T Nation

9/11:How Easy for Commercial Pilots?


#1

"If You Harbor Terrorists, You Are a Terrorist"
-George W Bush

Suicide hijackers taught to fly in America, says FBI
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/13/wfly13.xml

Hanjour a Study in Paradox
Washington Post
October 15, 2001
Over five years, Hanjour hopscotched among flight schools and airplane rental companies, but his instructors regarded him as a poor student, even in the weeks before the attacks.

Federal Aviation Administration records show he obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss. His limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots...

[b]Professional commercial aviation pilots with thousands of hours and years of experience could not even hit the Twin Towers at full speed in an actual commercial flight simulator (much less the Pentagon as Hanjour did).

Professional pilots, in this case one who actually certifies and tests out other commercial pilots, explains the absurdity of the official 9/11 story that amateur pilots with "limited flying abilities" were able to pull off such incredible feats[/b]


#2

I'm at work (no Youtube) but I'm amazed that a pilot couldn't hit something as big as one of those towers.

Any source where the details are written out? I find such a simple thing mindboggling. Common sense says that hitting a tower should be easy for anyone with a modicum of talent.


#3

So you're saying robots did it?
In the hundreds of cell phone calls happening nothing contradicts the fact that arabic men were hijacking the planes/flying the planes. And we know who those men were. It seems pretty settled to me.


#4

Interesting stuff on here...

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/


#5

What the pilot/instructor is saying is that at top cruise speed, an aircraft never flies perfectly straight and the plane does what is called a "dutch roll"...

"Dutch roll is a type of aircraft motion, consisting of an out-of-phase combination of "tail-wagging" and rocking from side to side."

And correction for a dutch roll in any commercial aircraft is VERY slow. So what looks like a big target, is not really from several miles out -- and at full speed, you are only flying in a relative direction, not likely to hit any target even as big as the trade center towers except by almost sheer luck.

What I gathered from the interview, it sounds like none of the professional pilots could hit the towers in the flight simulator not necessarily because of the amount of skill involved so much as the speed and flight dynamics of the aircraft.

At that speed combined with the slow correction factors means even the most skilled pilots couldn't fly a Boeing 767 through a goal post, so to speak, because subtle flight corrections are measured in miles.


#6

If that's true, how do they ever manage to align with a runway?

How could jet fighters refuel in flight if those large airplanes dutch rolled "by miles" while in flight?

If you look at the condensation trails left by a high flying, fast moving airplane, they look damn straight. You don't see any "wavy" movement.

Microsoft's Flight Simulator program is known for it's realism, and it's pretty easy to hit much smaller building with any of the planes available, more so with the large airliners which you can put on autopilot and then simply "tweak" the desired heading, letting the autopilot do all the required corrections by itself.

Smells like bullshit to me.


#7

Not necessarily. But put it this way -- professional pilots in actual flight simulators couldn't hit the towers (except when they slowed to almost landing speed) -- and we KNOW the "hijackers" were mostly terrible pilots...

If you listened to the interview, he says the flight simulators are so good and accurate that he could train someone in a simulator and the first time the guy ever gets into the cockpit of a real plane, its with a plane load of paying passengers.

And if it was a government operation, I doubt professional military pilots would be asked to do a kamikaze. If several professional pilots with thousands of hours of actual flight time couldn't hit the towers, it seems more likely that the planes were remotely programmed and flown.

The planes still could have been hijacked -- the hijackers didn't necessarily have to know they were on a suicide mission.

Also, another recent pilot for 9/11 truth...

U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11
Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navy's 'Top Gun' air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School....

Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a 'Top Gun' adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings...

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career...

Commander Kolstad adds, "I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/060907Questions.htm

The fact that so many cell phone calls actually got through and lasted so long should itself raise suspicion don't you think?

You couldn't make cell phone calls from a plane flying at speed and altitude in 2001 except for the satellite phones...

A call to AT&T

In-flight cell phone systems gain altitude
June 15, 2005
The possibility of cell phone calls on airliners, for better or worse, took a few steps closer to reality this week with the announcement of two on-board cellular systems...
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/06/15/HNinflightcell_1.html

In-flight cell phones 'worked great' in test
7/19/2004
The race is on to enable airline passengers to make and receive cell phone calls in flight...

"It worked great," says Monte Ford, American's chief information officer, and the special flight's host. "I called the office. I called my wife. I called a friend in Paris. They all heard me great, and I could hear them loud and clear..."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2004-07-19-aircells_x.htm

Why all the excitement in 2004 about technology that seemed to work incredibly well on Sept 11, 2001?

Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html


#8

They COULD hit the towers when they slowed down to landing speed.

I know -- the argument is always made "where are all these professional, credible people coming forward to question 9/11"? When credible people come forward, they're suddenly labeled "kooks"... and then you again ask where are all the credible people, etc, etc.

Just two of the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth"

Lt Col. Jeff Latas
Former USAF Accident Investigation President
His military record includes nearly 5000 hours in fighter aircraft, the Distinguished Flying Cross, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Latas

Capt. Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time

707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United

Former Air Force fighter pilot, over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Had previously flown the actual two United airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11.

Have you seen the combined credentials of the other pilots questioning 9/11?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html


#9

Could you post the direct URL from that site where the pilots claim that hitting the towers is not doable?

All I can find is the main page's blurb about "We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time."


#10

It is bullshit. The hard part of landing a plane is not the left/right it is the up/down. I have never been on a plane where the pilot missed the runway but I have been on plenty where the pilot dropped it too hard.


#11

Most of the calls were made from the in flight phones and not the personal cell phones.


#12

Let me get this straight.

4 planes were involved on 9/11.

Two planes were remotely controlled to crash into the WTC which was pre-rigged for demolition.

One plane was shot down over PA but all the passengers mysteriously disappeared.

One plane completely disappeared and a missile was fired into the Pentagon.

A bunch of phony phone calls were made to the passengers families.

A bunch of Saudis were falsely blamed including one located in Afghanistan.

This was all done as an excuse to invade Iraq and steal their oil.

It was orchestrated by the jews.


#13

According to this no planes were involved. Everybody's wrong except me and the guy who made this video. Sorry suckers.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8045542387672451515&q=september+clues&total=174&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


#14

Well when you put it that way...


#15

And not one person involved is willing to talk about it for going on 6 years.


#16

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/media.html - first link

You didn't see this blurb - "We do not accept the 9/11 Commission Report and/or "hypothesis" as a satisfactory explanation for the sacrifice every American has made and continues to make"


#17

Thats not the point AT ALL. The pilots in the simulators COULD hit the towers when they slowed down to LANDING SPEEDS. Do you know how fast those hijackers flew those planes into the WTC?!

Speed Likely Factor In WTC Collapse
Feb. 23, 2002
Researchers have closely studied videos, sound recordings and radar to estimate how fast the two jetliners were moving. Studies show that both planes were traveling well over the federal limits for altitudes below 10,000 feet, The Times said.

The second plane was flying so fast that it was in danger of breaking up in the air as it approached the south tower, Boeing spokeswoman Liz Verdier told the Times.

"These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed," Verdier said. "It's off the chart..."

Two studies have analyzed the speed of the planes, one by the Federal Aviation Administration in consultation with the National Transportation Safety Board and the other by Eduardo Kausel, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The government's calculations put the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph. The MIT analysis determined the first plane was traveling 429 mph, and the second 537 mph, The Times said.

-Eduardo Kausel, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering MIT:
"The above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC close to the ground at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal altitude of 10km (33,000 ft). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots, the terrorists, could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on. Also, considering that the air at low altitudes is much denser than that at the normal cruising height, the pilots greatly exceeded VNE ("never exceed velocity") and thereby risked disintegration of the aircraft by air friction."
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf

Ah yes, those $10 a minute phones that you first need to supply a credit card for -- the ones in the bathrooms of all planes...

"A passenger on United Airlines Flight 93 called on his cell phone from a locked bathroom and delivered a chilling message."


#18

Thats not the point AT ALL. The pilots in the simulators COULD hit the towers when they slowed down to LANDING SPEEDS. Do you know how fast those "hijackers" flew those planes into the WTC?!

Speed Likely Factor In WTC Collapse
Feb. 23, 2002
Researchers have closely studied videos, sound recordings and radar to estimate how fast the two jetliners were moving. Studies show that both planes were traveling well over the federal limits for altitudes below 10,000 feet, The Times said.

The second plane was flying so fast that it was in danger of breaking up in the air as it approached the south tower, Boeing spokeswoman Liz Verdier told the Times.

"These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed," Verdier said. "It's off the chart..."

Two studies have analyzed the speed of the planes, one by the Federal Aviation Administration in consultation with the National Transportation Safety Board and the other by Eduardo Kausel, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The government's calculations put the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph. The MIT analysis determined the first plane was traveling 429 mph, and the second 537 mph, The Times said.

-Eduardo Kausel, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering MIT:
"The above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC close to the ground at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal altitude of 10km (33,000 ft). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots, the terrorists, could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on. Also, considering that the air at low altitudes is much denser than that at the normal cruising height, the pilots greatly exceeded VNE ("never exceed velocity") and thereby risked disintegration of the aircraft by air friction."
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf

Ah yes, those $10 a minute phones that you first need to supply a credit card for -- the ones in the bathrooms of all planes...

"A passenger on United Airlines Flight 93 called on his cell phone from a locked bathroom and delivered a chilling message."


#19

Yea, you mean like the 9/11 Commission for one...

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Washington Post
August 2, 2006
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth.... It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration...

These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years... This is not spin. This is not true."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300_pf.html

Hmmm, between NORAD and the FAA, I wonder how many people got fired?

FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tape
Recording Contained Accounts of Communications With Hijacked Planes
Washington Post
May 6, 2004
Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by Federal Aviation Administration managers, according to a government investigative report issued today.

It is unclear what information was on the tape because no one ever listened to, transcribed or duplicated it, the report by the Department of Transportation inspector general said...

The FAA said it was cooperating fully with the 9/11 panel. The agency said it took disciplinary action against the employee who destroyed the tape but declined to elaborate on what kind of action they took... :-o

the second manager said he destroyed the tape between December 2001 and January 2002 by crushing the tape with his hand, cutting it into small pieces and depositing the pieces into trash cans around the building, the report said.


#20

You guys rip on JTF but, once again, he's got the goods.

I don't think the terrorists had the skills necessary to hit those targets at those speeds. Denying this would be like denying the laws of Physics. If professional pilots and scientists say that performing this feat was impossible for them, I have to believe that.

I hope I'm not being fooled by all this.