpit is FALSE similar to most other stuff you post.

I realize you don't know, so I'll tell you. Modern airline type simulators are exactly like the cockpit in the real McCoy. Visual displays are very realistic and at least 6 axis hydraulic actuated motion make them very similar to actual flying. As I said earlier Airlines use them extensively for transitioning pilots into new systems to save $$.

Where's that "Intellectual Honesty" you keep talking about? Surely it hasn't gone to the same place where your brain is located.

Come on, be a man and admit to all of the silly mistakes you've been posting. If you need reminding, I'll help out. Surely, as many times as you've advocated "Intellectual Honesty" for those folks who make mistakes you'll adhere to your own advice.

Actually, a Jet Simulator is not the exact same thing as a jet cockpit. A simulator is a simulator, and a cockpit is a cockpit; and Hani Hanjour has never sat in a cockpit.

So there's really nothing wrong with my brain, and I don't need to admit anything.

I'm still waiting for Pomeroo to address the error in Giulio Bernauchi's article regarding the direction of turn made by Flight 77 over the Pentagon. When is he going to "be a man" and admit that mistake?

If you really want to be a man, Reheat, why don't you agree to debate Rob Balsamo? Are you afraid of him?

[apathoid]

A-Train, while you're here - I was wondering if you wouldn't mind addressing this?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2997446&postcount=80



Your autopilot theory has many many problems as well, which actually are real problems, unlike your red herrings. Since the bank angle exceeded 30 degrees for a good portion of the 330 degree turn, that would indicate to me that the autopilot was disengaged, as the limit for all lateral modes is 30 degrees. Also, the 330 degree turn was anything but smooth as evidenced by the FDR animation, so the only way the autopilot commanded that sort of turn would be using many unnecessary waypoints. I'd also like to hear what autopilot mode you think was used to hit these buildings and why the FDR showed an autopilot disconnect at 7000' with no subsequent re-engagements...

We won't even address the 757/767 position determining system and it's accuracy problems for these types of "approaches"

And of course, we still have yet to agree that it's possible to egress from a 757 or 767.


It appears that your autopilot theory has been falsified, what theory do you propose now?

[Reheat]

Actually, a Jet Simulator is not the exact same thing as a jet cockpit. A simulator is a simulator, and a cockpit is a cockpit; and Hani Hanjour has never sat in a cockpit.

If I didn't know better I'd think you're speaking from the basis of an "expert opinion".

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)

So there's really nothing wrong with my brain, and I don't need to admit anything.

Yes, I realize that people who says stupid things don't know any better.

I'm still waiting for Pomeroo to address the error in Giulio Bernauchi's article regarding the direction of turn made by Flight 77 over the Pentagon. When is he going to "be a man" and admit that mistake?

This is not even in the same league as what you've said, REPEATEDLY. BTW, it's not Pomeroo's mistake and it has no bearing at all on the thrust of Bernauchi's article.

If you really want to be a man, Reheat, why don't you agree to debate Rob Balsamo? Are you afraid of him?

Nah, it's better to ignore him. He'd love to have someone with credibility pay attention to him. I wouldn't stoop so low to even acknowledge that he's anything more than another mental midget with an agenda, but I do admit that he's knows infinitely more than you.

ETA: It's more insulting to him to keep him confined to his "guides" for boosting his ego and providing him with "parroted" companionship.

[lapman]

Actually, a Jet Simulator is not the exact same thing as a jet cockpit. A simulator is a simulator, and a cockpit is a cockpit; and Hani Hanjour has never sat in a cockpit.
Do you know the meaning of research? Here is the 757 simulator:
http://inlinethumb21.webshots.com/18900/1033381821029854622S600x600Q85.jpg
Now for the one on the airplane:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/rosebud/pictures/boeing757.jpg

The simulators act like the real aircraft. That's why they are approved by the FAA for flight training toward the type rating. So, as you can see, a cockpit is a cockpit no matter if it's in a simulator or an airplane.

[Corsair 115]

Actually, a Jet Simulator is not the exact same thing as a jet cockpit. A simulator is a simulator, and a cockpit is a cockpit; and Hani Hanjour has never sat in a cockpit.Now that's what I'd call an amazing level of hair-splitting right there.

[Corsair 115]

The simulators act like the real aircraft. That's why they are approved by the FAA for flight training toward the type rating. So, as you can see, a cockpit is a cockpit no matter if it's in a simulator or an airplane.They've been around for quite awhile too. The Boeing 737 simulator I was fortunate enough to get time in way back in 1980 (thanks to my dad being chief flight instructor for the airline) was just like current ones, with the six-axis hydraulic jacks for recreating motion. The main difference was that back then the graphics capability was much lower and thus only nighttime scenes were done. I can attest to the fact that the six-axis motion hydraulics did an amazing job of recreating the feeling of flight. In terms of take-off, climbing, turning, landing, etc., it was virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. The main thing the simulator couldn't do is recreate g-forces, but then that's really not something a commercial pilot is going to encounter.

I even got to sit in on some actual pilot training sessions. (The front part of the simulator where the pilots were was an exact duplicate of the 737 cockpit, while the back part held a computer station for the instructor where he could select what type of scenario or malfunction he wanted the pilots to respond to.)

[Jonnyclueless]

I always find it funny how the most experienced pilot of the group gets touted as the most inexperienced. The guy was a pilot before he even got here.

[A-Train]

It appears that your autopilot theory has been falsified, what theory do you propose now?

Sorry, apathoid, but the theory being discussed here is yours-- you know, the one where a guy who could barely fly a Cessna pulled off the maneuver done by AAL77?

I don't blame you, though, for trying to put the focus on my alleged theory. It must be painful for someone with your expertise to be put in a position where you are expected to defend something that you know is preposterous.

[lapman]

They've been around for quite awhile too. The Boeing 737 simulator I was fortunate enough to get time in way back in 1980 (thanks to my dad being chief flight instructor for the airline) was just like current ones, with the six-axis hydraulic jacks for recreating motion. The main difference was that back then the graphics capability was much lower and thus only nighttime scenes were done. I can attest to the fact that the six-axis motion hydraulics did an amazing job of recreating the feeling of flight. In terms of take-off, climbing, turning, landing, etc., it was virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. The main thing the simulator couldn't do is recreate g-forces, but then that's really not something a commercial pilot is going to encounter.

I even got to sit in on some actual pilot training sessions. (The front part of the simulator where the pilots were was an exact duplicate of the 737 cockpit, while the back part held a computer station for the instructor where he could select what type of scenario or malfunction he wanted the pilots to respond to.)
I flew the MD-80 simulator at McDonnell Douglas(now Boeing) in Long Beach, CA in 1983. A family friend was doing his instructor rotation. I know what you mean about the nighttime only flying. I didn't actually start training until 1986 in a C-152.

[A-Train]

Nah, it's better to ignore him. He'd love to have someone with credibility pay attention to him. I wouldn't stoop so low to even acknowledge that he's anything more than another mental midget with an agenda, but I do admit that he's knows infinitely more than you.

Ignore him? You're obsessed with him. You mention in him in just about every other post!

You're constantly insulting him, taking cheap shots at him when he isn't here to defend himself. Then he challenges you to a debate, and you're chicken....

You've got no right to lecture anyone on being a man.

[DavidJames]

Ignore him? You're obsessed with him. You mention in him in just about every other post!

You're constantly insulting him, taking cheap shots at him when he isn't here to defend himself. Then he challenges you to a debate, and you're chicken....

You've got no right to lecture anyone on being a man.
Balsamo is mentally unstable. He's unemployable as a pilot. He's threatened violence against those he disagrees with. Not debating him is not a sign of fear, it's a sign of compassion.

[lapman]

Sorry, apathoid, but the theory being discussed here is yours-- you know, the one where a guy who could barely fly a Cessna pulled off the maneuver done by AAL77?
Of course you completely ignore the fact that he had his commercial certificate. This requires no less than 3 check rides with an FAA examiner. If there really was a problem, he would not have passed. You have yet to prove that what he did was impossible. The FDR data supports the fact that he was not that great a pilot, but he was not doing anything all that difficult.

[Gravy]

You've got no right to lecture anyone on being a man.Declares the manly man who says the evidence is overwhelming that Israeli Zionists were involved in the 9/11 attacks, but whose rotweiller ate that evidence.

Oh, you're a real mensch, A-Train!

[Gravy]

I thought I'd post this so that newcomers who haven't dealt with A-Train know how he justifies his belief that Israelis on a suicide/non-suicide mission/stage show committed the hijackings, using guns, remotely-controlled planes, on-board Arab patsies who were killed and are alive, and parachutes like, you know, the Navy Seals use. Bolding is mine.

The hijackings were necessary to properly frame the Arabs, by having Arab-looking commandos do the hijackings while committing heinous acts like stabbing stewardesses. This false impression of a horrific Arab hijacking was then passed on by the passengers via their phone calls to the American public, who bought it hook, line, and sinker, and were thus incited to support wars in the Middle East.

After killing the pilots and putting on the mock-Arab stageshow hijacking, the passengers are herded to the back of the plane. The hijackers now rig the cockpit for remote navigation. Do they program the Flight Management Computer to fly a pre-designated flight plan, or do they rig the cockpit to be flown by a real human at a remote location? I don't know.

With the plane now flying pilotless, the hijackers slip down a hatch to the cargo hold at the front of the plane, where they are invisible to the passengers in the back of the plane. The plane is flown over a pre-determined GPS point corresponding to a rural area where the sight of skyjumpers is common. They exit the plane in a manner similar to that described by former Navy SEAL Chuck Pfarrer in the passage quoted above. This occurs at least 10 minutes before the planes crash.

It should be noted that some genuine Arab patsies, like Satam al-Suqami, were actually on the plane, and were shot by the hijackers as was Suqami. When the plane crashes, the recovered DNA of these patsies is held up to a credulous American public as "proof" that al-Qaeda did 9/11.

What a perfect frame-up job. So slick, so lovely. It almost makes your eyes water.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2346911&postcount=538A gun would be found at the crash scene-- if it was still in the plane when it crashed. Just speculating, but what if the hijackers chucked it out the window after it was no longer needed?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2326173&postcount=428I am working on the best information I have, which shows that several of they alleged hijackers are still alive in the Middle East and have stories of visiting the US and having their pockets picked there. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2329112&postcount=462One more thing, though I hate to bring this up. You, like several others, are assuming this was a suicide mission. It probably was; but we should consider the possibility that it was not. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2321889&postcount=369The NORAD standdown was accomplished by a very small number of disloyal officers-- maybe as few as one or two-- in the command structure who sent out garbled orders to the fighter pilots, making sure none would intercept any of the hijacked planes. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2316242&postcount=212How many bodies were recovered at Shanksville? Only forty? What happened to the other four?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2340595&postcount=494Answer: they were recovered.

What I can say for sure about controllers involved with the 9/11 planes is that they have been ordered not to speak publicly about their experiences under threat of potentially losing their jobs.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2336492&postcount=9 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2336492&postcount=9)A-Train, meet Cheap Shot. Cheap Shot, A-Train (http://911guide.googlepages.com/cs).

Edit: Oh, I forgot the most mind-blowing exchange of all:

But the more honest and courageous ones can see that the evidence pointing to Israeli-Zionist direct involvement is overwhelming. source (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2315606&postcount=200)

So the "Zionists", aided by some "disloyal officers in the command structure" did it, probably by remote control. source (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2316520&postcount=227)

You know, you're lucky this is the internet, or I'd hire a lawyer and sue you for libel. I can only conclude that you didn't want to deal with my arguments and ideas, so you decided to smear me as an anti-semite/Nazi. Only you couldn't find any evidence of that, so you simply cooked it up out of your own head. source (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2316761&postcount=231)


Such a mensch is A-Train!

[Reheat]

Ignore him? You're obsessed with him. You mention in him in just about every other post!

Prove it. You have no problem grossly exaggerating at all, do you?


You're constantly insulting him, taking cheap shots at him when he isn't here to defend himself. Then he challenges you to a debate, and you're chicken....

Well yes, I've made a comment or two about him and they have not been complimentary. Cheap shots? That's not possible for someone of his caliber.
It news to me that he even knows who I am, let along a challenge to a debate. Again, I'm not interested in a debate unless he wants to come here. I can afford to devote a minute or two to that.

You've got no right to lecture anyone on being a man. You're right, I don't know your gender. I probably guessed wrong.

[T.A.M.]

I think the "challenge" likely refers to Balsamo's challenge to Ron for Gravy to put together a team to debate him and his group. I am not sure if Reheat was included in the suggestion, made by RON, of some who would fit the bill.

TAM:)

[funk de fino]

Sorry, apathoid, but the theory being discussed here is yours-- you know, the one where a guy who could barely fly a Cessna pulled off the maneuver done by AAL77?

I don't blame you, though, for trying to put the focus on my alleged theory. It must be painful for someone with your expertise to be put in a position where you are expected to defend something that you know is preposterous.

You really have no clue what you are posting about do you?

Like the nose undercarriage door you mentioned as an escape route for your para's?

I think that you could carry out hani's manouver if you had a bit of computer game simulation and then was put into a proper simulator

Go and try it

its a piece of piss manouver and if you think different, you only show your ignorance to be far greater than initial estimates

[funk de fino]

Post # 115 would be enough to stop any other fool in their tracks and run for cover

I doubt it will affect A train though

[pomeroo]

Sorry, apathoid, but the theory being discussed here is yours-- you know, the one where a guy who could barely fly a Cessna pulled off the maneuver done by AAL77?

I don't blame you, though, for trying to put the focus on my alleged theory. It must be painful for someone with your expertise to be put in a position where you are expected to defend something that you know is preposterous.


Bernacchia destroyed your fantasies about Hanjour's piloting skills and Apathoid destroyed your childish falsehoods about the feasibility of flying Boeing 757s and 767s by remote control. Why do you, a complete know-nothing, persist in challenging people who are so vastly superior to you in knowledge and intelligence?

Oh, I forgot: You're a conspiracy liar.

[CurtC]

Do you know the meaning of research? Here is the 757 simulator:
http://inlinethumb21.webshots.com/18900/1033381821029854622S600x600Q85.jpg
Now for the one on the airplane:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/rosebud/pictures/boeing757.jpg

Well, obviously you couldn't expect Hanjour to fly the one in the bottom picture if he had been training in the top one - the colors are different. The top one is sort of bluish, while the bottom is tan. Completely different!

[AMTMAN]

Deal with it guys. AAL77 was being piloted by its own autopilot, programmed by someone who wanted to hit the Pentagon building in that exact spot.
.

For the sake of argument I'll put aside the complete idiocy of your autopilot theory. How exactly did they program the autopilot to do this?

[Calcas]

Thanks Mark, for post #115.

Sometimes it's too easy for one to remember the true loon we're talking with.

[Dave Rogers]

For the sake of argument I'll put aside the complete idiocy of your autopilot theory. How exactly did they program the autopilot to do this?

And I'd like to repeat an earlier question: if the autopilot could have done this, why couldn't Hani Hanjour have programmed it?

Dave

[BenBurch]

How do you know that Hanjour intended to clip lamposts and hit the first floor? How do we know that he wasn't aiming for the center courtyard and just missed badly?

That is in fact the hole in the "expert pilot" argument. We have no idea of the pilot's intended aim point whatsoever, so we have no way to evaluate how much skill was involved in hitting as and where he did.

[BenBurch]

My ex worked at GTE Airfone as a VAX computer operator and occasionally in their customer assistance center. She knew the woman who took the "Lets Roll" phone call. It happened.

Next idiotic claim?

[apathoid]

And I'd like to repeat an earlier question: if the autopilot could have done this, why couldn't Hani Hanjour have programmed it?

Dave


Well, A-Train???

I suppose he'll say that Hani had never been in a cockpit of an airliner and could not have known how to program the autopilot....

Anyhow, it's really not possible for an un-modified 757/767 autopilot to do what was observed, so your question is rendered kinda moot.

[Hellbound]

BenBurch:

Or, more colorfully:

"Even a blind squirrel can find a nut now and then"

"A broken clock is still right twice a day"

It's a classic example of the Sharpshooter fallacy. You take the result, draw a bullseye around it, and then remark about how amazing it was that they hit directly on that bullseye!

Esspecially if you consider that almost any impact location would have "conspiracy logic" behind it somewhere. If it'd hit the ground first and showered a wall with debris, there'd be talk of the "shotgun effect". If it'd hit the roof, they're be talk about how skilled he was to be able to come down on top of the builidng. If he'd gone into an inner ring, etc, etc, etc. I especially like the contradictory logic involved:

Rational person (RP): So if they had inside information, why did they hit the reinforced section instead of a weaker part of the building?
Troother (LT): They didn't want to kill too many military people! Part of the cunspearisy!
<Later>
LT: Isn't it amazing how he hit precisely on the first floor to maximize damage? IT must have been guided in!
RP: Wait, weren't they trying to minimize damage?
LT: Of course not!
RP: Then, why didn't they hit an unreinforced section?
LT: They couldn't approach from those sides! They didn't have an avenue!
RP: Ah. So, um, why didn't they schedule the OTHER side of the Pentagon to be reinforced first, and leave this one for later?
LT: CONPSIRACY!!!!111!!!!one!!!eleven thousand, eleven hundred and eleven!!!

[CurtC]

I especially am amused by their logic of how it had to be a conspiracy since he hit on the newly reinforced side, as if that was desirable somehow.

But they're overlooking the big fact that he was coming from the west, and he hit the Pentagon on the west side! Why do you need a conspiracy to explain that?

[A-Train]

Well, A-Train???

I suppose he'll say that Hani had never been in a cockpit of an airliner and could not have known how to program the autopilot....

Anyhow, it's really not possible for an un-modified 757/767 autopilot to do what was observed, so your question is rendered kinda moot.

Now we're getting somewhere. It is perfectly plausible that the hijackers programmed the plane to fly that particular maneuver-- either by autopilot, or remote naviagation.

The question is, who were these hijackers? If it was Hani, why did he bother with the ridiculous farce of going through those flying lessons, and making a fool of himself trying to fly a Cessna, if he knew he wasn't going to actually fly the plane? Makes a lot more sense if Hani was a patsy, bribed or otherwise manipulated into enrolling in flight school, so the gullible American public would buy into the al-Qaeda nonsense.

The real hijackers probably didn't know how to fly, but were highly skilled and trained for the specific job of rigging the 757 cockpit for auto/remote flight.

As for your idea that the plane's own autopilot couldn't have done this maneuver, apathoid, I think you're once again guilty of not thinking outside the box. Anyway, your claim is contradicted by at least one researcher:

The influence of ground effect may have required the plane to adjust its attitude in order to maintain a course toward the Pentagon's first floor. Since lift is proportional to angle of attack up to the critical angle of attack (at which the wing stalls), compensating for the increased lift due to ground effect is simply a matter of adjusting the pitch downward to cancel out the increased lift. Although the adjustments required to maintain the shallow angle of descent may have challenged a human pilot, they would seem an easy task for a 757's autopilot, with its ability to read instruments and adjust control surfaces accordingly with great speed and accuracy.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

[Firestone]

...

As for your idea that the plane's own autopilot couldn't have done this maneuver, apathoid, I think you're once again guilty of not thinking outside the box. Anyway, your claim is contradicted by at least one researcher:The influence of ground effect may have required the plane to adjust its attitude in order to maintain a course toward the Pentagon's first floor. Since lift is proportional to angle of attack up to the critical angle of attack (at which the wing stalls), compensating for the increased lift due to ground effect is simply a matter of adjusting the pitch downward to cancel out the increased lift. Although the adjustments required to maintain the shallow angle of descent may have challenged a human pilot, they would seem an easy task for a 757's autopilot, with its ability to read instruments and adjust control surfaces accordingly with great speed and accuracy.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essa...gon/index.htmlThat "researcher" happens to be Jim Hoffman, an engineer all right, but a software engineer. :rolleyes:

His opinion that "they would seem an easy task for a 757's autopilot" is worth as much as mine (ie nothing), and much less than that of people like apathoid who actually know what they are talking about.
Maybe you should try to find real experts about this issue.

ETA: of course I won't address anymore your phantasy about the "Israeli parachutists", which has been shown to be without merit (and without a shred of evidence) months ago.

[BenBurch]

Now we're getting somewhere. It is perfectly plausible that the hijackers programmed the plane to fly that particular maneuver-- either by autopilot, or remote naviagation.

Ummm... The autopilot on the 767 has not got the capability you describe.

[apathoid]

Now we're getting somewhere. It is perfectly plausible that the hijackers programmed the plane to fly that particular maneuver-- either by autopilot, or remote naviagation.

The question is, who were these hijackers? If it was Hani, why did he bother with the ridiculous farce of going through those flying lessons, and making a fool of himself trying to fly a Cessna, if he knew he wasn't going to actually fly the plane? Makes a lot more sense if Hani was a patsy, bribed or otherwise manipulated into enrolling in flight school, so the gullible American public would buy into the al-Qaeda nonsense.

The real hijackers probably didn't know how to fly, but were highly skilled and trained for the specific job of rigging the 757 cockpit for auto/remote flight.



Actually, the hijackers used the autopilot enroute and flew the attack run by hand. Why? Because they probably researched the matter and found out that the autopilot couldn't do what they wanted(OTOH, if the goal was crashing into JFKs 22L at 500 mph, that probably could've been achieved by the APR mode). Please go into detail about how these imaginary hijackers of yours "rigged the cockpit". What did they rig? It's perfectly OK to admit that you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about...


As for your idea that the plane's own autopilot couldn't have done this maneuver, apathoid, I think you're once again guilty of not thinking outside the box. Anyway, your claim is contradicted by at least one researcher:


I'm thinking outside the box and I can't see it. What am I missing? Am I wrong in saying that an LNAV/VNAV approach wouldn't work because of the IRS' inherent inaccuracy? Did UA and AA have JPALS MMRs installed on the 9/11 aircraft? Did they have GPS?

Am I wrong in saying that the max bank angle commanded by the autopilot computer for all lateral modes in 30 degrees? Am I wrong to say that the max turn rate in all lateral modes is 1.5 degrees/second? Am I wrong in saying that at 465 kts, VNAV would've suffered an overspeed disconnect?

What mode did they use, A-Train? How did they program it?

[Jonnyclueless]

Ummm... The autopilot on the 767 has not got the capability you describe.


Sure it does. It's one of those inflatable auto-pilots like in the movie Airplane.

[Reheat]

What mode did they use, A-Train? How did they program it?

apathoid, you're wasting you time with this idiot. He has no clue of what he's talking about. None at all. He's just throwing **** against the wall in hope's that something sticks.

[Jonnyclueless]

Plus 767s didn't have fly by wire either but that doesn't stop A-Train from claiming it's plausible that they were flown remotely.

[BenBurch]

Sure it does. It's one of those inflatable auto-pilots like in the movie Airplane.

Are you sure that isn't A-Train's girlfriend?

[apathoid]

Sure it does. It's one of those inflatable auto-pilots like in the movie Airplane.


Doh! I forgot about the Ottos. And to think I replaced an inflation bottle on one just last week!

http://www.hollywoodblog.globolog.com.br/airplane2.jpg

I stand corrected. :D

[Dave Rogers]

apathoid, you're wasting you time with this idiot. He has no clue of what he's talking about. None at all. He's just throwing **** against the wall in hope's that something sticks.

Actually, it's more like making throwing motions towards the wall in the hope that his hand will miraculously turn out to have some *** in it.

Dave

[Reheat]

Actually, it's more like making throwing motions towards the wall in the hope that his hand will miraculously turn out to have some *** in it.

Dave

Nah, you can rest assured that his hand does have **** in it because the source of his fantasy can only come from one location.

[CurtC]

Actually, the hijackers used the autopilot enroute and flew the attack run by hand. Why? Because they probably researched the matter and found out that the autopilot couldn't do what they wanted

I've seen the flight data from 77 after the hijacking, and it's easy to tell at a glance where the autopilot was used, and where Hani took over. There were long sections where the altitude and bank angle were nice and steady, followed by altitude oscillations and sloppy banks, and an instantaneous change from one to the other. I'll let you figure out which was Hani and which was the autopilot (Otto).

Which leads to my next point: even if the 767 had an autopilot capable of hitting the Pentagon, wouldn't you expect it to be a fairly steady approach? The data we have indicates a crappy pilot. The descent rate was a mess, the bank angle was a mess. Or did they program the autopilot with all those details, in order to fool us?

[apathoid]

I've seen the flight data from 77 after the hijacking, and it's easy to tell at a glance where the autopilot was used, and where Hani took over. There were long sections where the altitude and bank angle were nice and steady, followed by altitude oscillations and sloppy banks, and an instantaneous change from one to the other. I'll let you figure out which was Hani and which was the autopilot (Otto).

Which leads to my next point: even if the 767 had an autopilot capable of hitting the Pentagon, wouldn't you expect it to be a fairly steady approach? The data we have indicates a crappy pilot. The descent rate was a mess, the bank angle was a mess. Or did they program the autopilot with all those details, in order to fool us?


If I was planning it, I would have certainly wanted the approaches to look as amateurish as possible. One way to do that would be to load many, many waypoints into the FMS flightplan in order to keep the plane turning/climbing/decending all over the place. The problem is, it would still be fairly smooth looking. Nice smooth, coordinated turns and gentle climbs and descents. Even if the many waypoints kept the airplane turning and descending, they'd still have to meet the rather vanilla autopilot performance criteria, and if the autopilot couldn't turn, climb, or descend fast enough to meet the next waypoint - the navigation mode would disconnect and revert to heading select and Vertical Speed select or altitude hold. And of course, they'd have to keep the speed down to prevent an overspeed disconnect, which would also cause the autopilot to revert to the basic modes...

In order for the autopilot to do what the data and visual evidence indicates, it would take some modification(s).

[funk de fino]

Now we're getting somewhere. It is perfectly plausible that the hijackers programmed the plane to fly that particular maneuver-- either by autopilot, or remote naviagation.

The question is, who were these hijackers? If it was Hani, why did he bother with the ridiculous farce of going through those flying lessons, and making a fool of himself trying to fly a Cessna, if he knew he wasn't going to actually fly the plane? Makes a lot more sense if Hani was a patsy, bribed or otherwise manipulated into enrolling in flight school, so the gullible American public would buy into the al-Qaeda nonsense.

The real hijackers probably didn't know how to fly, but were highly skilled and trained for the specific job of rigging the 757 cockpit for auto/remote flight.

As for your idea that the plane's own autopilot couldn't have done this maneuver, apathoid, I think you're once again guilty of not thinking outside the box. Anyway, your claim is contradicted by at least one researcher:

please stop it with the ludicrous and quite frankly pathetic claims

you really have no idea, and neither does hoffman going by that link

your fantasy hijackers could not rig the cockpit for auto/remote flight and the autopilot could not do these manouvers

you are in fantasy land, you need to snap out of it

why do you insist on ignoring the experts on here? what reason would all of them, including me, have for rubbishing your claims if they were true?

what is your expertise because it is plainly not aircraft?

[Corsair 115]

...LNAV/VNAV approach... IRS' inherent inaccuracy... JPALS MMRs... max bank angle... all lateral modes in 30 degrees... max turn rate in all lateral modes is 1.5 degrees/second... at 465 kts, VNAV would've suffered an overspeed disconnect?
...altitude oscillations and sloppy banks...
...FMS flightplan... coordinated turns... navigation mode would disconnect and revert to heading select and Vertical Speed select or altitude hold... overspeed disconnect... I suspect you're going to have to explain to A-Train just what all those technical terms mean.

[apathoid]

I suspect you're going to have to explain to A-Train just what all those technical terms mean.


I did pull a bit of a JohnDoeX there, didn't I? ;)

He can google....

[PhantomWolf]

Which leads to my next point: even if the 767 had an autopilot capable of hitting the Pentagon

757

[LashL]

He can google....


Indeed, "googling" seems to be the beginning and end of his/her talents, much like that of the vast majority of twoofers.

[PhantomWolf]

Indeed, "googling" seems to be the beginning and end of his/her talents, much like that of the vast majority of twoofers.

That is highly unfair and a total harsh understatement of the Twoofers talent. They can also use YouTube I'll have you know.

[AMTMAN]

Since TC329 decided to post PfT propoganda I thought it appropriate to bring up this blast from the past.

So here it goes TC329, and Swing Dangler or any other PfT followers. It's been six months since Rob said he was looking into "conflicts" regarding air phones on Flight 77. Don't you think six months is long enough?

< http://www.news.com/Airline-grounds-in-flight-phone-service/2100-1033_3-831093.html >

< http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=airphonedeactivationplatg1.jpg >