If you are referring to Kevin Ryan, he was quite justifiably fired.
Were they really horrible pilots or did they just not know enoguh English to understand what was being asked of them?
Cite for “fighter plane maneuvers”? Preferably one not from someone whose only verifiable commercial experience is as a 16-passenger Alaskan bush pilot.
Cite for “could not beperformed by senior palots and also defied the laws of aeurodynamics”? Preferably one not from someone whose only verifiable commercial experience is as a 16-passenger Alaskan bush pilot.
Why don’t you get started on that, then, if they’re so convincing?
It doesn’t matter how many little lies you gather into a pile, it’ll never end up as one truth.
I’m not a pilot, but I can still tell it’s a pile of shit.
First, the pilots training. He talks a lot about how bad they were at it. But from what I recall, the problem with them was that they weren’t interested in certain very important parts of flying. Such as landing. A student who never learns how to land a plane is never going to be given a solo flight, and is going to be considered to be a bad or incompetent pilot by his instructors, even if he excelled in one or two other particular areas.
Second, the difficulty in piloting a passenger aircraft. Taking all his claims at face value, there are still some obvious holes in his argument. Take the picture of a cockpit, for example, which is intended to demonstrate how little detail one can make out on the ground from 35,000 ft. Except that I can see a road pretty plainly on the ground, there. But that’s beside the point, because the ultimate goal for these planes was to ram them into buildings. Which are not, as a general rule, found 35,000 feet in the air. To hit their targets, they’d already need to substantially lower their altitude, to the point where they could easily navigate by eye. The only instrument they need to read is the altimeter.
Third is the nonsense quoted by Mr. Mistkatonic. “Instinctually roll the plane?” Where the hell would these instincts have come from? His days as a fighter jock? How many hijackers have forced their way into the cockpit of an F14?
Speaking of the jet that hit the Pentagon, he states that it is flatly impossible for a jet liner to fly at that speed, at that height above the ground. I admit, I don’t even know what half the terms he uses even mean. But that’s not the only thing I don’t understand: what really confuses me is, if this was as totally, physically impossible as he claims, how is it that no one else has picked up on this? There are tens of thousands of pilots and aeronautical engineers in this country alone, to say nothing of the world at large. Where is the great howl of disbelief from this enourmous pool of knowledgeable and interested parties at this gross impossibility? If Bush claimed the towers had been downed by a faster than light missile, you can be sure every physicist on the planet would be clamoring for details on how it was possible that someone had breached the universal constant.
I admit, there’s a lot of technical stuff in there I can’t possibly refute. But when he’s not talking about technical details, pretty much everything he says is thinner than a damp tissue. This does not inspire in me a great deal of confidence that his technical knowledge is at all reliable.
He was aiming at the largest office building every constructed, and he still actually missed, hitting the ground first. Whoop-dee-do.
So who gave him his pilot’s license?
Well, now, that’s a fascinating claim. If it violated the laws of aerodynamics, just how do you explain the airplane that hit the side of the Pentagon?
The thing is, you’re a fucking liar. You know half of what you’re saying is the purest sort of fabrication.
Personally, I don’t care how educated those folks are in their fields, Sent. What matters is (a) how educated they are in fields that are relevant to the issue at hand, (b) if they still have a grasp on their sanity, and © if they liars.
Here’s a wonderful example for you: There’s this dude who’s very into “Creation Science.” Leaving aside for the moment that Creationism is most certainly not Science, he likes to toss around his Ph.D. as though that’s relevant in the Evolution vs. ID issue. Amazingly, his Ph.D. is not related at all to the issue; it’s in Mathematics.
BTW, you most certainly are appealing to authority. Oddly enough, the authorities to which you are appealing are as whacked-out as you seem to be.
It’s really sad.
In addition to this information (with the comments of other pilots) I will point out that I found Sagadevan’s assumptions about how “murky” it is at 35,000 to be absurd. Whenever I have flown, I have made it a passtime to track where we are. I will admit that once clouds have interrupted the view, I can get very far off course, but the storm that passed over the Great Lakes and then New York on the night of September 10 was pushed along by a high pressure center that kept the skies absolutely clear until September 14. On September 11, there was not a cloud or a mist between Chicago and Long Island or Toronto and Charleston.
I have found that looking sideways out my dinky 14" X 10" window, usually with a wing blocking part of the view, I have never had a problem knowing where I was. Given a panorama window with 180° of vision, I would be able to see anything I needed in clear conditions.
And what the hijacker needed to see was not that difficult. Pilots typically report general location, so he would very likely know when they passed Pittsburgh and that he was in Ohio. The lack of “situational awareness” that Sagadevan claims is one true thing that he says. The solution? Turn Left and fly until the Ohio River appears. (At 35,000’, you really cannot miss it. You do not need to know where along the Ohio River you are, initially, you simply need to find the river and turn Left to follow it Eastward.) When you encounter I-77 or I-70 crossing the River, turn to follow them: I-70 to I-79 to US-48; I-77 to US-50 to I-79 to US-48. If you think this is difficult, simply download Google Earth and try it. I have followed numerous roads on Google Earth (where the photographic resolution out in the boondocks is far less clear than the reality of looking at the landscape directly). Yes, 500 mph is fast, but from 35,000’ you have ample time to see where your next intersection is coming up.
Sagadevan’s story reminded me of the story Bill Maudin told. The ground troops were bitching that the air guys kept missing the ID panels laid out to identify forward units and dropping bombs on our forward positions. Mauldin drew a couple of cartoons about it, earning him an invitation from an angry flyboy to go up and see how “easy” it really was. When Mauldin went up, he immediately and correctly identified the landmarks and the positions of the troops, much to the chagrin of the pilot who was trying to impress him how “difficult” it was.
I will not minimize the difficulty of flying an airliner, but if the hijackers were so incompetent, why did the flight schools give them passing grades (to the point where a couple of them got licensed)?
TWEEEEEEET!!
There is no evidence in Sent’s posts that he is aware of how silly his arguments sound.
Therefore, let us dispense with calling his statements lies or him a liar. He certainly appears to be quite credulous when it comes to cranks such as Sagadevan, but that does not make Sent, himself, dishonest.
[ /Moderating ]
This is the Pit, so if you feel you must call Sent a liar, I cannot stop you (although I still suspect that you are missing the point, if you do.)
[ Not Moderating ]
Reminds me of a certain twice-suspended Doper.
What the hell is a “Cellphone Engineer”?
He calls in his work.
Not to mention that the hijackers allegedly were on the exact same flights a couple of weeks prior to 9/11 making observations out the window and taking notes.
Problem with quoting the 911 Commission Report as an original source- They keep citing emails from one person to another as their source of information and
A)I don’t have access to these documents to verify these claims.
B)I don’t even know the full names or locations of the sender or the recipient.
Most of what I have read of people’s individual experiences testifying to the 911 Commission Report indicates it is a mythical fabrication, so only their original sources mean anything to me as a way of understanding what actually happened, not their narrative “story”.
Here is a good link on the questions regarding Flight 93, I thought the possibilities and problems with each conclusion were well laid out. This demonstrates the problems inherent to every conclusion. It seems to me that the official theory has the most problems of any theory. Do any of you question anything at all, or do you accept all official conclusions 100% unquestionably?
You believe that to be a good set of questions and theories? You have read and absorbed it and failed to notice how it stacked the deck? It has three separate theories in which the hijackers are on board the plane (with separate ways to take control), yet it loads all the objections to security issues and the means of navigation, etc. into the first scenario and (deliberately?) fails to repeat those same objections in subsequent scenarios where they continue to apply. Claiming that the official version has “the most cons” is simply a lie. Just to address a couple of the issues:
i) is bullshit, pure and simple. The weight of the plane would have made the lightpoles an insignificant issue. The fence would also have been no problem. There was no “subtly adjusting altitude”: the guy bounced it in off the lawn, hitting whatever was in the way.
j) is irrelevant as several of the hijackers were using stolen or forged IDs.
k) is misleading (to the point of raw dishonesty). The passengers and crew of the plane were identified by DNA supplied by relatives. The FBI never claimed to have identified the specific bodies of each hijacker, but noted that there were five bodies whose DNA matched none of trhe DNA supplied by the families. So (k) states an obvious fact as if it were some great revelatory discrepancy.
I do not know that I accept the “official” version unquestioningly–as in I am sure there are loose ends and errors of supposition*–but I certainly am more willing to give credence to the basic outline of the official version over a bunch of hare-brained claims for remote piloting or a missile (when the plane was clearly seen slamming into the building).
*In fact, the loose ends and possible minor errors lend more credence to the official version where the loose ends are not tightly wrapped up. Any reading of history will show that those who come behind never find out everything–it is only in fiction where the loose ends are neatly tucked. On the other hand, major discrepancies (such as making hundreds of people imagine (or lie) that they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon) are much more difficult to accept.
USA Today Report including witness reports of a plane striking the Pentagon
Another eyewitness account (include mention of lightpoles!)
One more eyewitness
There are at least five different kinds of sense this doesn’t make. Do you have any clue as to the differences in maneuverability and sheer size between a fighter plane and a Boeing 757? Do you really believe that it is possible to “instantly roll” a plane that size? Do you even believe that the intruder breaking his neck would be an automatic consequence of such a maneuver? And above all, how often does a fighter pilot have his cockpit invaded? Why would anyone bother teaching him this “instinctual reaction” to a situation he’ll never find himself in?
Airman Doors is a fighter pilot. I’d love to hear his opinion about this bullshit.
What skill do you really need to hit the Pentagon? I used to live just down the road from it and my eyes showed me that the thing is BIG. Now, if you have some proof that the hijackers were trying to hit a particular window in the building, then by all means present it. Otherwise, take Mr. Spock’s earlier advice, Sent.
I don’t think he’s a fighter pilot (at least based on his name). IIRC ‘Airman’ is an enlisted rank in the Air Force…and enlisted don’t fly fighters in the Air Force. Only officers.
I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong.
-XT
There is a reason that worthy’s name is Airman Doors and he is not a pilot. Nevertheless, he may, indeed, have some views on the topic.
That, however, is irrelevant. Rolling a plane for the purpose of breaking a hijacker’s neck would have the consequences of subjecting the entire flight staff, (aside from the co-pilot), and some unknown number of passengers to the same risk. (It also presumes the the pilot and co-pilot fly belted in, which may or may not be the case on a calm flight.) Over thirty years of experience had prepared the airline crews (supported by thirty years of training) to recognize that the best way to handle a hijacker was to simply go along with his demands. At some point, the plane had to land and refuel. At some point, the hijacker had to exit the plane. Even Castro had long since begun sending hijackers back to the countries of origin for prosecution. The events of September 11 changed the understanding of what might happen in a hijacking, but up to that date, the understanding was clear: cooperating with hijackers was the safest and most reliable method of getting the passengers to safety and getting the plane back to its owners. Only a Rambo-influenced utter fool would (prior to that date) have done anything to thwart a hijacking once the plane was in the air.
Claims that the pilot was a Rambo-influenced fool are part and parcel with most of the rest of the conspiracy nonsense.
Claims that the hijackers would have had to “fight” their way to the flight deck are also just stupid. A passenger who simply got up and began walking would arrive at the flight deck, unimpeded, in a matter of moments. In a worst case scenario, a hijacker in economy class might be confronted by a flight attendant and have to keep walking while in an argument–an argument that would cease when the attendant’s back was against the flight deck bulkhead and a knife or box cutter was held to his or her throat. (It would have also been possible to draw the pilot or co-pilot out of the cabin by posing as an “unruly” passenger since, in the era before air marshals, it was often the flight crew who dealt with drunks and belligerent passengers.)
Fancy that. Could have sworn he had mentioned being a pilot, but I guess I messed it up in my head.
I’d still like to hear his opinion, though.
I admit from the beginning that this argument about not being to get able to get control of the plane is by far the weakest argument the writer makes…but the other claims about the near-impossibility of this task with all the total components necessary for success, especially in spite of a pilot who is new at best, totally incompetent at worst.
Pentagon eyewitness-Unbelievable contradictions in the total available accounts… I’ve seen read everything from a missle to a small plane to a 757.
The WTC accounts seem a lot more consistent…here is the “explosive testimony” compiled by Dr. David Ray Griffin, the theologian. It includes a compilation of witness reports, some of which the city of NYC withheld until it was forced to release them in 2005.
http://www.aldeilis.net/aldeilis/index2.php?option=content&do_pdf=1&id=1316
Stay with me here…it has been alleged the the injuries suffered from the basement workers were due only to a large fireball travelling a quarter-mile down the stairwell and blowing the doors open correct? Well, that simply does not corroborate with the actual events of that day…these never-ending unexplained “anomalies”.
Now PLEASE explain to me the physics of a fireball that not only travels a quarter-mile elevator shaft, but then proceeds to obliterate a 50-ton hydraulic press, wrinkle up a 300-pound fire door like a piece of aluminum!
In the other thread, I showed you the video of the flashes consistent with controlled demolition…mind you this is the evidence you keep asking me for, it comes in bits and pieces. You might also expect that in a controlled demolition, there would be the familiar popping sounds. Well…
[quote]
“Pops”
As before, “pops” were reported by some witnesses. “As we are looking up at the [south tower],” said firefighter Joseph Meola, “it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides.
You thought it was just blowing out.”31
“Pops” were also reported by paramedic Daniel Rivera in the following exchange:
Q. How did you know that it [the south tower] was coming down?
A. That noise. It was noise.
Q. What did you hear? What did you see?
A. It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was—do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’? That’s exactly what–because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that’s when I saw the building coming down.32
More corroborating testimony about the demolition charge flashes around the building:
[quote]
Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: “I thought . . . before … . No. 2 came down, that [bI saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista. . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I thought I saw.”36**
Flashes were reported in the north tower by Captain Karin Deshore, who said: “Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash.”37
Demolition Rings: At this point, Deshore’s account moved to another standard phenomenon seen by those who watch controlled demolitions: explosion rings, in which a series of explosions runs rapidly around a building. Deshore’s next words were: “Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."38
**An explosion ring (or belt) was also described by firefighter Richard Banaciski. Speaking of the south tower, he said: “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”39
A description of what appeared to be a ring of explosions was also given by Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick, who said: "We looked up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."40
People seems to have an initial reaction…until they were told, much like with the MIB with their flashy things, a different story. No, you didn’t see what you saw, don’t believe your lying eyes.
This is the situation we have-
Corroborating Witnesses: We saw the flashes and heard the pops and the explosions…I’m telling you I saw it with my own eyes it was exactly like a controlled demolition!
NIST: Silence! According to my calculations, and my $20 million investigation, you didn’t see anything.
:smack: