Going Down

[Gravy]

Here's a brief video rebuttal to the boneheads who claim that airliners can't fly fast and low. The people who say that about flight 77 are missing the point anyway: that plane descended and crashed, which any plane can do, and it was only at an altitude where ground effect would come into play for a second or two. Even if ground effect had paranormal pillowy powers, flight 77 still would have hit the Pentagon. So why did I bother making this? Because I like planes. Beachnut should get a kick out of the first one.

-2787482791697822411&hl=en

[Plantfoam]

Excellent compilation, Gravy:)

Yeah, there is such a thing s ground effect, but its effect on an airliner going over 500mph is virtually non-existent, especially when you look at what the real forces involved were.

[Mancman]

How long did it take to produce all that CGI?

[Undesired Walrus]

Lovely.

[Bell]

Just freaking awesome!

ETA: You do realise this video proves AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Non of the planes in it crashes. Tada!

[Undesired Walrus]

You have wonderful music taste Mark.

[Quad4_72]

There are some pretty cool fly bys in there. The last one is insane. As mancman said though it must have taken forever to digitally put all those planes in those videos. Nice work though getting everyone on lunch break from NWO HQ out there to be "witnesses". I assume you gave out free beverages as incentives?

[timhau]

It proves nothing! There isn't a single American or United Airlines plane in there! Strawman! Occam's Razor!

Excellent. And with a Freddie King soundtrack, no less.

[Furi]

Some Very nice fly-bys there, that A310 is wunnerful, having had the pleasure of working at Heathrow (and living a gnats chuff away from the Perimeter fence) I have witnessed a couple of Go arounds by 310s 767s and even the odd 747 which is a little off putting to say the least.

I also used to spend a Lot of time in North Wales, never ever go climbing while some maniac RAF/Navy pilot practises NOE flying in a Harrier or Tornado, never mind scaring the Sheep it made me make currants.

[CHF]

Great job, Gravy!

Although I assure you that if any of those planes had gone a couple inches lower the ground effect would have tossed them skyward. :rolleyes:

[Skeptic Guy]

After my disappointment in the disconnect between the thread's title and my expectations of the content, this is awesome. I have never seen jet airliners fly that low, nor do I ever hope to have first-hand knowledge.

Great work.

[cyclonic]

great video, i have a fondness for spitfires, this video left me speechless!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf3UtmHLKUU

cheers.

[Swing Dangler]

Great video! You just proved that fly-by's at air shows are near take off and landing speeds not at 530 mphs.
Certainly low in altitude, but can you make another video with the plane a few feet off the deck traveling at 530 mph? Now that would be some work!

[CHF]

Great video! You just proved that fly-by's at air shows are near take off and landing speeds not at 530 mphs.
Certainly low in altitude, but can you make another video with the plane a few feet off the deck traveling at 530 mph? Now that would be some work!

For how long did Flight 77 fly "a few feet off the deck?"

[cyclonic]

Great video! You just proved that fly-by's at air shows are near take off and landing speeds not at 530 mphs.
Certainly low in altitude, but can you make another video with the plane a few feet off the deck traveling at 530 mph? Now that would be some work!

the tap airbus was doing 700 kph/434 mph.

[CHF]

I'd like to issue a challenge to the 9/11 truthers.

Step 1) In order to test the ground effect theory, a few truthers should get their 757 pilots' license.

2) Rent a 757.

3) Pack that 757 with truthers (Dylan, Jason, the Jones' brothers, Fetzer, Hoffman, Wood, Pilots for truth, AE911 etc)

4) Attempt to fly the 757 into a brick wall in the same way that Flight 77 allegedly was.

If the ground effect is enough to prevent the crash, you'll live; if not, you'll die.

Who's game?

[cyclonic]

I'd like to issue a challenge to the 9/11 truthers.

Step 1) In order to test the ground effect theory, a few truthers should get their 757 pilots' license.

2) Rent a 757.

3) Pack that 757 with truthers (Dylan, Jason, the Jones' brothers, Fetzer, Hoffman, Wood, Pilots for truth, AE911 etc)

4) Attempt to fly the 757 into a brick wall in the same way that Flight 77 allegedly was.

If the ground effect is enough to prevent the crash, you'll live; if not, you'll die.

Who's game?

great idea!

[Par]

[C]an you make another video with the plane a few feet off the deck traveling at 530 mph? Now that would be some work!


Even if he were to make a second such video, presumably you’d simply demand a third.

[Furi]

CHF, I will gladly help them, I can divert some of beer tokens for rental fees.

Twoof for 9/11 Pilots.

If there is one thing I have learned from flight simulators, Crashing is the easy part, I can pretty much guarantee a low CEP as well,

[ref]

What's the conclusion made out of them claiming ground effect? The conclusion is, they claim it's impossible for flight 77 to have hit the Pentagon? Then we come to the questions about DNA, eyewitnesses, debris and damage once again.

Swing, what is the point you are trying to make? Or do you just argue every point out of habit?

[cyclonic]

how about put fetzer in the ring armed with a luggage bag of his choice vs a trained al qaeda terrorist armed with a box cutter ? i would pay to see that!

[Par]

What's the conclusion made out of them claiming ground effect?


Fruther, has anyone in the “Truth Movement” actually presented any evidence to support the ground effect claim, or is Gravy just being terribly sporting and taking on the burden of proof regardless?

[Calcas]

Certainly low in altitude, but can you make another video with the plane a few feet off the deck traveling at 530 mph? Now that would be some work!

Great point. A plane going 530mph just a few feet off the deck would most certainly crash within a second or two.

Oh wait...

What point were you trying to make?

[CurtC]

Great video! You just proved that fly-by's at air shows are near take off and landing speeds not at 530 mphs.
Certainly low in altitude, but can you make another video with the plane a few feet off the deck traveling at 530 mph? Now that would be some work!
Are you still trying to make the argument that planes can't fly very fast and very low? Or that ground effect is stronger at higher speeds? How pathetic.

[Gravy]

Ah, it's a pity that trolls can't get to airports. Better watch out, though, troll: the pilot who flies the fast one here once flew a 707 under the Tagus River Bridge!

Which one of these is much slower than the others? Hmm, such a perplexing question!

6633645978046747811&hl=en

Note that the last one is taken with a wide angle lens. Seriously though, is that landing speed?

[Gravy]

Fruther, has anyone in the “Truth Movement” actually presented any evidence to support the ground effect claim, or is Gravy just being terribly sporting and taking on the burden of proof regardless?For the reasons I listed in the OP, plus many others, ground effect is a completely bogus argument. I just like planes and thought these comparisons would be interesting.

[cyclonic]

Great video! You just proved that fly-by's at air shows are near take off and landing speeds not at 530 mphs.
Certainly low in altitude, but can you make another video with the plane a few feet off the deck traveling at 530 mph? Now that would be some work!

how about this one swing?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JKME4EQDkIU

[Gravy]

how about this one swing?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JKME4EQDkIU


Don't expect an answer from Swing. He's busy discussing other low-flying aircraft at the city council meeting.

zA1hyqA6UTY

[jsiv]

how about this one swing?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JKME4EQDkIU


That's the best you can do?

Didn't you see the ground effect push it straight up into the sky like a rocket towards the end?!

[Hamradioguy]

Interesting to note that in the TAP Airbus fly-by none of the planes parked next to the runway were blown around. Didn't see any spectators getting knocked off their feet either. So what it is- lots of good CGI or maybe low flying planes don't always knock vehicles and people end over end?

BTW, my brother is a senior pilot for United. Perhaps some of the Truthers would want to ask him if it would have been possible for Flight 77 to hit the Pentagon.

[cyclonic]

Don't expect an answer from Swing. He's busy discussing other low-flying aircraft at the city council meeting.

zA1hyqA6UTY

one of the comments from that video:

"they do that **** here in NC. he complained too much about that sports tycoon's buissness, and thats what they did to coax him to shush. the local police department where OJ Simpson lives drops golf balls on his house every night from their heli."

lol.

[cyclonic]

That's the best you can do?

Didn't you see the ground effect push it straight up into the sky like a rocket towards the end?!

thats the "runway effect"

[Kryptos]

This is excellent proof that a Boeing 757 is perfectly capable of flying low to the ground, just like Flight 77 as it crashed into the Pentagon.

Excellent video! Well done!

[cyclonic]

oh well so much for the runway effect :D
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2pK2YXR3BVY

[Calcas]

This is excellent proof that a Boeing 757 is perfectly capable of flying low to the ground, just like Flight 77 as it crashed into the Pentagon.

Excellent video! Well done!


Excellent proof?

Who are you going to believe?

The twoofers or your own lying eyes? (Er, I mean obviously fake video.) :p

[ZENSMACK89]

Did they let any of the spectators or amateur pilots fly the planes at any of the shows? I mean anybody can do it right?

[cyclonic]

This is excellent proof that a Boeing 757 is perfectly capable of flying low to the ground, just like Flight 77 as it crashed into the Pentagon.

Excellent video! Well done!


i was just amazed when "professor" fetzer claimed an aircraft cannot crash at 500mph because of ground effect, on the history channel documentary he looked very uncomfortable and didn't seem to like what he was saying,i would like to know what his motives are, i doubt he believes any of his claims.

[DGM]

Did they let any of the spectators or amateur pilots fly the planes at any of the shows? I mean anybody can do it right?
No they decided to land these planes. Hey you know what, if you were behind the controls I bet you too could crash.

[Dave Rogers]

Did they let any of the spectators or amateur pilots fly the planes at any of the shows? I mean anybody can do it right?

What, every spectator at an airshow has 200+ hours of simulator time? No wonder I've never been to one, they'd probably check my logbook at the gate and wouldn't let me in.

Dave

[Arus808]

there goes zen, ignoring the fact that the hijackers had commercial pilots licenses.

[uk_dave]

Did they let any of the spectators or amateur pilots fly the planes at any of the shows? I mean anybody can do it right?

You mean like amateur investigators?

[beachnut]

Great video! You just proved that fly-by's at air shows are near take off and landing speeds not at 530 mphs.
Certainly low in altitude, but can you make another video with the plane a few feet off the deck traveling at 530 mph? Now that would be some work!
OH swing, I fly the first aircraft, albeit with old weak engine, and it was so easy to over speed the damn thing even with my old J57 engines; that plane was at the max speed he was allowed to go, and believe me, he could have done the same pass as fast as the terrorist, but when you bring your plane back with skin missing the guys who repair it are upset.

No Swing, I accidentally when too fast real low one day, and over reacted and caught my copilots hand in the throttle quadrant ant; as I slapped back the throttles to slow down, so we would not catch the SR-71 who was in front of us.

The first Plane was few feet off the deck as was the second. You have lost this one, and if you support 9/11 truth conclusions, you will loose them all.

BTW swing, the only plane near the deck in a flying attitude was flight 77 and his final pitch angle was 4 to 6 degrees, that is a steep landing attitude that would never get you past your check ride if you are an airline pilot. Sorry, there were no level next to the ground flights on 9/11, you have fallen for the fisheye lens stupid group of 9/11 dolts who say ground effect is a factor; WRONG. But you go get some pilots who agree with you, and I can beat you 1000 to 1 easy, and it is at over 1,000,000 to 1 in the world against your ground effect idea only held by some fringe nut case 9/11 truth people who do not have enough knowledge to understand flying.

You must be joking; if not your ideas on this one are a joke.

[Calcas]

Did they let any of the spectators or amateur pilots fly the planes at any of the shows? I mean anybody can do it right?

Pay attention Zen.

This thread obviously addresses the claim that "ground effect" would make the flight of AA77 near the Pentagon impossible.

If you want to address a completely different point (surprise surprise!) claiming that "amateur pilots" couldn't have pulled it off then you're welcome to start another thread. I'm sure no one here has ever heard, or addressed, that claim before.

[beachnut]

Did they let any of the spectators or amateur pilots fly the planes at any of the shows? I mean anybody can do it right?
Well Zen, I am glad you asked this question. I have let total never flown people fly a real big plane, and they did better than the terrorists. If you notice the terrorist flying 77 did the worst turn around 360 degree turn. His bank varied, his pitch varied, not one thing was under control. Oh, believe me a plane flown like 77 looks fine on the outside, but if Hani was on a check ride, he would be graded low, graded as if he was someone who never flew. He sucks. That being said, it looked okay to you, a rank flying amateur, you thought it was done by a professional or something but you missed it, his flying was crap. Next time ask a pilot, I will tell you.

Hani's pitch in the final minutes ranged from 4 degrees to 6 degrees or worse; I know pilots who could have set a pitch and held it right to the runway target (real pilots do not crash into building, real pilots can hit a target the size of a dime; Hani needed the largest office building in the WORLD; the same goes for his idiot friends on 11 and 175). Hani's bank angle was always moving around, his aim was always being worked on. But any kid off the street Could hit the Pentagon without training, you must be one of those who can not chew gum and walk if you think someone can not fly a modern jet into a building. Anyone can.

I have a big plane, like the first one, and I have taken virtual amateurs at 145 knots, and 550 knots and .9 MACH, and they flew like experts. Do not tell anyone flying is easy, those guys up front are almost asleep, straight and level flying is too easy. It is so easy even I passed flying high performance supersonic jet aircraft training. And I am just a poor boy from GA. Zen, you could be a pilot.
Zen, your ideas on this are amateur.

[Mancman]

Did they let any of the spectators or amateur pilots fly the planes at any of the shows? I mean anybody can do it right?

What a good point. An inexperienced pilot would certainly crash the plane if flying at that altitude.

Oh. Wait.

[BenBurch]

Thanks, Gravy!

[BenBurch]

I probably shouldn't admit this, but I have flown that approach in simulators a number of times! It's not really hard after the first time or two...

My formal flight training was 35 years ago in an Aeronca Champion when I was ten. (My Dad was a flight instructor.)

So, do I qualify as an amateur?

[beachnut]

Here's a brief video rebuttal to the boneheads who claim that airliners can't fly fast and low. The people who say that about flight 77 are missing the point anyway: that plane descended and crashed, which any plane can do, and it was only at an altitude where ground effect would come into play for a second or two. Even if ground effect had paranormal pillowy powers, flight 77 still would have hit the Pentagon. So why did I bother making this? Because I like planes. Beachnut should get a kick out of the first one.

-2787482791697822411&hl=en
Outstanding. reheat has been down lower and faster, and if not, his fellow 111 guys have.

But that one airliner, was almost able to pick up a ribbon, he was only 10 feet or less. A few of those planes were at or slightly over their max airspeed for being low. But 355 knots is kind of fast. Good job, thanks for sharing this flying stuff.

Poor boneheads will never be able to do this, they know it is impossible. When you fly low, you need to remember what you are flying, and how much lower the engines are than you are sitting at the top of the 300,000 pound tricycle.

[In My Spare Time]

[slight derail, sorry]Did anyone else notice how hard it was to see the windows on the planes in these flybys on internet quality video until they were right in front of the camera? Did the NWO only manage to fake the windows on these obviously non-planes for a couple of frames? Or is that particular part of the CT out of date?[/slight derail, sorry]

[Sword_Of_Truth]

there goes zen, ignoring the fact that the hijackers had commercial pilots licenses.

there goes zen, ignoring the fact that the hijackers crashed at the end of thier flights anyway.

[Jonnyclueless]

The difference between the experts and novices is that the experts can do this without crashing. If one is trying to crash, one need not be an expert.

[ZENSMACK89]

Yeah sure that's all they had to do. Crash the plane. They didn't need to change or turnoff transponders, turn the plane around, navigate, change altitude, fly at breakneck speeds, nothing like that. What they did is exactly the same as flying around an airfield a couple of times and crashing into no particular target. Right?

Oh and that guy who crashed into the pentagon?

Wouldn't this be him?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B 63

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

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

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

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

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

[DGM]

Yeah sure that's all they had to do. Crash the plane. They didn't need to change or turnoff transponders, turn the plane around, navigate, change altitude, fly at breakneck speeds, nothing like that. What they did is exactly the same as flying around an airfield a couple of times and crashing into no particular target. Right?

Oh and that guy who crashed into the pentagon?

Wouldn't this be him?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B 63

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

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

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

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

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''
Don't forget he had to keep the plane in the air also. I can't figure how he did that, that plane weighed almost 100 ton.:rolleyes:

[brodski]

Yeah yeah, so experinced pilots can fly fast and low, but if a buch of inexperinced pilots lvign in caves tried it they'ed end up crasing! LOL Debukned!!1onE!! ... oh... wait...

[ihaunter]

[slight derail, sorry]Did anyone else notice how hard it was to see the windows on the planes in these flybys on internet quality video until they were right in front of the camera? Did the NWO only manage to fake the windows on these obviously non-planes for a couple of frames? Or is that particular part of the CT out of date?[/slight derail, sorry]

Yeah, I was thinking that this was also a good video for anyone complaining about discrepancies in eyewitness descriptions of the planes. Shows that there wasn't a lot of time to get a good detailed look at a fast moving, low flying plane.

[Hokulele]

Zen, what is your experience with flight-training or the use of flight-simulators? I have had the chance to fly a 727 in a flight-school simulator (not just a PC software program), and I can assure you that everything you listed (turn off transponder, turn, fly at high speed, etc.) is very easy. Heck, I managed to land the damn thing on the first try. Unless you have actual experience with what is or is not required to fly a commercial aircraft, all you have left is one giant argument from incredulity.

[Tbone]

Yeah sure that's all they had to do. Crash the plane. They didn't need to change or turnoff transponders, turn the plane around, navigate, change altitude, fly at breakneck speeds, nothing like that. What they did is exactly the same as flying around an airfield a couple of times and crashing into no particular target. Right?

Oh and that guy who crashed into the pentagon?

Wouldn't this be him?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B 63

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

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

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

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

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

Try to concentrate on the topic at hand. That would be the ground effect on fast-moving, low-flying airplanes, in case you forgot.

[Corsair 115]

No they decided to land these planes. Hey you know what, if you were behind the controls I bet you too could crash.Hmmm, I don't know, I don't think Zen has the skills to crash a jet...

I probably shouldn't admit this, but I have flown that approach in simulators a number of times! It's not really hard after the first time or two...

My formal flight training was 35 years ago in an Aeronca Champion when I was ten. (My Dad was a flight instructor.)Similar story here. For my 16th birthday (many moons ago) my dad got me time in a honest-to-goodness 737 simulator. Got to do some approaches and landings... and I got it on the ground each time. I even matched the proper glide slope fairly well (I was flying in by eye, no ILS).

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen, what is your experience with flight-training or the use of flight-simulators? I have had the chance to fly a 727 in a flight-school simulator (not just a PC software program), and I can assure you that everything you listed (turn off transponder, turn, fly at high speed, etc.) is very easy. Heck, I managed to land the damn thing on the first try. Unless you have actual experience with what is or is not required to fly a commercial aircraft, all you have left is one giant argument from incredulity.
I flew a kite once. Does that count? But then again I'm not the only one questioning the hijacker skills. Some of the people from the schools where the hijackers received their training apparently found it hard to believe also.

[Corsair 115]

Yeah sure that's all they had to do. Crash the plane. Task difficulty rating: Easy.

(They are a myriad of ways to crash. Stall too close to the ground, stall and enter a spin, misjudge a landing approach, engine failure at a critical point, fly deliberately into the ground, etc.)

They didn't need to change or turnoff transponders... Task difficulty rating: Easy.

(All you need to do is know where the switch is located).

...turn the plane around... Task difficulty rating: Easy.

(All you need to do to turn is bank the wings a little and the aircraft will turn. If you want a co-ordinated turn you use some rudder. If you want a hard turn, use a lot of bank and pull back on the stick.)

...navigate... Task difficulty rating: Medium.

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

...change altitude...Task difficulty rating: Easy.

(To descend, just reduce power. The aircraft will slowly descend. If you want a faster descent, keep the power up and lower the nose a little. You'll descend plenty. Climbing, just pull back on the stick and you'll climb — just don't pull back on the stick too much or you'll stall.)

fly at breakneck speeds... Task difficulty rating: Medium.

(Getting up to a high speed is easy — just push the throttles to maximum and the aircraft will accelerate. If you want to build up speed even more quicky, pitch the nose downwards. Operating at a high speed is slightly more difficult, as you need to be aware of how the aircraft will react to such higher speeds. But it is not more than medium difficulty. Just be gentle on the controls at high speed and you should be fine.)

[qarnos]

Task difficulty rating: Medium.

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

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

It's a pretty conspicuous building.

[CHF]

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

What exactly do these fools think knocked down the light poles?

[Hokulele]

I flew a kite once. Does that count? But then again I'm not the only one questioning the hijacker skills. Some of the people from the schools where the hijackers received their training apparently found it hard to believe also.


More argument from incredulity.

[Bell]

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

What exactly do these fools think knocked down the light poles?

Tomahawk missile the ones on the left of me
A-3 Skywarrior Jet the ones on the right
here I am
stuck in the middle with you

[ZENSMACK89]

Yes it's been well established here at JREF that most of you are self proclaimed over achievers who find just about anything and everything simple and easy to accomplish. lol

[uk_dave]

I flew a kite once. Does that count? But then again I'm not the only one questioning the hijacker skills. Some of the people from the schools where the hijackers received their training apparently found it hard to believe also.

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

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

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

[uk_dave]

Yes it's been well established here at JREF that most of you are self proclaimed over achievers who find just about anything and everything simple and easy to accomplish. lol

Are you feeling inadequate? lol

[beachnut]

I flew a kite once. Does that count? But then again I'm not the only one questioning the hijacker skills. Some of the people from the schools where the hijackers received their training apparently found it hard to believe also.
WRONG, the instructors actually said they would have no problem doing the flying done on 9/11. Your statement is the result of shallow research. Please try harder next time.

[CHF]

Yes it's been well established here at JREF that most of you are self proclaimed over achievers who find just about anything and everything simple and easy to accomplish. lol

Zen, what knocked down those light poles?

[Hokulele]

Yes it's been well established here at JREF that most of you are self proclaimed over achievers who find just about anything and everything simple and easy to accomplish. lol


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

I am not suggesting that being a commercial airline pilot is easy (landings that don't make people puke are difficult and do require lots of practice), but that the maneuvers performed by the pilots are easy, as Corsair_115 has already summarized. ETA: And beachnut confirms as well.

[tsig]

Did they let any of the spectators or amateur pilots fly the planes at any of the shows? I mean anybody can do it right?

sure

[jaydeehess]

Yes it's been well established here at JREF that most of you are self proclaimed over achievers who find just about anything and everything simple and easy to accomplish. lol

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

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

I'd address navigation but this thread does not concern navigation. I suggest you read the threads in which that was a topic.

[Bell]

Zen, what knocked down those light poles?



Read the OP. This thread is not about what knocked down the lightpoles.
If you want to discuss that, start your own thread. :teacher:

[BenBurch]

WRONG, the instructors actually said they would have no problem doing the flying done on 9/11. Your statement is the result of shallow research. Please try harder next time.

The problem is that when you quote sources cherry-picked to prove a point you will tend to be able to prove that point...

[tsig]

Yeah sure that's all they had to do. Crash the plane. They didn't need to change or turnoff transponders, turn the plane around, navigate, change altitude, fly at breakneck speeds, nothing like that. What they did is exactly the same as flying around an airfield a couple of times and crashing into no particular target. Right?

Oh and that guy who crashed into the pentagon?

Wouldn't this be him?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B 63

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

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

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

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

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

That's why he took a plane with him.

[qarnos]

That's why he took a plane with him.

Oh, the Pith! It hurts!

Nominated. :D

[peteweaver]

Great backing music on your vid Gravy :-)

Incidentally what software did you use to edit it ?

[tsig]

Yes it's been well established here at JREF that most of you are self proclaimed over achievers who find just about anything and everything simple and easy to accomplish. lol

Except understanding your tortured prose.

Will no one think of the language!

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler
Great video! You just proved that fly-by's at air shows are near take off and landing speeds not at 530 mphs.
Certainly low in altitude, but can you make another video with the plane a few feet off the deck traveling at 530 mph? Now that would be some work! the tap airbus was doing 700 kph/434 mph.

I should be noted that the pilot of the Airbus also had a restriction on him that was self imposed. He wished to live beyond the time of that fly-by.

[apathoid]

Yes it's been well established here at JREF that most of you are self proclaimed over achievers who find just about anything and everything simple and easy to accomplish. lol



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

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

[rwguinn]

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

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

I'd address navigation but this thread does not concern navigation. I suggest you read the threads in which that was a topic.
even less complex.
The airplane is going to come down. Really. It WILL come down. Honestly. Every time. You have to do nothing at all, and it will come down.
To crash it where you want, all you have to do is find the place, and keep it in exactly the same spot on the windshield all the way to the ground, or till you hit something between you and your chosen spot.
At full engine rpm, its very simple, especially if you don't care about the airplane ever being used again....

[TriskettheKid]

I do apologize, I couldn't resist.

Zen, what knocked down those light poles?

A speeding Pinto!

[DGM]

I don't remember any reference to the flight manual saying;
"To avoid impact with the ground go as fast as you can".:D

[Par]

Just a word of advice:

The point of this thread is that aircraft similar to Flight 77 can indeed fly extremely close the ground at high speeds. The video in the original post shows the conspiracy theorists’ ground effect claim to be false (even if, in light of a lack of any compelling evidence in support of the claim, such a disproof were needed).

ZERNSMACK wants to change the subject. (In this case, from the question of the supposed ground effect to the question for Hanjour’s piloting skills.) His reasons for such a distraction are obvious. Please don’t let him get away with it.

[OldTigerCub]

Great fly-by shots,Gravy!:D
I particularly liked the TAP Airbus 310 comming right past the flightline.
The two at the end, though... A P51 Mustang and an AV8-B Harrier? They went by so fast it was hard to tell.

[apathoid]

Just a word of advice:

The point of this thread is that aircraft similar to Flight 77 can indeed fly extremely close the ground at high speeds. The video in the original post shows the conspiracy theorists’ ground effect claim to be false (even if, in light of a lack of any compelling evidence in support of the claim, such a disproof were needed).

ZERNSMACK wants to change the subject. (In this case, from the question of the supposed ground effect to the question for Hanjour’s piloting skills.) His reasons for such a distraction are obvious. Please don’t let him get away with it.


I agree. When one of the Twoof's precious theories has been completely destroyed, a defense mechanism kicks in and they feel like they have to parrot yet another long debunked piece of related idiocy, until that one gets destroyed, and so on......that's precisely why we have all the "serial numbers weren't matched LOLZ 1!!1!!111" people. Because they simply have nothing else.

The changing of the subject is quite telling, but still I'd bet that Zensmack cannot even admit that the ground effect theory is bogus. Watch.

Hey Zensmack: Do you still think ground effect kept flight 77 from striking the light poles and the Pentagon?

[ZENSMACK89]

I agree. When one of the Twoof's precious theories has been completely destroyed, a defense mechanism kicks in and they feel like they have to parrot yet another long debunked piece of related idiocy, until that one gets destroyed, and so on......that's precisely why we have all the "serial numbers weren't matched LOLZ 1!!1!!111" people. Because they simply have nothing else.

The changing of the subject is quite telling, but still I'd bet that Zensmack cannot even admit that the ground effect theory is bogus. Watch.

Hey Zensmack: Do you still think ground effect kept flight 77 from striking the light poles and the Pentagon?
Who said flight 77 hit the Pentagon? lol

[Monza]

Did they let any of the spectators or amateur pilots fly the planes at any of the shows? I mean anybody can do it right?


There are a lot of pilots and aviation buffs here. How many hours does a pilot need before he can successfully crash? But the hijackers had pilot's licences, didn't they? So I guess it is conceiveable that they had enough hours to learn the skills of crashing. So what is this Zen fellow on about?

[Gravy]

Great backing music on your vid Gravy :-)

Incidentally what software did you use to edit it ?Thanks, pete. Ihave a Mac and used iTunes 3, notoriously the worst video editing program Apple ever made. I wish the titles would stay centered.

Great fly-by shots,Gravy!:D
I particularly liked the TAP Airbus 310 comming right past the flightline.
The two at the end, though... A P51 Mustang and an AV8-B Harrier? They went by so fast it was hard to tell.Thanks, OTC. It's a Spitfire and a Harrier.

[apathoid]

but still I'd bet that Zensmack cannot even admit that the ground effect theory is bogus. Watch.

Hey Zensmack: Do you still think ground effect kept flight 77 from striking the light poles and the Pentagon?
Who said flight 77 hit the Pentagon? lol

See?

[rwguinn]

Who said flight 77 hit the Pentagon? lol

so, why can't aircraft fly fast at low level?

[LashL]

Nice work, Gravy.

Somewhere, I have original video of a fly-by done by an Air Uruguay crew that I flew with for a few months back in the mid 80s. We had done a series of flights from YYZ to (all over hell's half acre and back) and from YHM to (all over hell's half acre and back) and when the series was done and they were heading back to Uruguay, the timing was such that they were departing the day before the annual international airshow was to start at YHM.

As anyone who is involved with large airshows probably knows, the "public" start and the "real" start are two different things. This was the day before the "public" start; the day when nearly all of the flight crews and planes have arrived and they and all of those involved in organizing the show are out at the airport having fun and finalizing things.

(The 'public' start was itself a day before the 'real' start - the 'public' start being the day that politicians and such came out to hang around, make speeches, boring stuff, and still not the actual air show itself, so this was 2 days before the 'real' start.)

Carlos, the Air Uruguay captain, was an ex-military pilot, a true gentleman, a sweet, kind, honourable, strong, friendly man of excellent character, who kind of reminded me of my grandfather in many ways. (Hey, I was in my early 20s at the time). But what an amazing pilot. He had landed us safely in some pretty extreme conditions during the previous months, and had more than earned my respect, and had long since earned my friendship.

Anyway, on the day that they were leaving, the airport was teeming with flight crews from various parts of the world, and other non-pilot aviation buffs like me who had inside access (the best night was always the night before the 'public' start as there was always a big rip roaring party that night), and when Carlos and crew left, we all watched them take off, while waving them farewell.

Well, it turned out that without telling anyone on the ground, they had decided to seek permission from the tower to do a fly by, and the tower gave them the okay.

I happened to be with the airport manager at the time, and the tower radioed him to tell him what was about to happen. I didn't hear the transmission, but Barry turned to me and said, "Let's go," and we jumped in his truck and drove out onto the tarmac. I asked him, "What's going on?" He just said, "Turn on your camera, quick." I'd known Barry for quite some time so I knew it would be good. I jumped out of the truck, turned the camera on, I'm sure I yelled some frantic questions like, "which way? what am I looking for? what the hell? etc." but - I caught the fly by on film.

It was amazing. They flew so low and so fast that I actually ducked instinctively (although obviously, they weren't low enough to actually strike me - it just felt that way).

But the video came out great. It shows them coming in low and fast and steady mere feet above the runway for hundreds and hundreds of feet before jetting upward again and off into the great blue yonder for their flight back to Uruguay. They must have burned a good few thousand bucks worth of fuel on that little gem, and it was worth every penny.

They played my video on the television screens in the airport terminal for hours afterward (Yes, VHS video being played on television screens, it was the mid 80s, remember. :))

Ahhh, memories.

Thanks, Gravy, you just brought back some great ones.

[LashL]

so, why can't aircraft fly fast at low level?

Don't play his game, guys. He won't give you any rational answer. Let him take it up on another thread.

[rwguinn]

Don't play his game, guys. He won't give you any rational answer. Let him take it up on another thread.
Actually, I thought I was trying to get him back on-track...
sorry...

[beachnut]

Who said flight 77 hit the Pentagon? lol
Zen, you, and even I, have derailed a tribute to flight. On 9/11 the terrorist took what Americans have had as a freedom, and used that freedom to kill us aided by the very freedoms we hold as a right.

Zen you are invisible, a non factual poster here at JREF. If you ever had a fact, you lost it.

Gravy added some music to some people celebrating flight, (pure sex) he did good. What can you do?

[LashL]

Actually, I thought I was trying to get him back on-track...
sorry...

You were.
But he won't.
So, it just feeds him and his nonsense further.

(No apologies necessary whatsoever, my friend. The attention seeking tinhatter is well versed in dropping his nonsense all over the place and then running away or changing the subject. But he will never, ever carry on a coherent, on track, rational discussion about anything, so it is best to ignore him in threads like this, because his only purpose is to disrupt them.)

[Gravy]

Cool story, Lash, but I was thinking that YYZ and YHM were Uruguayan airports that you frequented when you were an assistant director for the CSIS Drugs to Ghettos program. Turns out they're the airport codes for Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[LashL]

Cool story, Lash, but I was thinking that YYZ and YHM were Uruguayan airports that you frequented when you were an assistant director for the CSIS Drugs to Ghettos program. Turns out they're the airport codes for Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

CSIS? What CSIS? Never heard of it, I swear! That's my story and I'm sticking to it ;)

Actually, YYZ and YHM were my "safe" bases. They are the only ones that I am permitted to share stories about. The others, scores of them, I am sworn to secrecy about. Well, I could tell you, but then I'd have to engage NWO Kitty's services, and you know the rest. He's going to be plenty peeved enough as it is when he gets out Kitty Jail this week.

Better to save the other stories for the next meeting since we all get the shiny flashy treatment afterwards, so no harm, no foul.

(Besides, we ran they ran I heard that the CSISDTG program was run out of BOG, not MVD.)

[HyJinX]

Cool story, Lash, but I was thinking that YYZ and YHM were Uruguayan airports that you frequented when you were an assistant director for the CSIS Drugs to Ghettos program. Turns out they're the airport codes for Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

YYZ is the best RUSH song ever.....EVER, mister!!!!

[Gravy]

YYZ is the best RUSH song ever.....EVER, mister!!!!Best+Rush+song. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Must be Canadian slang.

[TjW]

Did they let any of the spectators or amateur pilots fly the planes at any of the shows? I mean anybody can do it right?

Is a pilot certificated to fly commercially an amateur?

[HyJinX]

Best+Rush+song. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Must be Canadian slang.

Stop toying with me, Gravy. We all know about Neil Peart's talents. Don't make me take you into citizens' arrest.

[LashL]

YYZ is the best RUSH song ever.....EVER, mister!!!!

It rocked, no question.

I'm not sure that I would agree that it is the best Rush song "ever... EVER," but I would agree that it was the best Rush instrumental song ever... EVER, and in any event, it certainly rocked and I've loved it since the first time I heard it.

As an aside, being a long time Rush fan myself (even before I saw them in concert for the first time back when I was in grade 10), it was more than than passing amusing to me that my daughter went to see them in concert a few weeks ago at the ACC.

Yes, some bands are so good that their longevity is not embarrassing, but rather is to be savoured. Rush is most definitely one of them. Neil is amazing.


Best+Rush+song. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Must be Canadian slang.

Ha! As if.

Here is the Rush instrumental "YYZ" - there are lots of versions, but this one will do nicely.

mXCZvRNgLnI

[Sword_Of_Truth]

YYZ is the best RUSH song ever.....EVER, mister!!!!

Manhattan Project

Distant Early Warning

Marathon

Subdivisions

It's hard to actually pin down a single "best" song from those guys.

[Unfit4Command]

Who said flight 77 hit the Pentagon? lol

Are you a missile theorist, Zen?

Great shots btw, Gravy. I especially liked the last two.

[LashL]

Are you a missile theorist, Zen?

Psst... please don't feed the troll on this thread, U4C. Let him take it up on another thread.

Great shots btw, Gravy. I especially liked the last two.

Terrific, indeed.

[HyJinX]

Manhattan Project

Distant Early Warning

Marathon

Subdivisions

It's hard to actually pin down a single "best" song from those guys.

As a drummer...I feel the need to hurt you. Not badly...but I want to break the skin in some way.

[LashL]

As a drummer...I feel the need to hurt you. Not badly...but I want to break the skin in some way.

Without a doubt, Neil is one of the best drummers in the world ever.. EVER.

(And I don't just say that because I've met and partied with him. I say that quite sincerely because it's absolutely true.)

[Gravy]

Ha! As if.
Here is the Rush instrumental "YYZ" - there are lots of versions, but this one will do nicely.Well, as long as I don't have to hear Geddy Lee's caterwauling. On the high school football team our fullback used to play Rush constantly on the boombox in the locker room. Before a game I finally had enough, popped the tape out, snapped it in half, handed it to him, and said, "If this happens again I never block the linebacker on the 107-M. Is that clear?"

"Yes, sir."

[HyJinX]

Without a doubt, Neil is one of the best drummers in the world ever.. EVER.

(And I don't just say that because I've met and partied with him. I say that quite sincerely because it's absolutely true.)

DRAMA QUEEN!!!


Please understand that I call you that only because I haven't partied with Neil and would find it to be the most incredible moment of my life if I were to have that moment. I'm acting on complete emotion by lashing out and calling you names and will continue to do so until you lie and tell me it never happened...bitch.

[beachnut]

Well, as long as I don't have to hear Geddy Lee's caterwauling. On the high school football team our fullback used to play Rush constantly on the boombox in the locker room. Before a game I finally had enough, popped the tape out, snapped it in half, handed it to him, and said, "If this happens again I never block the linebacker on the 107-M. Is that clear?"

"Yes, sir."
that would be cool to see

but i was seeing stars on saturday (when I played in 9th grade, in the eary afternoon)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

As a drummer...I feel the need to hurt you. Not badly...but I want to break the skin in some way.

Would it satisfy you to know I've spent the last half hour digging through piles of dusty old CD's looking for my copy of "A Show of Hands"?

All because of you. :p

ETA: Would you feel better if I added "The Rythm Method" to that list?

[HyJinX]

Would it satisfy you to know I've spent the last half hour digging through piles of dusty old CD's looking for my copy of "A Show of Hands"?

All because of you. :p

I bow in your need for closure. Indeed, it's satifying.

God bless you.

:)

[LashL]

Well, as long as I don't have to hear Geddy Lee's caterwauling. On the high school football team our fullback used to play Rush constantly on the boombox in the locker room. Before a game I finally had enough, popped the tape out, snapped it in half, handed it to him, and said, "If this happens again I never block the linebacker on the 107-M. Is that clear?"

"Yes, sir."

Well, with the YYZ instrumental, you don't have to hear Geddy Lee's voice, of course. That said, I really like Geddy's voice as well. No, really.

You have to admit that it is unique, almost impossible to imitate, difficult to emulate, and quite intriguing, even if you don't care for it personally. I love his voice for those reasons.

DRAMA QUEEN!!!

Please understand that I call you that only because I haven't partied with Neil and would find it to be the most incredible moment of my life if I were to have that moment. I'm acting on complete emotion by lashing out and calling you names and will continue to do so until you lie and tell me it never happened...bitch.

Neener neener neener. :p Sorry, I can't lie and tell you that it never happened, because it did. But if it makes you feel better, I can tell you that the only reason I had the good fortune of partying with him and the others was because Neil is (well, was now) a cousin to a good friend, so when they were playing in the area, I was invited along for the party. And it was a blast! :D

Does that help?

[HyJinX]

Well, with the YYZ instrumental, you don't have to hear Geddy Lee's voice, of course. That said, I really like Geddy's voice as well. No, really.

You have to admit that it is unique, almost impossible to imitate, difficult to emulate, and quite intriguing, even if you don't care for it personally. I love his voice for those reasons.



Neener neener neener. :p Sorry, I can't lie and tell you that it never happened, because it did. But if it makes you feel better, I can tell you that the only reason I had the good fortune of partying with him and the others was because Neil is (well, was now) a cousin to a good friend, so when they were playing in the area (which they did many times), I was invited along. And it was a blast! :D

Does that help?

No. I hate you. I now have to go cry into my pillow and wish God was better to me.

Lucky bastard.

;)

[LashL]

No. I hate you. I now have to go cry into my pillow and wish God was better to me.

Lucky bastard.

;)

Okay, would it help if I clarified and told you that the last time I partied with them was approximately 15 years ago, and that I haven't partied with them since?

(Hey, I'm trying, here! I don't want you to hate me, so I don't even go into the jam session fun ;) )

[LashL]

Well, as long as I don't have to hear Geddy Lee's caterwauling. On the high school football team our fullback used to play Rush constantly on the boombox in the locker room. Before a game I finally had enough, popped the tape out, snapped it in half, handed it to him, and said, "If this happens again I never block the linebacker on the 107-M. Is that clear?"

"Yes, sir."

If I was a religious sort, which I'm not, I'd say, "SACRILEGE!!! You big meanie!!!!"
Geddy rocks. And is nearly impossible to imitate. I think that's a good thing, all around.

;)

[Furi]

<bounces off the tracks> what is it With the Rush evangalists, yeah they are alright (note, not a muso) but if you want to start a fight in my regular haunt, just state that Rush are adequate and I can't see why you skin thumpers rant on about him so much, Rory Gallagher was an adequate guitarist but there are plenty better, Rik wakeman was crap, Kieth Emerson is god, or AC/DC are over rated Dogs D'amour were far superior.

sit back pinch your nose with finger and thumb, and watch the fur fly through your still partially functioning eye. <Back on Track>

[beachnut]

Here's a brief video rebuttal to the boneheads who claim that airliners can't fly fast and low. The people who say that about flight 77 are missing the point anyway: that plane descended and crashed, which any plane can do, and it was only at an altitude where ground effect would come into play for a second or two. Even if ground effect had paranormal pillowy powers, flight 77 still would have hit the Pentagon. So why did I bother making this? Because I like planes. Beachnut should get a kick out of the first one.

-2787482791697822411&hl=en
So, can we see the Rockets with a Gravy tour in December 22 to Jan 4?

Good video.

[portlandatheist]

This is my first youtube link so I hope it works:
Ua3hZXfNZOE
YYZ Guitar Hero

[portlandatheist]

I've found these ground effect threads very entertaining. I'm an experienced paraglider pilot but have also flown sail planes and hang gliders and can say that ground effect is very noticeable with hang gliders, more than anything else I've flown and doubt that any other aircraft, other than the flying boat, would have a more noticeable ground effect.
This whole thread reminds me of creationist who just latch onto the smallest glimmer of hope on the smallest of details and in the end, just makes them look desperate.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm an experienced paraglider pilot but have also flown sail planes and hang gliders and can say that ground effect is very noticeable with hang gliders, more than anything else I've flown and doubt that any other aircraft, other than the flying boat, would have a more noticeable ground effect.



Have you seen this yet, Portland? (http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2007/october-november/above_and_beyond.php)

[gumboot]

Great video! You just proved that fly-by's at air shows are near take off and landing speeds not at 530 mphs.
Certainly low in altitude, but can you make another video with the plane a few feet off the deck traveling at 530 mph? Now that would be some work!


Take off and landing speed?

:dl:

None of those were at take off or landing speed. The RNZAF 757 was doing 350KT and a number of those aircraft were traveling faster than that.

-Gumboot

[BenBurch]

Take off and landing speed?

:dl:

None of those were at take off or landing speed. The RNZAF 757 was doing 350KT and a number of those aircraft were traveling faster than that.

-Gumboot

Touch the wheels at that speed and you likely no longer have tires!

[peteweaver]

Great fly-by shots,Gravy!:D
I particularly liked the TAP Airbus 310 comming right past the flightline.
The two at the end, though... A P51 Mustang and an AV8-B Harrier? They went by so fast it was hard to tell.

Vickers - Supermarine Spitfire not a P51 mustang ;), and a Harrier GR 9 (the British version of the AV8-B Harrier).

[quixotecoyote]

This is my first youtube link so I hope it works:
Ua3hZXfNZOE
YYZ Guitar Hero
I love people who take Guitar Hero seriously. It makes me smile.

[gumboot]

Nice work, Gravy.

Somewhere, I have original video of a fly-by done by an Air Uruguay crew that I flew with for a few months back in the mid 80s.

[SNIP]

Ahhh, memories.

Thanks, Gravy, you just brought back some great ones.


Inside contacts are fantastic! :D

Being an Air Force brat had its advantages. For all it's pomp and splendour, airshows only give you the tame version of flying. When I was a kid my Dad took me down to the base one day for a special treat. Sitting on the grass beside the flightline, I waited in anticipation, until I heard a familiar hollow sound - like placing a shell against your ear.

Suddenly a dart-shaped enormous black shape appeared over me and the sky erupted with deafening roaring noise, so powerful you could feel it. I watched, 10 years old and stunned as a fighter jet streaked over the airfield in a steep bank, wingtip a matter of feet from the ground. What followed was something they never give you at an airshow - a simulated low level attack on the base, carried out by the RNZAF's A4K Skyhawks.

A few weeks back my upbringing treated me again - getting to clamber all over one of the NZ Army's LAV III's - the most advanced light armoured vehicle in the world. Later that same day I jumped on an RNZAF helicopter and got thrown around the sky.

Makes packing up my life and starting again every few years worth it. :D

-Gumboot

[Hokulele]

I don't know if anyone else saw this film, but our local Public Broadcasting System network showed Most Honorable Son (http://www.pbs.org/mosthonorableson/) fairly recently. The only reason I brought it up in this thread, is they had a section on the B-24 squads training for the raid on the Ploesti oil fields, and there was some neat footage of the low-level passes they were doing as preparation. Pretty hair-raising.

[chillzero]

I love people who take Guitar Hero seriously. It makes me smile.

*polite cough*

I thought we didn't want to derail this thread?

Any more posts probably merit a split to entertainment. ;)

[Gravy]

*polite cough*

I thought we didn't want to derail this thread?

Any more posts probably merit a split to entertainment. ;)Chill, claims of Rush greatness need to be countered wherever they appear. I will never give up that fight. Never!

[Hyperviolet]

Attention Conspiracists.

The rebuttal to that pestering question is here.
What, specifically, does Gravy get wrong?


Here it is!
Before a game I finally had enough, popped the tape out, snapped it in half, handed it to him, and said, "If this happens again I never block the linebacker on the 107-M. Is that clear?"

Why, oh why, Gravy?!

Incidentally, i saw Rush in the Glasgow SECC earlier this month and i can say it was possibly the best gig ever. Subdivisions, Red Barchetta... oh yes.
And they are Canadian, too. Bonus.

[portlandatheist]

Have you seen this yet, Portland? (http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2007/october-november/above_and_beyond.php)



Yes! Here is a similar story (http://www.xcmag.com/Spinner/read/article.cfm?id=464)

[apathoid]

Take off and landing speed?

:dl:

None of those were at take off or landing speed. The RNZAF 757 was doing 350KT and a number of those aircraft were traveling faster than that.

-Gumboot

[Back to the OP]

I had a reply, similar to yours, typed up for SD - but I honestly couldn't properly respond to one of the dumbest statements in forum history. I hope it was simply a case of him not watching the video before commenting.

[busherie]

Is it possible for a plane to have crashed in the pentagon? Obviously.

Still, a guy who had a few hours of flying took a big boeing very precisely in the building, avoiding obstacles, countering the turbulences due to ground proximity.

That pilot surely was the best I've ever seen...

B

[Disbelief]

Is it possible for a plane to have crashed in the pentagon? Obviously.

Still, a guy who had a few hours of flying took a big boeing very precisely in the building, avoiding obstacles, countering the turbulences due to ground proximity.

That pilot surely was the best I've ever seen...

B

So, you witnessed the plane hit the Pentagon? So, we have another witness here for the no-planers.

[Bell]

Is it possible for a plane to have crashed in the pentagon? Obviously.

Still, a guy who had a few hours of flying took a big boeing very precisely in the building, avoiding obstacles, countering the turbulences due to ground proximity.

That pilot surely was the best I've ever seen...

B

How precisely is precisely? We do not know what part of the Pentagon Hani wanted to hit. He could have been aiming for the center court for all we know. And he obvious didn't avoid every obstacle, with knocking over the lightpoles and the generator. Also re. the turbulences, you did not look at the videos posted in this thread at all, did you?

[Jonnyclueless]

Is it possible for a plane to have crashed in the pentagon? Obviously.

Still, a guy who had a few hours of flying took a big boeing very precisely in the building, avoiding obstacles, countering the turbulences due to ground proximity.

That pilot surely was the best I've ever seen...

B

A few houws of flying? The guy has more flying time than many expert pilots. And how many pilots have you seen?

[Dave Rogers]

Still, a guy who had a few hours of flying took a big boeing very precisely in the building, avoiding obstacles, countering the turbulences due to ground proximity.

You really haven't been paying attention, have you? He had over 200 hours of simulator time, he just about managed to hit the biggest office building in the world, saying that his aim was precise is known as the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, he didn't exactly avoid the light poles or the generator he hit on the way in, and the "turbulences due to ground proximity" sit beside pyroclastic dust flows, thermite building demolitions and real-time video compositing on a live feed as baseless inventions of the 9-11 truth movement.

Apart from that, there weren't any errors in that sentence.

Dave

[beachnut]

Is it possible for a plane to have crashed in the pentagon? Obviously.

Still, a guy who had a few hours of flying took a big boeing very precisely in the building, avoiding obstacles, countering the turbulences due to ground proximity.

That pilot surely was the best I've ever seen...

B
As you can see, the expert pilots fly very straight. The flight of 77 was crap. He varied the bank and pitch in a non pilot way. But a non pilot idiot could fly and hit buildings as done on 9/11 with ZERO training. You should research this, many people have put in new pilots in the exact simulators, which are harder to fly than the real plane, and hit buildings the first time.

Turbulence? What time was the impact? You know, on 9/11 was not a big day for turbulence. And the terrorist on 77 came in at high speed and a high angle. Normal landing angles are 2.5 to 3 degrees; 77 came in at 4 to 6 degrees, not level, never at the same precise pitch for more than a second, and his bank angle was floating around like a new pilot who was not interested in flying. It seemed he was only trying to hit the biggest office building around. Bet he could not find the White house, it is too small. You have failed to bring facts, are you unable to find facts on 9/11?

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

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

[Big Les]

Here's a very recent example of a much smaller aircraft at very low level over water. Gravy's compilation is therefore far more relevant, but it's interesting nonetheless. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Blue Angels (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbcDhh3OYVg).

[beachnut]

Kind of low, what was ground effect again? Short on time, bored by flight, but you want to see some 5 foot high speed, just see number one.
byLplPe-_2k
Kind of low.
IUYbklFpUSg
Some low and fast stuff.
ia2OE2Amvj0
I wonder if all these guys are still alive?
Z9Ze_g9y2Es
It is hard to remember a few gs, but I remember those 7.3 g days. (or my 1.5 g days in the KC)
6nTLWIl-Vj0
I have to remember, you can't fly a jet low, it is impossible.

[gumboot]

Is it possible for a plane to have crashed in the pentagon? Obviously.

Still, a guy who had a few hours of flying took a big boeing very precisely in the building, avoiding obstacles, countering the turbulences due to ground proximity.

That pilot surely was the best I've ever seen...

B


Except for having more than a few hours flying, there being nothing precise about the approach and impact, hitting obstacles, and irrelevance of turbulance, you're spot on.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Another good example of low flying can be found on an extended clip of the famous B-52 crash at an airshow. The pilot in question was under review for being a yahoo, and the extended clip shows some footage of him flying at high speed, dangerous close to the ground in a B-52. By close to the ground, I think the clearance was in the vicinity of 30 feet.

The same footage has good examples of large aircraft performing extreme maneuvering.

d7aLEKBlhNk

And it's worth point out that a B-52 is substantially larger than a Boeing 757.

-Gumboot

[Norseman]

Since the B-52 and low level flying was brought up, this article (http://jetbombers.com/chapter6.html) by a former Boeing B-52 test pilot should be of interest. The Boeing B-52 was designed to penetrate Soviet airspace at high altitude. But improvements in Soviet air defence made it necessary to do it at low level. A test program was initiated to find out if the B-52 could handle low level flying at high speed since this was something it was not designed to do. The test program was not without accident, but they found that the B-52 could do it after some fixes.

From the article:
The course was about a thousand miles long. The altitude to be flown was 300ft. above the ground and the speeds were to start at 300kts. And to be gradually increased to 400kts.

The last trip was made at 400kts. We smashed a lot of bugs, scared a lot of cattle, beat up several tail gunners, but we made it.

But as said in this article (http://www.talkingproud.us/HistoryB52NoTail.html) the price would be:
It was estimated that this low-level flying would accelerate structural fatigue by at least a factor of eight, which would require costly repairs to extend service life.

I would expect that Boeing's more modern products shouldn't do any worse than an airframe from the 1950'ies, or?

[Swing Dangler]

Manhattan Project

Distant Early Warning

Marathon

Subdivisions

It's hard to actually pin down a single "best" song from those guys.

OMG, we actually have something in common.

[Unsecured Coins]

but can you make another video with the plane a few feet off the deck traveling at 530 mph? Now that would be some work!


will this do?

MEcXH6zOnDI

[Big Les]

This Phantom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApM_f-jBlP0&mode=related&search=) gets even lower...

Note the total lack of effect from the ground, even the built-up berm that he flies over before pulling up. Smaller than an airliner? Yup. But also a low-wing wide-fuselage design which ought to be subject to the kind of magical GE the truthiness dudes go on about.

All they'd have to do is ask a pilot or an aeronautical engineer. An email to Cranfield (http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/coa/) would have saved them a lot of embarassment.

[Boone 870]

This one seems to be immune to high-speed ground effect.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a3_1192396015

[portlandatheist]

Is there such thing as "cliff effect"?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e73_1192213802&p=1
Busherie,
What type of ground turbulence would you expect? It was an early September morning, probably not much of a lapse rate to cause significant ground turbulence.

[grmcdorman]

Is there such thing as "cliff effect"?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e73_1192213802&p=1
Video's gone: This media item has been removed due to copyright/terms of service violation.

[Big Les]

How about this?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_84524719051f3ef0e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8857)

And in case any lurking CTists think it might have been going slowly, how about this other Omani jet?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_84524719056c7e348.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8858)

That would be a railing embedded in the leading edge.

And finally, use the Force, Luke! (http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Igorsb/1987/)

[Mancman]

Impressive low pass: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a3_1192396015

[beachnut]

Impressive low pass: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a3_1192396015
That is neat. I prefered flying between clouds as if they were rocks, these guys are practicing hiding from a radar and not peeing their pants.

[PhantomWolf]

Who says Kiwi's can't fly. :)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=989_1174264216

[jaydeehess]

Does anyone know of a graphic that illustrates what is occuring in ground effect. Something that illustrates the airflow and how it affects drag and lift.

[Gravy]

Does anyone know of a graphic that illustrates what is occuring in ground effect. Something that illustrates the airflow and how it affects drag and lift.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

[leftysergeant]

How I wish they had had digital photography during WWII. Talked to an old guy over the weekend who showed me a picture of his B-24 with one engine that failed because it picked up a load of straw about ten miles before he reached Ploesti. Now THAT is low and fast with a big aircraft.

[TjW]

How I wish they had had digital photography during WWII. Talked to an old guy over the weekend who showed me a picture of his B-24 with one engine that failed because it picked up a load of straw about ten miles before he reached Ploesti. Now THAT is low and fast with a big aircraft.
I call a straw man argument.

[jaydeehess]

Thanks Gravy, that's the best explanation I have seen Kudos to Jeff Scott

[Slayhamlet]

I call a straw man argument.

What's a straw man argument?

[TjW]

How I wish they had had digital photography during WWII. Talked to an old guy over the weekend who showed me a picture of his B-24 with one engine that failed because it picked up a load of straw about ten miles before he reached Ploesti. Now THAT is low and fast with a big aircraft.

What's a straw man argument?

I have since edited it to give some context.

[Slayhamlet]

I have since edited it to give some context.

Okay, I see. :D

[buka001]

Hasn't got anything to do with ground effect, but more so to do with aircraft capabilities and US response to a hijacking.

The case of the near hijacking of Fed Ex Fl. 705.

A disgruntled employee tried to hijack the DC-10. The pilot put the aircraft into a dive, almost rolled it onto its back, banked at extreme angles, flew it faster than it had been flown before (above Mach 0.8). Yet, it didn't crash. So much for commercial airliners can't do extreme manouvers.

Oh and the ATC were very aware of the situation and they had an attempted hijacking. At one stage they weren't sure if the hijacking was successful. Was an armada of F-16's scrambled? No.

The hijacker has stated his intent to commit suicide with the plane. Reports state that he intended to crash it into Fed Ex Headquaters.

This was all in 1994.

[gumboot]

Who says Kiwi's can't fly. :)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=989_1174264216


We can't fly anymore :(

I heard a story once of 75 Squadron doing Anti-shipping exercises in the Sea of Japan. The Kiwi pilots consistently scored kills because they'd fly on the deck along the troughs in the waves, so low that they were below the horizon until they were literally a a few hundred feet from the ship. Then they'd pop up, "launch", and vanish again.

Assuming that "sea level" is given as the midway point between the trough and crest, part of their aircraft was technically below sea level.

-Gumboot

ETA:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=201_1174847889 :D My favourite aircraft of all time.

[peteweaver]

More low flying aircraft

JKME4EQDkIU

EUY0ut6gOxY

Rg7os63-Qp0

[TriskettheKid]

I didn't get a good look at either of the aircraft in those videos.

The first...was that a Harrier?

The second, was that a MiG-17? MiG-15?

[Reheat]

I didn't get a good look at either of the aircraft in those videos.

The first...was that a Harrier?

The second, was that a MiG-17? MiG-15?

I believe the first one was a Harrier, but I'm not certain. If not, it was a Mirage F-1. The second was a Bae Lightening. The third was an A-10.

[TriskettheKid]

I believe the first one was a Harrier, but I'm not certain. If not, it was a Mirage F-1. The second was a Bae Lightening. The third was an A-10.

Yeah, the third video was a no-brainer.

I grew up just north of Philadelphia, and my house was routinely overflown by aircraft coming from the Naval Air Station Willow Grove. Seeing 2-4 A-10s in the air was a common and almost daily sight.

But I'm not so sure about the first video. The first really did look like a Harrier. The Mirage has a fuselage that's relatively the same size from cockpit to engine nozzles, yet that's not what I saw in the video (admittedly, the video was low quality). That and the engine intakes appeared rounded, which would better fit the Harrier.

[peteweaver]

I didn't get a good look at either of the aircraft in those videos.

The first...was that a Harrier?

The second, was that a MiG-17? MiG-15?

First was an Sepecat Jaguar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPECAT_Jaguar) Anglo French supersonic fighter bomber.

The second was an English Electric Lightning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning), one of the fastest aircraft ever to have flown (later English Electric became British Aircraft Corporation) .

[TriskettheKid]

The Jaguar, eh? Nice.

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

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

[peteweaver]

I think some jets can be really really beautiful.

The Avro Vulcan for instance:

http://www.infowhores.co.uk/images/vulcan3.jpg


Hawker Hunters:
http://www.infowhores.co.uk/images/hawker-hunter-mk58a.jpg

It depends on the jet...

[PhantomWolf]

I got to walk under a Vulcan which is on loan to the SASC Museum in Ashland, Nebraska. Those things are HUGE! (there's a B-1 in the Hanger too. :))

[Bell]

Hawker Hunters:
http://www.infowhores.co.uk/images/hawker-hunter-mk58a.jpg

Is that paintscheme to fool the enemies the jet flies realy fast?

[PhantomWolf]

Is that paintscheme to fool the enemies the jet flies realy fast?

Nope, it's to help the SEP stealth cloaking device (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3106642#post3106642). ;)

[Reheat]

I agree that the Hawker Hunter is a beautiful aircraft. I've always admired it's plan view from above.

I remind me of an F-105. That's another beautiful aircraft in plan view from above. I will never lose the mental image of one pulling off from a bomb attack in SEA with vapor trails coming off the wings. Beautiful aircraft.

[beachnut]

The Jaguar, eh? Nice.

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

Jets, while magnificent machines, just don't seem to capture the same beauty.
... do they have burners?
http://beachymon.com/pic/t38up1.jpg
//burners.. now//

[Reheat]

Burner, did you say burner?

http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/afterburner1.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/afterburner1.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/mtmitchell1.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/mtmitchell.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/air9.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/redflag/video/F-111.mpg

[peteweaver]

The first three afterburner links don't work for me. :(

[Swing Dangler]

As you can see, the expert pilots fly very straight. The flight of 77 was crap. He varied the bank and pitch in a non pilot way. But a non pilot idiot could fly and hit buildings as done on 9/11 with ZERO training. You should research this, many people have put in new pilots in the exact simulators, which are harder to fly than the real plane, and hit buildings the first time.

Turbulence? What time was the impact? You know, on 9/11 was not a big day for turbulence. And the terrorist on 77 came in at high speed and a high angle. Normal landing angles are 2.5 to 3 degrees; 77 came in at 4 to 6 degrees, not level, never at the same precise pitch for more than a second, and his bank angle was floating around like a new pilot who was not interested in flying. It seemed he was only trying to hit the biggest office building around. Bet he could not find the White house, it is too small. You have failed to bring facts, are you unable to find facts on 9/11?

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

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

Would you agree that most pilots after take off turn the auto pilot on leading to the straight path you claim?

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

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

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

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

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

[Swing Dangler]

For how long did Flight 77 fly "a few feet off the deck?"

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

[Swing Dangler]

the tap airbus was doing 700 kph/434 mph.

Source for speed please?

[Good Lt]

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

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

[ref]

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

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

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

[Good Lt]

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

Source for this, please.

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

You tell us.

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

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

[Mancman]

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

Hardly precision.

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


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

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

[The Almond]

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

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

Anyone could flown like he did without training? ********. You are complete ball of contradictions. The pilots lacked the experience to do even simple turns but perform one beautifully over the Pentagon area. Facts? You just make **** up don't you and state them as fact?
Have you ever personally piloted an aircraft? What, other than personal incredulity, is the basis for your disagreement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave Rogers]

Just a couple of comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Dave

[TjW]

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


Hani Hanjour held a Commercial pilot certificate. To earn that, he had to perform to this standard (http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_standards/pilot/media/FAA-S-8081-12B.pdf) for an FAA designee examiner.

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

[apathoid]

Source for speed please?


Swing Dangler, starting watching at the :26 mark.

rYfhC9ft_hk


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

:confused:

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

My irony meter runneth over.:id:

[AMTMAN]

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

.

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

[Swing Dangler]

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

Dave

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

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

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

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

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


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

In my 34 years of flying I know anyone could fly the way the terrorist did, and without prior flight training. I have trained new pilots in 300,000 pound aircraft. You are not correct, there was no precision at all you have failed to do research; you have failed to get the minimum knowledge on flying. Total failure.
Tjw-
Hani Hanjour held a Commercial pilot certificate. To earn that, he had to perform to this standard for an FAA designee examiner.

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

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

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

[funk de fino]

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

[apathoid]

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


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



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

[SDC]

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

[Big Les]

The Jaguar, eh? Nice.

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

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

Did you mean Spit XIV?

Jets-wise (and this would still be true even if some other high-speed motor was being used), the need today is for high-speed and high-tech, so there's so much to pack into (and hang off of) an airframe and so many scientifically-determined aspects of a given design, that the sort of artistic expression is somewhat limited. With that in mind, I think a clean Viper (http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Aircraft/Displays/F16AndP51HistoricFlight.jpg)is tough to beat and compares pretty favourably with the vintage stuff.

Now, anyone still under the misapprehension that turns, low-level flight, and even landings are beyond the wit of mere mortals, they should probably have watched the "Krypton Factor" gameshow here in the UK in the 1980s and 90s. They had plenty of contestants successfully land an airliner sim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Krypton_Factor) after only a couple of hours (if that) instruction. They also made use of an RAF Harrier sim (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raLc-jy0t4c). They even had one guy go on to land a real plane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVMijzEI2qA). We're talking commercial and military grade simulators here, not MS FSX, and a level of training well below that of the hijackers. Yet these plebs were able not only to fly the aircraft at low level, but pretty often land it too.

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

[apathoid]

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


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

[Dave Rogers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Did you mean Spit XIV?

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

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

Swing Dangler, starting watching at the :26 mark.

rYfhC9ft_hk


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

:confused:

My irony meter runneth over.:id:

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

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

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

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

Have you ever personally piloted an aircraft? What, other than personal incredulity, is the basis for your disagreement?
Why yes I have, thank you.

[TriskettheKid]

Yes, I did mean the Mk. IX.

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

[apathoid]

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


The one I posted is from Gravy's video. To which you replied:

"Great video! You just proved that fly-by's at air shows are near take off and landing speeds not at 530 mphs"

Apparently you think that this airplane, which is quite clearly hauling ass, is going less than 200 mph. I can't see how anyone who actually watched the flyby could make such a claim. It's one of the silliest statements I've ever seen on this forum.



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


It doesn't. Are you saying you cannot discern fast from slow? No problem, the airplane also does a slow speed pass in the same clip.



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


Show the pilot correct for ground effect......? Dude, the video is taken from outside. It's an airshow. How am I supposed to know if the pilot is nudging the column forward a bit.



Why yes I have, thank you.Well.....were you able to do a simple turn?

[beachnut]

Burner, did you say burner?

http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/afterburner1.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/afterburner1.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/mtmitchell1.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/mtmitchell.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/air9.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/redflag/video/F-111.mpg
but those are the only afterburners I had... poor tanker toad

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE]The Texas Sharpshooter is alive and well. What measures are you suggesting Hani took to determine the occupancy of the building before hitting it? Hmm a major attack that took years to plan which I would . You tell me. Or are you suggesting the incompetent terrorist theory? Nevermind, you are.

firstly, the attack was aimed at intimidation rather than necessarily inflicting maximum loss of life
Can you source any reference by the terrorists for the motivation of attacking the Pentagon and its location?

Hanjour approached the Pentagon too high, made a diving turn to lose height, then aimed straight at the Pentagon from the point where he happened to find himself at the end of the turn. He very nearly screwed it up by hitting some things on the way in, but he got lucky and made it all the way. [QUOTE]And the logical contortions you're going through to imply that only a really good pilot would choose a route that involved hitting a bunch of avoidable obstacles are as good a disproof of whatever it is you're trying to suggest as any counter-argument I could ever come up with.

Dave the the contention by me was that he aimed at that portion of the Pentagon you are arguing that he didn't that it was simply a mistake.
My other contention is that as a terrorist who had years of planning, he would have hit the most populated largest part of the building via the easiest route to ensure the greatest success. You disagree in that he made a big mistake and chose to hit the smallest part of the building with the greatest chance for error and failure along a difficult route.

Dave, watch the flight path. He had a straight shot to the Pentagon with the ability to descend into the building head on with the least amount of error and with the greatest amount of speed with the potential to cause more human harm and destruction to the building than that which occurred.

And will you be debunking your buddy, Beachnut about the experience of the pilot? So far I've read here is was not experienced, then I have someone else spouting he is experienced. Why the confusion when defending the OS?

[Dave Rogers]

[quote=Swing Dangler;3111710Dave the the contention by me was that he aimed at that portion of the Pentagon you are arguing that he didn't that it was simply a mistake.
My other contention is that as a terrorist who had years of planning, he would have hit the most populated largest part of the building via the easiest route to ensure the greatest success. You disagree in that he made a big mistake and chose to hit the smallest part of the building with the greatest chance for error and failure along a difficult route.[/quote]

I'm not saying that he aimed at a specific part of the Pentagon. I'm saying that he aimed at the Pentagon, and given that he wan't much of a pilot he was happy to hit it just about anywhere. And anyway, he did hit the populated part of the building, and he hit it almost square in the middle of a wall. I have no idea what you mean by "the smallest part of the building", and I suspect neither do you.

As for the years of planning, the idea that part of the plan was to hit the most populated part of the building is purely your own invention and is of no relevance to Hanjour's intentions.

Dave

[DGM]

Hmm a major attack that took years to plan which I would . You tell me. Or are you suggesting the incompetent terrorist theory? Never mind, you are.
Swing:
This is why he convinced everyone he was a lousy pilot. You know flunking the landings in front of instructors. That way you would try to convince everyone he didn't do it. Get you guy's to talk "inside job". Hanni was indeed brilliant wasn't he?

[Swing Dangler]

I'm not saying that he aimed at a specific part of the Pentagon. I'm saying that he aimed at the Pentagon, and given that he wan't much of a pilot he was happy to hit it just about anywhere. And anyway, he did hit the populated part of the building, and he hit it almost square in the middle of a wall. I have no idea what you mean by "the smallest part of the building", and I suspect neither do you.

As for the years of planning, the idea that part of the plan was to hit the most populated part of the building is purely your own invention and is of no relevance to Hanjour's intentions.

Dave

1. Now wait just a second, I just read a post on this same thread that he was a competent pilot because he had the FAA certificate. Now which is it?

The smallest part of the building to me would be at ground level, 1st floor, instead of say the expanse of a roof line or the top 3 floors, etc.

2. Now tell me again was he a competent pilot or an incompetent pilot?

3. Can you provide the source material from the terrorists that you referenced? Or can you source Hani's intentions as you seem to think you know what they were? Thanks!

[beachnut]

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

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

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

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

See the above quote. So does that mean you let them take the controls without input from yourself and they executed a simple term?
Hani was a commercial pilot, it is a series of requirements to be a commercial pilot. The pilots who fly you around have ATPs, at least the Captain does, but all pilots get them who want to fly for the Airliners. You spew crap about flying. The commercial license is earned after so many hours, tests, and check rides. A commercial pilot can be a new pilot, not experienced. To do the flying on 9/11 you did not need training; I put kids who never flew in a simulator and they hit the WTC, first time, no previous flying ever. Why are you so research deficient?

Swing wonders why Hani found the Pentagon. OH MY. Hani knew how to use the VOR; all pilots do. He tuned in DCA, and it points straight to DC. All he had to do was point the plane to this arrow and follow it; THE VOR he pointed to was only 1 mile from the PENTAGON; the FDR shows DCA was tuned in, the last distance from DCA, the DME that goes with DCA was 1.5 nm; Think Hani can see the Pentagon from 1 mile. Can you see a 1700 foot building from a mile Swing?

Hani hit the Pentagon; I could take most kids and they could hit the Pentagon. The only idiots on the whole earth who say someone can't hit the Pentagon are the P4t, they can't hit the Pentagon; They are not as good as terrorist pilots, who did it.

Looks like you failed to gain knowledge on flying from anyone!!

Would you agree that most pilots after take off turn the auto pilot on leading to the straight path you claim? What the junk is this!?
Second, he couldn't find the White House but at altitude and several hundred miles away he can find the Pentagon?They use a VOR, it points to about a mile from the Pentagon! Are you even trying?
Anyone could flown like he did without training? ********. You are complete ball of contradictions. The pilots lacked the experience to do even simple turns but perform one beautifully over the Pentagon area. Facts? You just make **** up don't you and state them as fact?No, you lack the ability to understand what is said. Hani was not a great pilot, would you be real smooth after killing two pilots? Yes, anyone with any ability to walk and talk, can fly as good as or better than the terrorist on 9/11. You may have a problem, but then your post is not as good as Hani's flying.
No precision? How can you reconcile this with the flight path of 77 and the debris left behind by this lack of precision? Considering birds can punch holes through wings, this guy had great precision to run through light poles and keep the plane level enough and off the deck to hit the bottom floor after clipping a fence and trailer as well.
He never knew he hit light posts, you can't see the light posts at 500 mph; he was looking at the Pentagon and was aiming 20 feet too low because he flew little planes, in the jet, he is sitting 20 feet higher, he did not compensate so he almost hit the ground. Hani was only looking at the Pentagon, he was lucky not to hit the ground. What did you miss? Hani should have aimed for the top floor, the plane would have hit and cut deeper into the building; maybe, you have to ask a building engineer and architects. Hitting a 1700 foot wide building is not precision, it is CRAP just like your post and your pathetic understanding of 9/11.
Why do you think this amateur pilot decided to take the most difficult route (low altitude through light poles, fences, and trailers) to his target against a newly renovated part of the building instead of slamming it into the roof area?You are so full of crap with this statement. You have zero flying knowledge. Come back in 10 years.
So simulators are now harder to fly than the real thing? Yes, the simulator is not as easy to fly as the plane. I think some pilots may find the simulator easier to fly but after thousands of hours in the sim and the aircraft; This Air Force Instructor pilot, and ATP holder, says, the simulator is harder to fly than the airplane. I must have something for real stuff, real fires, real wind and real ground. Why would a simulator be any good if it was easier to fly? This is an opinion based on facts; the fact being I am an instructor and an evaluator in the Air Force. I give checks in the sim and in the aircraft. But I think it is funny you have zero knowledge and don't have a clue!
ROFLMAO. That is one of the most comical statements I've ever heard. I would have thought the fear of death in the real thing might be a little more difficult to deal with along with the mechanical unknowns, atmospheric conditions, and the other planes in the air. So tell me how many hours you have in a simulator? A four engine or two engine simulator, full scale cockpit of a 300,000 pound aircraft? Go ahead make me lol.

On a scale of 1 to 10 your post earned.... 0

So you do not understand how a pilot can be not good, but hit a building. LOL....................

[beachnut]

1. Now wait just a second, I just read a post on this same thread that he was a competent pilot because he had the FAA certificate. Now which is it?You are posting; and Hani was flying! Questions?

The smallest part of the building to me would be at ground level, 1st floor, instead of say the expanse of a roof line or the top 3 floors, etc. What? The smallest part of the Pentagon is the Pentagon. What is is this smallest part stuff? LOL, you are not having a good day.

2. Now tell me again was he a competent pilot or an incompetent pilot? Hani was better at flying than you are at understanding 9/11 and flying. Not a very good question slick. Hani hit a 1700 foot wide target, but he always got close to a 50 to 150 foot target hundreds of times in aircraft. Come with facts or go learn.

3. Can you provide the source material from the terrorists that you referenced? Or can you source Hani's intentions as you seem to think you know what they were? Thanks!Crap question again; Please find some of this and then come and talk; are you tried of JAQ. lol

You are a cherry picking zero comprehension guy. I said Hani did not fly as good a the pilots you are use to flying with on like United, American, or Delta. Does not mean Hani could not fly; I said his turn sucked from a pure flying technical point. You failed to comprehend; you failed! Failure as you continue to mess up flying stuff. And you had a chance to learn this stuff but blew it!

It comes down to this is my expert observations, but I have to admit the real guy who said Hani would have no problem hitting the Pentagon flew with him! An instructor pilot. So you ignore facts and evidence then argue with pilots about flying. You have failed from a position of ignorance and lack of comprehension. You do not ask question for understanding.

[beachnut]

And will you be debunking your buddy, Beachnut about the experience of the pilot? So far I've read here is was not experienced, then I have someone else spouting he is experienced. Why the confusion when defending the OS?
Funny stuff. I agree with most the posts. You are the only one here who can not comprehend what people are saying.

Experience is relative. His turns sucked but like you as a driver or a back seat driver. Hani's flying was like your posts. He hit the Pentagon, hitting buildings is not an example of good flying; just like your posts are not good examples of comprehending what we have told you. You are messing up and looking very bad for understanding stuff.

Relative to many of the pilots posing at JREF, Hani was not experience. But as I have told you over and over. Any kid could hit the building in jets they never flew before as on 9/11. Pay attention an even you could learn.

So the bottom line is, Hani was good enough to hit the Pentagon. I agree with most the post except yours and other truthers.

If you have specific problems that are well thought out try asking a real question. But so far you are making up bs about nothing very substantial.

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
As you can see, the expert pilots fly very straight. The flight of 77 was crap. He varied the bank and pitch in a non pilot way. But a non pilot idiot could fly and hit buildings as done on 9/11 with ZERO training. You should research this, many people have put in new pilots in the exact simulators, which are harder to fly than the real plane, and hit buildings the first time.

Beachnut, was he experienced or not? Here you state the flight was crap and flew in a non pilot way.



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

Beachnut, was he expereinced or not? Here you state he was inexperienced?

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


Beachnut, here you imply the terrorists flew like someone without training. Was Hani an experienced licensed pilot or not?

Considering your a flight instructor with training and the likes on Sims, why can't I determine your stance on Hani?

Now lets examine what you just spouted:
Hani was a commercial pilot, it is a series of requirements to be a commercial pilot. The pilots who fly you around have ATPs, at least the Captain does, but all pilots get them who want to fly for the Airliners. You spew crap about flying. The commercial license is earned after so many hours, tests, and check rides. A commercial pilot can be a new pilot, not experienced. To do the flying on 9/11 you did not need training; I put kids who never flew in a simulator and they hit the WTC, first time, no previous flying ever. Why are you so research deficient?

Now clear it up once and for all. Was Hani an experienced licensed pilot that could make simple turns or was he an inexperienced pilot? And can your analysis correspond with the flight school instructor testimony? Or did Hani actually complete the training to get an FAA commercial licenses as someone else posted.

With these multiple contradictions I have a hard time believing you trained anyone and if you did it probably wasn't very good training because it appears you do not know the difference.

Hani hit the Pentagon; I could take most kids and they could hit the Pentagon.
Can they hit the Pentagon under the conditions and through the objects that Hani did to hit the first floor without clipping the ground? Go ahead and document the kids who can do this if you would.

This is an opinion based on facts; the fact being I am an instructor and an evaluator in the Air Force. I give checks in the sim and in the aircraft.
Can you source your expertise?

[Swing Dangler]

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

Oh so you assumed I was dropping the title to impress not as a source of knowledge for my own instruction. Your fault. Did you not ask your grandfather to be instructed in boat construction? Sad.

I ask because the concept is exactly the same in an airplane. There is a wheel that rotates. Turning it either direction will start a turn in that direction.Apparently you think that this airplane, which is quite clearly hauling ass, is going less than 200 mph. I can't see how anyone who actually watched the flyby could make such a claim. It's one of the silliest statements I've ever seen on this forum.Well.....were you able to do a simple turn?

You left out the altitude part, the yaw, banking, etc, etc. Not quite the same.

What was the speed of the plane Apathoid? Do you have any clear indication other than a youtube video? Was it closer to 530 mph's or closer to take off and landing speeds?
As far as the turn no, I was unable to complete the turn because I didn't correct for the loss of altitude at the time, as a result the pilot took over. Being a teenager at the time, it was one of my first attempts.
I think he may have been a bit concerned as it was an old Vietnam era Grasshopper he had restored. It sit quite nicely next to his aerobatic stunt show biplane, now that does nice barrel rolls.

[Good Lt]

Do you have any clear indication other than a youtube video?

:jaw-dropp

I'm going to bet that this is one of the most ironic statements ever posted by a Troofer here. Or anywhere.

[beachnut]

Oh so you assumed I was dropping the title to impress not as a source of knowledge for my own instruction. Your fault. Did you not ask your grandfather to be instructed in boat construction? Sad.

You left out the altitude part, the yaw, banking, etc, etc. Not quite the same.

What was the speed of the plane Apathoid? Do you have any clear indication other than a youtube video? Was it closer to 530 mph's or closer to take off and landing speeds?
As far as the turn no, I was unable to complete the turn because I didn't correct for the loss of altitude at the time, as a result the pilot took over. Being a teenager at the time, it was one of my first attempts.
I think he may have been a bit concerned as it was an old Vietnam era Grasshopper he had restored. It sit quite nicely next to his aerobatic stunt show biplane, now that does nice barrel rolls.
You can tell the planes are going fast because if they were near landing speed with no FLAPS, they would be about 6 or 7 degrees nose up. These planes are going high speed, you are not doing too good at this.

So you are the one who is challenged on flying and understanding 9/11. This is the problem, you can't fly or understand 9/11. You are twisting the posts of others. You are playing around like a kid who does not comprehend or listen to what is being said. Sorry if you can not handle the fact Hani hit the Pentagon at 463 KIAS, at about 5 degrees nose down. Never flying the super low level just above the GRASS stuff you and JDX make claim to. He flew the plane, and the plane was only below 50 feet above the impact point for ONE second. Not a long time below 50 feet, JUST a SECOND of low flying. ONE SECOND.

Most people could fly the jets into buildings. But this is a could. Do you understand could. When I put in two kids, both in their teens, into a simulator and they hit building the first time they ever flew; this does not mean you could hit a building or even fly for a minute without crashing. It is relative.

You are upset because Hani, just an average pilot who I said his turn was not smooth as it varied back and forth, can fly into buildings and pushed up the throttles 20 seconds before impact at the Pentagon.

Yes you found out flying little airplanes is harder than flying big airplanes. I could tell you this.

You can check my flying out at the FAA; I have an ATP.

Your posts on flying suck please ask better questions. You do not understand simple stuff about not being a smooth pilot, and not being able to fly. Why are you being so truthy?

[apathoid]

Oh so you assumed I was dropping the title to impress not as a source of knowledge for my own instruction. Your fault. Did you not ask your grandfather to be instructed in boat construction? Sad.


I'm sure I did, but it likely went in one ear and out the other. I'm an aviation guy, always was. Could care less about boats.


You left out the altitude part, the yaw, banking, etc, etc. Not quite the same.

So now AA77 was yawing and banking while hugging the ground? Do you actually like attacking strawman? There was no yaw and the bank was less than 5 degrees for the last 30 seconds of FDR data.


What was the speed of the plane Apathoid? Do you have any clear indication other than a youtube video? Was it closer to 530 mph's or closer to take off and landing speeds?



As someone who's been to more airshows than I can count, and who regularly watches airliners takeoff and land...I work at the worlds busiest airport.... I think I can safely say that the A310 is going much closer to 530 mph than 150-180.

The Icelandair 757 in Gravy's video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwcCiQS_F3A)was an example of one that likely was only doing a bit more than approach speed(220-250 mph) since the nose was pointed up a bit, the aircraft was not climbing, and the flaps and slats were completely retracted - meaning the plane has to fly a little faster to keep from stalling. It also didn't seem to cover ground anywhere near as fast as the TAP A310. Please review these two videos when you get home from work. It's clear as day that one is going much, much faster than the other. Hardly takeoff or landing speed, at any rate.




As far as the turn no, I was unable to complete the turn because I didn't correct for the loss of altitude at the time, as a result the pilot took over. Being a teenager at the time, it was one of my first attempts.



Okay, but you eventually did learn how to complete a simple turn, no?

[Gravy]

Our resident know-nothing apparently missed post 25 in this thread, which contained this video:

6633645978046747811

[SDC]

Oh so you assumed I was dropping the title to impress not as a source of knowledge for my own instruction. Your fault. Did you not ask your grandfather to be instructed in boat construction? Sad.



Since I started that wisecrack I would like to say something. The phrasing of your statement said nothing, nichts, nichego, nic, about gaining any instruction. You simply referred to a grandfather, and then said that you therefore had a little knowledge.

In a rational conversation I would have assumed that some sort of training or instruction by the grandfather had, indeed, taken place. But what with your obstinate, silly, ostentatiously wooden-headed trolling, I could only assume you meant that since Grandpa had known Something, you too Knew Something, by some kind of biological transmission of information. (There were people who believed that, but I won't say who, because I don't want to get Godwinned.)

Sheesh. What silly comments you make. I feel like saying "Betelgeuse" three times just to see who will appear; might be more interesting.

[Corsair 115]

Second, he couldn't find the White House but at altitude and several hundred miles away he can find the Pentagon? What are the relative sizes of the White House and Pentagon? Are they similar in size or is one of them much larger than the other? Do you think the size of a building might affect how easy it is to spot from the air? Have you ever tried to identify specific structures from the air?

The pilots lacked the experience to do even simple turns but perform one beautifully over the Pentagon area. Performing a turn is remarkably easy — just bank the wings of the aircraft and it will turn. Why do you think a turn is hard? Do you have any flight experience at all?

Considering birds can punch holes through wings, this guy had great precision to run through light poles and keep the plane level enough and off the deck to hit the bottom floor after clipping a fence and trailer as well. The jet was moving very quickly which means it had a lot of intertia. Which means it would require a lot of force to deflect it significantly from its path. Basic physics.

Why do you think this amateur pilot decided to take the most difficult route (low altitude through light poles, fences, and trailers) to his target against a newly renovated part of the building instead of slamming it into the roof area? Because diving onto a target at a steep angle is a much more difficult procedure than hitting a target from a very shallow angle. Read up about the differences between dive bombing and glide bombing and the relative skill level required to peform each of those attack approaches.

You left out the altitude part, the yaw, banking, etc, etc. Not quite the same.You're not referring here to Loose Change's statement about how the aircraft did a 330° turn and descended 7,000 feet in 2½ minutes are you? Because if you are, if you knew anything about flying you'd know how unimpressive that statement actually is.


The really sad thing about all this is that Swing could resolve for himself how easy or difficult it is to fly. He could enroll himself in a flight course and learn firsthand what it takes to fly. He could get himself some time in a real flight simulator and try some maneuvering to see whether it's easy or not to turn or descend a jetliner.

But instead he persists in remaining in the dark over what flying actually involves.

[ihaunter]

Beachnut, here you imply the terrorists flew like someone without training. Was Hani an experienced licensed pilot or not?

Considering your a flight instructor with training and the likes on Sims, why can't I determine your stance on Hani?



Probably because you seem to think that pilot experience is purely an either/or situation. Either he has pilot experience and was an ace pilot who would be 100% perfect in everything he does, or he had zero experience and would completely fail at everything. Neither of these actually describe Hani. He was a pilot, had some experience, but not enough to make him an expert flier. What he actually accomplished on 9/11 didn't require much skill to do. Even though he was successful, doesn't mean he did it particularly well.
That seems to be the primary source of your confusion, at least, to me. Try to avoid thinking in absolutes, it tends to create false dichotomies.

[jaydeehess]

7,000 feet in 2½ minutes

That equals 47 ft/sec
Hardly an impressive desent rate

I gotta love

1. Now wait just a second, I just read a post on this same thread that he was a competent pilot because he had the FAA certificate. Now which is it?

He flew well enough to perform the manouver seen. It was not a difficult manouver. Had the pilot been an ace he might have chosen to atempt a dive at the Pentagon which is what you believe he should have tried. This would most certainly take any ground effect off the table but instead introduce much more difficult control problems in pitch and roll. A completly incompetant pilot, such as yourself, also might attempt such a dive. such a person would then likely end up inverted, stalled and tumbling out of control but I suppose hitting Arlington Cemetary with a plane load of Americans would have been traumatic for the country as well.

The smallest part of the building to me would be at ground level, 1st floor, instead of say the expanse of a roof line or the top 3 floors, etc.

Probably one of the most idiotic things you have stated here SD. Is your intention to say that the roof represents a larger surface area than the vertical wall? If so then you again seem to be suggesting that a vertical dive at the building would be the way to go once again proving your incompetance to comment on such matters.

2. Now tell me again was he a competent pilot or an incompetent pilot?

As has been made very clear on so very many occassions that it is incomprehensible that you have not been able to grasp the notion, he was most certainly competatnt enough to perform the manouvers that are known to have been undertaken by the aircraft in question.
He did not have to perform a take off
he did not have to perform a landing
he did not have to set the cruise trim of the aircraft
he did not have to rely soley on instruments for navigation

All he had to do was get the aircraft within 20 miles of the Pentagon and look for the most distinctive shaped building in the entire county, a building surrounded by open spaces , not other buildings or forest, and a building that laid alongside a bend in a major river. Then all he needed to do was perform a 2 1/2 minute desending turn and WHEN HE COMPLETED THE TURN, then aim for the side of a building that presented itself to him and which was several times the width of the aircraft, and then when it was a certainty that he was lined up to push the engines to maximum. By the time he hit the lamposts the plane could have pitched sright down and the bulk of the aircraft would still have carried to the Pentagon.

3. Can you provide the source material from the terrorists that you referenced? Or can you source Hani's intentions as you seem to think you know what they were? Thanks!

You have assumed that the aircraft hit exactly where it was intended to hit. You have looked at the impact zone and THEN drawn the bullseye on that spot.

You can be a great marksman if you get to place the bullseye after having pulled the trigger first.

[CHF]

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

:dl:

As if the plane somehow flew around carefully aiming at, and hitting, those objects. :rolleyes:

The striking of light poles, a trailer, and a fence all occurred within a second, Swing.

[peteweaver]

Excellent comparison between landing speeds and low level high speed flight in that video Gravy.

[beachnut]

:dl:

As if the plane somehow flew around carefully aiming at, and hitting, those objects. :rolleyes:

The striking of light poles, a trailer, and a fence all occurred within a second, Swing.
A plane going 463 KIAS, over 700 feet per second. He hit the light post and all in less than 2 seconds. A 250,000 pound airplane would cut those lamppost off and not even feel it. The trailer a few feet from the building would only be felt for 0.05 second before your brain was against the windscreen as you blast into the Pentagon.

Can anyone tell Swing the plane was moving 700 feet a second. Can the tell him a 70 pound pole will give up against a 250,000 pound aircraft.

This is a big line of dogs ---- :dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:And that is that on what Swing has posted on flying.

[Magenta]

Burner, did you say burner?

http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/afterburner1.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/afterburner1.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/mtmitchell1.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/mtmitchell.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/air9.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/redflag/video/F-111.mpg


Only the last link worked for me. The F-111s are based just west of here. For our spring Riverfire festival they do a dump-and-burn run down the river and across the city in the evening. It's a spectacular sight and sound experience.

[TjW]

Where did he hold this certificate? Where was it located? What is your source? Has it been produced and verified by the examiner? Please tell me it wasn't at the flight school in Florida?
My grandfather was a FAA Flight Examiner so I have a little bit of knowledge on this subject.
Very little, it would appear. Grandpa should have informed you that in the U.S., civilian pilots don't have licenses. They hold certificates granted to them by the FAA, which allow them certain privileges under the Federal Aviation Regulations. A Commercial certificate holder is allowed different privileges under the FARs than a Private Pilot. One of these privileges is to get compensated monetarily for flying. So it would not be unreasonable to call someone who held a Commercial certificate a professional, rather than an amateur pilot.

Is a Commercial certificate holder who is not currently employed as a pilot an amateur or a professional?

While meeting the minimum standards does not necessarily make one a superior pilot, it does mean that on at least one flight, he was able to meet those standards, and this refutes any claim that he was completely unable to make simple turns.

Does that mean if I hold a Japanese Ninja Certificate it makes me a certified Ninja?

I don't know. My grandfather was not a Japanese Ninja Examiner.

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

Yes, assuming that's a typo for turn. Some people are reluctant to even try, but my instruction was pretty much limited to "When I give the controls to you, I will say 'Your airplane', and if I don't like what you're doing, I'll take the controls back and say 'My airplane'. If you decide you don't like what's going on, say "Your airplane", and I'll take it back." Then I'd tell them to turn around, or go toward that mountain, or whatever. They were always able to do it. It wasn't always pretty. And of course they did it better after coaching. But being able to control the airplane without assistance was good for their confidence, both in themselves and the airplane.

[Reheat]

Only the last link worked for me.

Sorry, I made a quick post this morning just prior to leaving for the day and did not realize those links had gone bad. Upon my return I was past the edit time limit and couldn't modify them.

I actually was looking for the "Torch" display over Sydney for the Olympics, but couldn't locate it. Perhaps you know where it's located and can post it....

[PhantomWolf]

Hani had his commercial licience PRIOR to being selected by Al Qaeda. He wasn't a part of the plan when he first trained to fly, he was trying to get a job as an airline pilot. His skills were average for a comercial pilot, his landings shakey, but the biggest issue he had wasn't his flying, it was his English. Pilots have to be able to speak good English so they can communicate with primarily ATC but also other planes. Hani's English was terrible, and THAT is what make his instructors worry he was a danger in the air, that is what resulted in him being unable to get a job as a pilot. Al Qaeda didn't care that he couldn't speak very good English, they didn't need him too, they needed him to switch the Autopilot to fly the plane to Reagan International and when he could see the Pentagon, fly the plane at it. That's what he did. period. As to the whole occupancy baloney. Firstly, Hani was a late inclusion anyway, but secondly, how exactly were they supposed to determine where the people inside the building were? It's not an open building you can wander about inside with a camera taking photos of where everyone sits. You need a security badge to get out of the public areas. Heck try to determine where the most people in my work building are. You couldn't do it, you need a card to get into the building and have to pass through two sercurity doors, and we're just a Gas field operator in small city New Zealand.

[rwguinn]

Burner, did you say burner?

http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/afterburner1.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/afterburner1.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/mtmitchell1.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/mtmitchell.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/aerospacecentre/videos/air9.mpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/redflag/video/F-111.mpg


All busted links, except the Aardvarks...

[Magenta]

Sorry, I made a quick post this morning just prior to leaving for the day and did not realize those links had gone bad. Upon my return I was past the edit time limit and couldn't modify them.

I actually was looking for the "Torch" display over Sydney for the Olympics, but couldn't locate it. Perhaps you know where it's located and can post it....


Here you go:

Sydney Olympics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD2IOjKeyKs

Brisbane Riverfire

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-_i5jQVWz8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzsMjhze1Ow

[jaydeehess]

I missed this somehow
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler
Second, he couldn't find the White House but at altitude and several hundred miles away he can find the Pentagon?

At altitude? He was at 7,000 when he saw the Pentagon SD. I can recognize my 900 sq ft home from 7,000 feet.

As for getting to the vicinity of the Pentagon, using a VOR is not rocket science. Even an NDB would get you close enough to navigate visually at 7,000 feet.

[Swing Dangler]

Beachnut, here you imply the terrorists flew like someone without training. Was Hani an experienced licensed pilot or not?

Considering your a flight instructor with training and the likes on Sims, why can't I determine your stance on Hani?

Now lets examine what you just spouted:


Now clear it up once and for all. Was Hani an experienced licensed pilot that could make simple turns or was he an inexperienced pilot? And can your analysis correspond with the flight school instructor testimony? Or did Hani actually complete the training to get an FAA commercial licenses as someone else posted.

With these multiple contradictions I have a hard time believing you trained anyone and if you did it probably wasn't very good training because it appears you do not know the difference.

Can they hit the Pentagon under the conditions and through the objects that Hani did to hit the first floor without clipping the ground? Go ahead and document the kids who can do this if you would.

Can you source your expertise?

Beachnut, are you going to clear this up or not??

Jay-All he had to do was get the aircraft within 20 miles of the Pentagon and look for the most distinctive shaped building in the entire county, a building surrounded by open spaces , not other buildings or forest, and a building that laid alongside a bend in a major river. Then all he needed to do was perform a 2 1/2 minute desending turn and WHEN HE COMPLETED THE TURN, then aim for the side of a building that presented itself to him and which was several times the width of the aircraft, and then when it was a certainty that he was lined up to push the engines to maximum. By the time he hit the lamposts the plane could have pitched sright down and the bulk of the aircraft would still have carried to the Pentagon.

Now I'm confused. Now he intentionally made the turn? Someone else stated it was a correction for a mistake! Which is it??

PhantomWolf Hani had his commercial licience PRIOR to being selected by Al Qaeda. He wasn't a part of the plan when he first trained to fly, he was trying to get a job as an airline pilot. His skills were average for a comercial pilot, his landings shakey, but the biggest issue he had wasn't his flying, it was his English.

Source?
Firstly, Hani was a late inclusion anyway, but secondly, how exactly were they supposed to determine where the people inside the building were?
Public tour.
http://www.dtic.mil/ref/html/Welcome/tours.html

Is your intention to say that the roof represents a larger surface area than the vertical wall?
Ok, let me state it more clearly. Which is easier to hit with a 747? The roof of the Pentagon or a first floor segment at ground level?
'nuff said.

[Corsair 115]

Which is easier to hit with a 747? The roof of the Pentagon or a first floor segment at ground level? Which is easier — diving an aircraft at a steep angle or diving it at a very shallow angle? Please explain why you think one of these maneuvers is easier than the other.

[jaydeehess]

Quote:
Jay-All he had to do was get the aircraft within 20 miles of the Pentagon and look for the most distinctive shaped building in the entire county, a building surrounded by open spaces , not other buildings or forest, and a building that laid alongside a bend in a major river. Then all he needed to do was perform a 2 1/2 minute desending turn and WHEN HE COMPLETED THE TURN, then aim for the side of a building that presented itself to him and which was several times the width of the aircraft, and then when it was a certainty that he was lined up to push the engines to maximum. By the time he hit the lamposts the plane could have pitched sright down and the bulk of the aircraft would still have carried to the Pentagon.

SD writes:
Now I'm confused. Now he intentionally made the turn? Someone else stated it was a correction for a mistake! Which is it??

I was giving the condensed version Swing. I believe that when he saw the Pentagon he recognized that a steep dive at it would be very difficult to accomplish and therefore he instituted what is just outside the parameters of a standard desending turn.

Why do you insist that a steep dive at the Pentagon would be easy to accomplish swing. It just ain't true, admit that and move on.

Ok, let me state it more clearly. Which is easier to hit with a 747? The roof of the Pentagon or a first floor segment at ground level?
'nuff said.

It would be easier to aim for the side of the building. Especially a building vastly larger than the proverbial barn door. Furthermore you are again drawing the target on the bullet hole there swing. why do you continue to do that? For all you know he was aiming at a spot in the center (vertically) on the wall , and missed by 35 feet.

[beachnut]

Beachnut, are you going to clear this up or not??Clear what up. You are not able to read and understand. With some work you can be cured.

Now I'm confused. Now he intentionally made the turn? Someone else stated it was a correction for a mistake! Which is it??
BOTH, you must understand things better. He intentionally made a turn to correct his being too high. WOW! EASY
Source? building were? Public tour.
http://www.dtic.mil/ref/html/Welcome/tours.html (http://www.dtic.mil/ref/html/Welcome/tours.html)So these idiots took a tour? Source?
Ok, let me state it more clearly. Which is easier to hit with a 747? The roof of the Pentagon or a first floor segment at ground level?
'nuff said.Easier to hit the first floor, but I have over 4,000 hours flying big jets. Tell you what, you can draw a small target and I can hit it, and so can most pilots. Gee, we hit the exact center of 50 to 150 foot targets all the time! Runways. Dumb question.

[PhantomWolf]

Source?

Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It (http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Soldiers-Hijackers-They-Were/dp/0060584696) by Terry McDermott. Good book and extremely well referenced and researched, perhaps you should get away from your conspriacy sites and read a real book once and a while.

building were?
Public tour.
http://www.dtic.mil/ref/html/Welcome/tours.html

You know you should really read your links Swing.

All guided tours of the Pentagon are free and are available to schools, educational organizations and other select groups by reservation only.

I'm sure they were perefectly willing to show a bunch of middle eastern guys around the Pentagon to take notes and pictures of where everyone works. NOT!

[Big Les]

Zombie thread alert!

In the interests of showing that sceptics are interested in what's accurate, not what suits an agenda, and at the risk of doing truther homework for them, it seems that there is some doubt over the authenticity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsirCoxcfo4&feature=user) of the first video in Gravy's original video in the OP of this thread. The youtuber is the redoubtable and entertaining 'Captain Disillusion', as somewhat endorsed by Randi in the latest Swift.

Of course, this doesn't mean that that large multi-engined aircraft can't fly low and fast. You only have to look at all the other videos to see that they certainly can.

[beachnut]

Zombie thread alert!

In the interests of showing that sceptics are interested in what's accurate, not what suits an agenda, and at the risk of doing truther homework for them, it seems that there is some doubt over the authenticity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsirCoxcfo4&feature=user) of the first video in Gravy's original video in the OP of this thread. The youtuber is the redoubtable and entertaining 'Captain Disillusion', as somewhat endorsed by Randi in the latest Swift.

Of course, this doesn't mean that that large multi-engined aircraft can't fly low and fast. You only have to look at all the other videos to see that they certainly can.
What a dolt. Unless he is trying to funny, if he is serious he is super stupid. I flew KC-135, and that video is real tanker with new engines.
WsirCoxcfo4
It is real, so he covered all the bases kind of; and made many mistakes, he said it was an Air Force, if he meant USAF he missed it was a French Air Force tanker low pass in the desert. In addition the slow pass by a plane going slow with the gear down needs a lot of throttle (engine noise) to fly. Bad work.

[cisco]

Zombie thread alert!

In the interests of showing that sceptics are interested in what's accurate, not what suits an agenda, and at the risk of doing truther homework for them, it seems that there is some doubt over the authenticity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsirCoxcfo4&feature=user) of the first video in Gravy's original video in the OP of this thread. The youtuber is the redoubtable and entertaining 'Captain Disillusion', as somewhat endorsed by Randi in the latest Swift.

Of course, this doesn't mean that that large multi-engined aircraft can't fly low and fast. You only have to look at all the other videos to see that they certainly can.
Yeah, uh, thanks for pointing this out, but I don't know . . . I'm certainly not saying it's impossible to fake a video like that, but Occam's Razor says . . . why?

"Where are the internet videos from the other cameramen?" sounds like it was pulled directly from the troother manifesto. Seriously. Did he consider that not everybody posts everything on Youtube, even now in 2008?

I think Captain Disillusionment missed here. I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I'd bet, say, my favorite shoes.

[rwguinn]

What a dolt. Unless he is trying to funny, if he is serious he is super stupid. I flew KC-135, and that video is real tanker with new engines.
WsirCoxcfo4
It is real, so he covered all the bases kind of; and made many mistakes, he said it was an Air Force, if he meant USAF he missed it was a French Air Force tanker low pass in the desert. In addition the slow pass by a plane going slow with the gear down needs a lot of throttle (engine noise) to fly. Bad work.
Not to mention that the gear-down shots were from nearly under the damn thing, while the airplane is trying to climb. He has no airspeed to trade for altitude.
in the high-speed low pass, why would you need much thrust at all at that altitude and airspeed? You probably built up a lot of airspeed getting down to that altitude, and have lots of energy to climb out. You also run the risk of FOD'ing the engine at high power settings at that altitude.
Airspeed=>altitude. You can trade one for the other. It works both directions, quite well.

While it is possible that the pass was doctored, it is certainly not an improbable scenario as-is.

[beachnut]

I can give you 300 KIAS with the engines out at a 3 degree glide slope clean. No engines needed. Light weight at 500 feet I had my engines up to make noise for a flyby, I had to pull the throttles back to idle on the old engine KC-135A so I would not exceed well past the max speed. Not that real bad stuff happens past 355KCAS, but the lower wind skin starts to peel off, the crew chiefs would kill me! At altitude you can do .9 MACH in the old tanker, think it was flight tested to .95 MACH.

If you used a high power setting, in less than 15 seconds you would be well past your max speed just like on 9/11. Pilots do dumb things, and big jets have sadly (or whatever) been lower over the Ocean and inciting international problems when flying across the bow of Russian Ships.

The max speed in the KC-135 was 355KCAS, the new engines at idle are almost enough to fly the plane when it is clean and going 300 KIAS. If he had used the throttles earlier to get speed up, he had to have them back at some point to keep his speed down.

Any KC-135 could do the same thing at 355 KIAS.

[rwguinn]

I can give you 300 KIAS with the engines out at a 3 degree glide slope clean. No engines needed. Light weight at 500 feet I had my engines up to make noise for a flyby, I had to pull the throttles back to idle on the old engine KC-135A so I would not exceed well past the max speed. Not that real bad stuff happens past 355KCAS, but the lower wind skin starts to peel off, the crew chiefs would kill me! At altitude you can do .9 MACH in the old tanker, think it was flight tested to .95 MACH.

If you used a high power setting, in less than 15 seconds you would be well past your max speed just like on 9/11. Pilots do dumb things, and big jets have sadly (or whatever) been lower over the Ocean and inciting international problems when flying across the bow of Russian Ships.

The max speed in the KC-135 was 355KCAS, the new engines at idle are almost enough to fly the plane when it is clean and going 300 KIAS. If he had used the throttles earlier to get speed up, he had to have them back at some point to keep his speed down.

Any KC-135 could do the same thing at 355 KIAS.

I spent a lot of time from 1971-1975 on the dry lakebed at Edwards AFB, Beach.
I have seen the shock from a supersonic F-104 kick up dust in a beautiful "V" pattern, I have see the B-52 fly-by (low, indeed) after a drop of the X-24 (B & C), low passes from the YF-12/SR-71, and a whole lot more.
Preaching to the choir, me lad, preaching to the choir.

[Ateius]

Conclusion: Airplanes are awesome.

[rwguinn]

Conclusion: Airplanes are awesome.

As are the folks who design 'em, who build 'em, and certainly not least, the guys and gals what flys 'em!
You're welcome.

[Corsair 115]

I have seen the shock from a supersonic F-104 kick up dust in a beautiful "V" pattern, I have see the B-52 fly-by (low, indeed) after a drop of the X-24 (B & C), low passes from the YF-12/SR-71, and a whole lot more. "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate."

Preaching to the choir, me lad, preaching to the choir. For those of us who weren't there to see such things, it's still very interesting to read the stories.

[Reheat]

I don't quite understand why this issue of airplanes not being able to fly low keeps being brought up. It's one of the most debunked idiotic claims of the TM. All of the combat aircraft in the USAF routinely flew at very low levels during the Cold War. This included ALL of the fighters and ALL of the bombers. Of course, the next comment by a "twoofer" is that "well those are military aircraft". So what? They are airplanes just like airliners and were not specifically designed to fly at low level, they just did it because of the threat. A commercial airliner would not be able to tolerate the turbulence over a long period of consistent low level flying as it would shorten the lifespan of the airframe, but they could certainly do it on the occasional basis. It is a DEAD HORSE.

[rwguinn]

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate."

For those of us who weren't there to see such things, it's still very interesting to read the stories.

From somebody who lives on the Moon?

(Corsair 115 has never lied to me before, so of course I believe the published profile:D)

Ha! --I even was at the runway during the First Flight of the F-16 (was supposed to be a high-speed taxi test...)

[rwguinn]

I don't quite understand why this issue of airplanes not being able to fly low keeps being brought up. It's one of the most debunked idiotic claims of the TM. All of the combat aircraft in the USAF routinely flew at very low levels during the Cold War. This included ALL of the fighters and ALL of the bombers. Of course, the next comment by a "twoofer" is that "well those are military aircraft". So what? They are airplanes just like airliners and were not specifically designed to fly at low level, they just did it because of the threat. A commercial airliner would not be able to tolerate the turbulence over a long period of consistent low level flying as it would shorten the lifespan of the airframe, but they could certainly do it on the occasional basis. It is a DEAD HORSE.
But...but... (cue wailing voice mode) there's a speed limit!
Everybody admits it.
And you have to obey speed limits! If my car sees a 35 mph Speed limit sign, it can't go faster than that!
(hint to troofers--There is a reason people are called criminals. They tend not to obey the laws of mankind)

[Big Les]

You know, I think you guys are right. Fake or not, the video is certainly the worst of his debunkings - nothing he says really nails it. I guess it was his success with the other videos that made me trust what's basically just his opinion and assertion on that particular one.

Sorry! It could be worse - I could be a truther...

What do you make of his comments such as the size and location of the shadow?

[rwguinn]

You know, I think you guys are right. Fake or not, the video is certainly the worst of his debunkings - nothing he says really nails it. I guess it was his success with the other videos that made me trust what's basically just his opinion and assertion on that particular one.

Sorry! It could be worse - I could be a truther...

What do you make of his comments such as the size and location of the shadow?

Since the ground on which the shadow was cast was absolutely flat and level over the entire course of the "fly by", then he has a point...

[Corsair 115]

From somebody who lives on the Moon?I've been thinking of relocating, but the quotes I'm getting from moving companies are horrendously expensive... :D

[Big Les]

Another (http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/minobordeaux/3140/) good video!