Pilot who flew 2 planes used on 911 doesn't believe official Story

Those, along with your final position (four miles out) at the end of the manuever, are the numbers that don't add up. But the technicalities here are probably not the important points.

I don't think test pilots are the standard you want to use for comparison of skills necessary, here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I used mile markers for the exits on Hwy 405, 5, 6, 7, 8, that gives me a map scale for three miles, now with that scale I can scale out the turn radius, length of turn, and the distance for the final run,

As for the test pilot he was used to show that the auto pilots were capable of making the turn, and descent, he did just that with the auto pilot set up to assist the maneuver.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe it's hard to appreciate what it's like to stay mentally locked on a target, while turning a ponderous jet, having limited outside reference, through 330 degrees of heading, accelerating through 400 knots in a descending turn, warnings blaring, airframe shuddering, engines surging, to roll out on target without "getting behind the airplane". It's extremely unlikely that someone unfamiliar with specialized (military) high-speed jet maneuvering could manage all of that workload without any of a hundred novice miscues with speed and trajectory- any of which would have caused an unsalvageable and wide miss. As elastic as airliners are at high speed, one bobble on the attack runs would have set off unmanageable oscillations. These were very steady, experienced jet pilots.

We are told to take it on faith that in their first experience at the controls of jet airliners, these terrorists nailed their targets 3 for 3. 3 people who had never held a basketball would have as great a chance of swishing 3 consecutive baskets from the foul line. 9-11 was much too well planned and executed for these pilots to have been beginners.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hypewaders

The acceleration to 400 + knts, didn't happen till after the turn was completed, it is in the information that you posted.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/N...B196/doc02.pdf

9.34 AM the aircraft was positioned about 3.5 miles WSW of the Pentagon, and started a 330 deg, right desending turn to the right, at the end of the turn the aircraft was at about 2000 ft, agl, and

hype, no overhead turn, they turned away from the Pentagon, and if you had looked at the maps you provided you could have clearly seen this, and from a site referenced by your map site you could have found the NTSB's findings of the flight path of Flight 77, which bears no resemblance to your supposed vision of were flight 77 went, and if you had looked at the maps you would have seen this to, so thanks for showing that you don't know from Jack.

Hell you can't even read a map, the flight path of AA 77 never went over the Pentagon.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/e....html#flight11

30 seconds, that would sound about right for the amount of time it would take to accelerat a 767 from about 300 knts. to 460 knt. at impact.

 

So basically Buffalo is saying screw what the American Pilots are saying. Because he knows more then them.

 

Actually, each terrorist only went 1 for 1...which is hardly enough data to say anything about someones skill level. Maybe each pilot got lucky, maybe they have greater natural talent than others, maybe someone gave them a heads up on the g forces to expect, maybe they didn't care about flying outside of any design limitations because they planned on flying their plane into a building...and maybe they were more skillful and had more training than we know.

However it's nothing more than speculation unless you can raise them from the dead and have them take a few more runs at their targets.

 

No I am saying that they weren't in the cockpit, the information from hypewaders own citation show that there wasn't any extreme maneuvering, and the throttles weren't advanced to full power, until after roll out too the target, and the aircraft accelerated for 30 seconds as the throttles were advance for 30 seconds, on the inbound run,

and for hype, at the IP you turn into the target, you don't turn out.

 

phoenix2634: "each terrorist only went 1 for 1...which is hardly enough data to say anything about someones skill level."

3 times out of 3, we are told that 3 beginners each sequentially scored.

"Maybe each pilot got lucky"

That's a far-fetched maybe.

"maybe they have greater natural talent than others"

That's not what the civilian instructors of the pilots identified as the perpetrators said.

"maybe someone gave them a heads up on the g forces to expect"

"Heads up" can't replace training, repetition, and experience. And G-forces aren't the only challenge this flying entailed. Buffalo Roam reverts to notions of Top Gun maneuvers when I mentioned advanced and edge-of-the-flight-envelope flying. Airplanes can become a very challenging handful when flown beyond their design parameters, as these jets were on 9-11. Rolling them upside down, for example, is easier to do than what we witnessed on 9-11.

"maybe they didn't care about flying outside of any design limitations"

They were going for maximum kinetic energy, and this tactic required special flying skills. At the edges of the flight envelope, jets get very nasty to fly.

"and maybe they were more skillful and had more training than we know."

Who woulda thunk it.

"However it's nothing more than speculation unless you can raise them from the dead and have them take a few more runs at their targets."

You're right that it's nothing more than speculation- like when some of us speculated that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the USA. It's like a relationship gone bad, when you speculate that you are being lied to. But there is the scientific method, whereby plausible scenarios are tested, and implausible ones are rejected. We should know exactly who carried out the attacks of 9-11, along with who trained and sent the attackers on their mission. The official story just doesn't entirely make sense to me, and when I have talked with airline pilots candidly, it doesn't make sense to them either.

The premise that crappy low-time civilian students pulled off 3 high-speed heavy-jet attacks with no misses just isn't very plausible for experienced pilots who think seriously about it. When I explain why I feel that way, it is often the case that those who hold tightly to the official theory as an article of faith will back away from reason in discussing it. It touches a sensitive psychological nerve. It leads to bigger questions about the potential for government manipulation of public perceptions in response to crisis.

You can look back in this thread, and see where Buffalo Roam deliberately puts up smoke: Attempting to limit the concept of extreme maneuvering to airshow or dogfight maneuvers- framing the concept of an overhead turn to one exclusively over target, and not Initial Point. Uncomfortable with examining the holes in the official story, BR is motivated to take quick pot-shots at exploratory alternative theories. He's not alone, and perhaps we all can be reduced to it when our greatest assumptions are challenged.

If the American public has been misled in this case, and the diligent investigation of the 9-11 attacks has been diverted by our government, it's obviously a very serious thing. We do know beyond reasonable doubt that the American public was deliberately misled by the Bush Administration through manipulation of foreign intelligence, and that American anger over 9-11 was diverted into the invasion of Iraq. We do know that the Bush Administration has not pursued, and not entertained any serious investigation of any 9-11 leads into the Saudi Kingdom. We know that the official identities of the 9-11 perpetrators are very murky.

Most Americans have little understanding of the vast difference between taking (and failing) flying courses in single-engine propeller-driven basic trainers, and accurately flying heavy airliners on high-speed attack runs. I have tried to convey a hunch I cannot prove, that the 9-11 attackers included pilots with military backgrounds. I've explained here the reasons for my suspicion. it's fitting to challenge such a suspicion, and I don't have (or claim to have) all the answers, but it's still disingenuous to twist my words.

I have not intended to suggest that the 9-11 airliners put on some kind of aerobatic airshow before impact. But I have tried to convey why I think the flying exhibited by the attackers that horrible day was extraordinary. I have tried to describe, without too much boring detail, why mediocre low-time civilian pilots are hopelessly unprepared to fly heavy jets as we saw them flown in the 9-11 attacks.

Just one more quick analogy, since the basketball one missed, phoenix:

It would not be logical to expect 3 young student drivers to be capable of hopping into formula cars for the first time, and successfully negotiating a Lemans course at race speed.

That is because high speeds are both revealing unforgiving of inexperience. Inexperience would have been clearly manifested in the way those airliners were flown on 9-11. As a flight instructor, I have closely observed the behavior and performance of many pilots making transition to higher performance aircraft. I know how, and how quickly saturation overtakes pilots' coping skills and degenerates their performance. I also know from experience how unforgiving aircraft become at and beyond the upper limits of their design speed limits. So it's eery to me that those 9-11 aircraft were not flown sloppily. This glaring inconsistency between my experience and the official story has lead me to strongly suspect that the 9-11 airliners were not flown to target by novices.

 

Buffalo Roam "...at the IP you turn into the target, you don't turn out."

If you come in too tight and/or high on the IP, and you aren't breaking off, then you have to take the long way around the corner to roll in. That guy didn't miss a beat.

 

Because he turn out from target, did a 330 deg. turn to the right, from your posting of the map, his line of flight would have brought the Pentagon into view at his 10-11 o-clock, at 4 miles, he started a right hand turn away from the Pentagon, a 330 degree turn, descending from 7000, and crossing the Mile 2 exit on the 405, continuing the turn just east of the Jack Herrity PKW crossing between exits 1 and 2, at which time he should have been able to pick up the Pentagon at his 3 o-clock position out of his right cockpit window, continuing the turn to line up on the Pentagon at about 2000 ft. agl, and then pushed the throttles to full power, over the next 30 seconds, till impact, all from your report and flight track that you posted, no were does it show that AA77 was at any extreme speed until after it rolled out and headed for the Pentagon, 30 seconds, 4 miles, impact, all information that can be taken fro the information that you posted, and again they didn't turn on a IP, to turn on a IP means turning into the target from a fixed reference point so as to have a reference to gauge your wind drift, and ground speed for a bomb run on a target, not a suicide crash into a 5 acre white blazing in the sun building, they turned away to give themselves more time to acquire the target, and line up for their run, no hard maneuvers, with the help of the auto-pilot, and well with in the capabilities of the aircraft to perform, at or below cruse.

Now tell me if I am wrong about the flight path? or the positions of the aircraft, or the fact that the throttles were not advanced until after the completion of the 330 deg, turn, it is all there to see, the mile markers are at the exits on the map, and the flight path is plainly marked, so tell me were I am wrong,

and how's this for a evaluation from a Pilot, of the Aircrafts handling:

http://cf.alpa.org/internet/alp/2001/feb01p22.htm

 

Hypewaders,

The basketball analogy didn't miss. My point is that you don't use a team statistic to state how skilled an individual player is. Each terrorist only had one shot. Not enough to rule out luck, natural ability, determination, advanced training, or how lousy a pilot an individual terrorist might be.

I understand your point about inexperience, and respect your professional opinion. I think I understand where your suspicions come from and why you and other experienced pilots have the opionion that they must have had more training. I don't have any problems your analysis. In following this discussion I (and hopefully others) now have a better understanding (rather than just relying on a media sound bite) of why air force pilots, professional pilots and flight instructors have suspicions that the terrorists must have had additional training.

I just take issue with using a team statistic in determining indvidual skill. I think that's one reason why some (myself included) are willing to accept the official line. Without each pilot taking more than one run it's difficult to determine how skilled/unskilled or experienced/inexperienced each terrorist may have been.

 

The missing fact that isn't being addressed is that there were two terrorist in the seats, Pilot and Co-Pilot, two people the same as a regular crew, both doing their best to complete the suicide mission, and both working together.

 

Buffalo Roam: "The missing fact that isn't being addressed is that there were two terrorist in the seats, Pilot and Co-Pilot..."

I wasn't aware of 2 pilots per plane. Where did you learn that?

 

9/11 commission report, Los Angeles Times, 1/24/2003; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 521


Suspects that some of the ten people he has investigated are connected to al-Qaeda. [US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ] One person on the list, Ghassan al Sharbi, will be arrested in Pakistan in March 2002 with al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida (see March 28, 2002). Al Sharbi attended a flight school in Prescott, Arizona. He also apparently attended the training camps in Afghanistan and swore loyalty to bin Laden in the summer of 2001. He apparently knows Hani Hanjour in Arizona (see October 1996-Late April 1999). He also is the roommate of Soubra, the main target of the memo.

Won't cut and past so I copied it verbatum.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/dozens_of_forei.html

The 9-11 hijackers attended 17 different American flight schools to train as pilots, according to another document obtained by ABC News.

a map of all the flight schools attended by 9/11 highjackers.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/flight1_school_map.pdf

 

http://www.wanttoknow.info/010913latimes

Also recovered were credit card receipts showing that some of the hijackers paid for flight training in the United States. Another source, a federal agent involved in the probe, said that authorities believe 27 suspected terrorists in all received various kinds of pilot training.

 

I read each of those links, even went to page 521 of the 9-11 Commission Report (did you mean the footnotes to CH.7?) but still I can't find where they suggest there were 2-pilot hijacker-crews operating the jets. The official accounts mostly named single identities as the pilots responsible for flying each attack.

BTW while looking for such info, I just ran across aerial 9-11 photos I had not seen before, taken by a Russian pilot-witness who expresses very similar doubts as mine. This pilot watched AA175 hit the South Tower as he flew down the Hudson VFR Corridor. This is my rough translation of what the photographer wrote between the 5th and 6th pictures in his post, which I have linked just above- Maybe dragon, or another Russian speaker can do a better translating job than I:

Anyway, linked references to terrorist CRM would be appreciated.

 

Only a schmuck would not see that they could have had much more training. Not you the rooskie.

 

Now you bring up a Russian pilot? taking pictures? and what do those pictures show? they don't even show the 767 aircraft, and the closest point was still a good two miles away, and they show absolutely nothing but the Towers on fire, One does seem to show the second impact with tower 2, but it really show's nothing.

I have read a article from the Report on the 9/11 attack, it quoted the FBI as saying that there were 2 pilots with each terrorist team, now how about you proving that it was only a single pilot at the controls, remember this was planned for over a year, they knew that they were going to be flying a commercial airliner, and that 2 pilots are needed to manage a 767, so why wouldn't there have been 2 pilots on each team, they had enough people to do so, and it is more plausible then your scenario, and it is the way that I would have done it, it make the most sense, and if one pilot can't get on the Plane, or hurt in the take over you have a built in back up, redundancy in planning, and it seem that there were 27 known terrorist training at flight schools, I wonder how many other, of the Hijackers had flight training, it is the logical thing to do have more than one pilot, and especially if the plane that you are going to fly operates with a 2 man flight crew.

I will still try and find the report that I read, but it will take a while seem that most of the site that I look at are conspiracy site, and full of shit.

 

Buffalo Roam: "Now you bring up a Russian pilot? taking pictures? and what do those pictures show?"

Easy, now: The photographer's eyewitness comments were relevant, and his pictures haven't been widely publicized. He's a pilot who watched a 9-11 attack from a clear vantage-point. That's why I linked his photos and translated his comments for your consideration.

"I have read a article from the Report on the 9/11 attack, it quoted the FBI as saying that there were 2 pilots with each terrorist team..."

Please cite the report if you can. I'm genuinely interested in that scenario.

"now how about you proving that it was only a single pilot at the controls"

I'm not trying to: I had that impression of the official narratives, which I have trouble believing. The pilots identified just didn't have the background to perform so effectively.

"why wouldn't there have been 2 pilots on each team, they had enough people to do so, and it is more plausible then your scenario"

I'm not disregarding combined hijacker-pilot crew efforts- I'm asking you for evidence of that. Maybe they were crappy pilots, but had they shared amazing Crew Resource Management training in Level D B757 simulators, it could have made up for a lot. Can you link any evidence that they were trained as crews?

It's curious that you are willing to expound on the complexities of crewing these attacks, BR- you're speculating on the careful preparation that was required, but you can't seem to understand the logic of exploiting the particular talents of military pilots in flying jet attacks. That refusal seems to me like watching someone deliver a fatal flying kick, and then refusing to consider that the killer might have received martial-arts training.

"I will still try and find the report that I read, but it will take a while seem that most of the site that I look at are conspiracy site, and full of shit."

Thanks, and I can whole-heartedly commiserate with you on what a pain in the ass it is reading through the endless woo-woo 9-11 sites to find something intelligent.

 

hypewaders, you make the same mistake as the rest of the liberals did in the 90tys under Clinton, and that is you assume that the terrorist are not as smart as you, I really doubt that you were in the military in any leadership position, one of the first things I was taught was never underestimate the enemy, always assume that he has the same planning capability as you do, in fact assume he is better than you.

Now when I looked at this, it never occurred to me that the Terrorist would not have planned for less than 2 pilots for a plane that it take 2 pilots to fly, why would you assume that they wouldn't, this was a major operation on their part, and they wanted to have the maximum effect from the operation, so as a first priority if I was planning I would want a minimum of 2 Pilots on the controls, the only attack that failed was the one that had one of the terrorist missing the flight.

You may want to underestimate these assup's but I don't just as in real combat to underestimate the skill level of the enemy get people killed, and that is exactly what happened here, this is real combat,

The professionals who hold their jobs and are not replaced with the change of administrations, screwed up, and most of those professionals were from the Clinton Administration, and they screwed the pooch big time, first if they were really aware of this,

1. They didn't make the Administration aware of the problem, in any manner possible, even going public, it may have cost them their job but it would have saved lives.

2. If they weren't, it was because they underestimated the capabilities of the Terrorist, and failed to make the simple assumption that the Terrorist had the same or better planning capabilities as we do.

Jesus hype, they have planning staff, just as we do, and they plan redundancy into any plan they go into, now do some thinking, you haven't shown much up till now, and how would you plan for a operation like this.