Already addressed. This thread is specifically about the depicted maneuver. You have claimed the depicted maneuver is impossible, so we must analyze the depicted maneuver. Claims of faked depictions will be for another thread. I'll note down the "not even assigned to an airframe" criticism for later. Thank you.Deuce
The Vmo +90 figure comes from the analysis done by Stutt and Legge, one of which is now deceased. So it's not my number, it's their number, and they were both big supporters of the official story.
The data you include here is from NTSB data, and that was the data supposedly analyzed and included by Stuff and Legge, and that is the same data that was examined by Cimino, who found it to be fake and forged, as the data provided him by NTSB was not even assigned to an airframe.
So the point is that all NTSB information is suspect. So your thread is essentially based upon made up data, but let's discuss it anyway. Oh wait, we can't discuss it already, because you just noted that you are unwilling unable to address those issues. Why am I not surprised.
I suppose you're also unable and unwilling to discuss Hoffman Aviation and any statements by any flight instructors who supposedly flew with Hani? And I presume you are also unwilling to discuss anything about the ability of pilots to transition from Cessnas to Boeings?
Wrong. I've discussed that several times. About 6000 hours total time. ATP, CFI, two type ratings. 10 years instructing, about three in jets. Taught formal classroom for aerodynamics and avionics.And I think you've made it clear here before that you are also unwilling to discuss the specifics of your own licenses and experience by type, just for perspective.
You're clearly confusing me with someone else. I hold a flight instructor certificate. I was an active, full-time flight instructor for about a decade. I was chief flight instructor at two different flight schools.And haven't you said before that you do not hold CFI, but you do have some bit of time in lessons in an R-22?
Relevance?I have flown several different airplanes at and above the redline speed, but never more than maybe 15-20 knots. As I recall you've mentioned that you too have exceeded Vmo, but by a small margin and also only once or twice?
Do you have the CFI, and is it asking too much to find out how much time instructing you have, so that I can better judge the OP? That, so I can judge your ability as CFI to judge the abilities of young 350 hour pilots as was Hani?
No, as I have posted several times here over the years that I say the maneuver IN CONTEXT is impossible.
As I've mentioned here before several times, I could do the maneuver in my T-6 all day long, and have fun doing it.
But it was not me, it was Hani, first time in a Boeing. See the difference?
Deuce:
If you noticed the P4911T or CIT supporters are not responding to your posts.
It was only posted "yesterday", whatever that means according to debatepolitics time clock.
Always the hypocrisy, mike. As I have mentioned many times you USOCT supporters never respond to any of the myriad impossibilities of the crazy theory you support, the one with no evidence.
Let's let Deuce and Thoreau discuss this without any of your usual hypocrisy. Let the chips fall where they may!
Lately I've been seeing Flight 77's final maneuver described as "impossible" several times. This has been a long-running thing, but it's just resurfaced again more recently. The maneuver being supposedly impossible is used as evidence that the "official story" is a lie. The purpose of this thread is to discuss that claim, because if the maneuver is actually easy, the claim falls apart.
The corollary to your assertion is, of course, "If the maneuver is NOT actually easy, the USOCT, aka the "official theory"is false. Do you agree?
But regardless, your initial assertion is also false. Even if such a maneuver is possible for the terrible pilot Hani Hanjour was, it in no way brings the "official story" into a position of being less than a lie. There is just way too many other impossibilities in the USOCT for it to be true.
But let's put that aside for now. On with Hani Hanjour and the ease with which I could become a jumbo jet pilot tomorrow.
As a professional pilot of many years, I feel I am qualified to discuss this in detail.
To analyze the "official story maneuver," we do have to stick to the maneuver as described in official reports. Including the flight data recorder. Now, I'm aware some believe the FDR track is faked. Irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. The "official maneuver" is claimed to be impossible, so only analysis of the depicted maneuver can be used to assess this claim.
It is totally unprofessional of you, not to mention also totally dishonest of you to think that you can determine the parameters of this discussion.
Here is an animation from the NTSB created from the flight data recorder. Note that the video is like 90 minutes long, skip to 1:18 as that's about where the maneuver begins.
Why have you chosen the NTSB animation, Deuce?
The "maneuver" was a level, wide turn never exceeding 40 degrees of bank. Any idiot can do that, even in a Boeing. He didn't do it precisely or smoothly, altitude fluctuated up and down a few hundred feet. Again, something even a rookie pilot can do.
Then, it was a straight-line descent. Point nose at thing, run into thing. Not difficult.
The video in the first post proves that this "maneuver" was not remotely challlenging. I want you to watch it from the timestamp I showed you. Then I want you to point out which part demonstrates some superior piloting skill. (a timestamp would help)
Something about your answers make it seem like you a simulator pilot/expert who has never flown a real airplane for a living. But I'm going to view this simulation again. Simulations created from contrived information is really wasting time, but I'll play along.
How much instruction have you given to 300 hour pilots? Either in a sim or in a real airplane? I suspect that info won't be forthcoming.
In something over 11,000 hours, I have something over 3000 hours of giving dual. I don't believe for 1 minute that anybody, including Hani The Magnificent, could slit throats and assume command of a 757 for the first time in his life and fly that maneuver as interpreted by Stutt and Legge.
Neither do a handful of line pilots in the type, sim.
What was that you posted in another thread about when people attack the creditability of a person? ".......is attacked because when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser"
What was that you posted in another thread about when people attack the creditability of a person? ".......is attacked because when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser"
Deuce is probably out flying the line somewhere. I'm sure he will get back to offer his credentials and other reasons to help understand why he thinks as he does.
Most pilots I hang with are happy to offer ratings and experience, so I'm sure Deuce will eventually provide something. If he were able to examine the maneuver in context it would be much better from the perspective of rational public dialogue.
Sure the maneuver itself would be a cake walk in an F-16 operated by an experienced pilot, but the same maneuver in a transport category aircraft flown by a completely inexperienced pilot is a whole different type of orange.
"To hit something with an airplane is easy only if you have been flying for 20 years."
- Boeing 767 pilot quoted in the Boston Globe
"The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots."
- The Washington Post
In the days after 9/11, numerous pilots and aviation experts commented on the elaborate maneuvers performed by the aircraft in the terrorist attacks, and the advanced skills that would have been necessary to navigate those aircraft into their targets. The men flying the planes must have been "highly skilled pilots" and "extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators," who were "probably military trained," these experts said.
And yet the four alleged hijackers who were supposedly flying the aircraft were amateur pilots, who had learned to fly in small propeller planes, and were described by their instructors as having had only "average" or even "very poor" piloting skills. But on their first attempt at flying jet aircraft, on September 11, 2001, these men were supposedly able to fly Boeing 757s and 767s at altitudes of tens of thousands of feet, without any assistance from air traffic control.
...
EXPERTS SAID HIJACKERS 'MUST HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED PILOTS'
Numerous experts commented that the hijackers who flew the aircraft in the 9/11 attacks must have been highly trained and skillful pilots. Tony Ferrante, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration's investigations division, spent several days after 9/11 carefully piecing together the movements of the four aircraft targeted in the attacks. According to author Pamela Freni, Ferrante's "hair stood on end when he realized the precision with which all four airplanes had moved toward their targets." Ferrante said, "It was almost as though it was choreographed," and explained, "It's not as easy as it looks to do what [the hijackers] did at 500 miles an hour." [1]
The 9/11 Hijackers: Amateur Aviators Who Became Super-Pilots on September 11 | 911Blogger.com
You know the problem with the internet postings. Anyone can post what they want. Heck, someone could post they are a PHD nuclear scientist. Someone can post they are a pilot.
One has to look at past posting to determine creditability and the sources they use.
The following is yet another grand illustration how things went from truthfulness on 911 and shortly thereafter to full shutdown, ie. no substantive discussion allowed.
Exactly, mike, and you fail in most every regard, as do your fellow distracters/diversionists.
You folks can't discuss anything related to the science or events of 911 because, one, you are scared you will put your foot in your mouths, as y'all have done numerous times; two, you focus on your distractions/diversions when you are faced with the myriad impossibilities in the wacky conspiracy theory y'all support, the USGOCT.
You've just come off supporting the crazy idea that steel framed towers have collapse features built right into them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?