[9/11] Meningen en argumenten #21

quote:

Geef dan gewoon antwoord op mijn vragen en leg uit wat blijkt uit dat verhaal van Rodriquez.... Is dat nou zoveel gevraagd?

ja...je zou het ook gewoon kunnen lezen want anders is het weer de mening van een ander en je hebt al meerdere malen aangegeven dat je die niet geloofd itt NIST en implosionworld

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 16:46 schreef calvobbes het volgende:

[..]

Het is dus WEER een uitspraak die uit de context gerukt is....
De zoveelste al....

I see a pattern......

quote:

We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror.

nog steeds gejank

voor degenen die het interesseert, ik heb een reactie geschreven op het artikel van http://www.mindfully.org/(...)-Training13jun06.htm

geschreven door NILA SAGADEVAN

Dear Nila,

I would like to respond to your article on: http://www.mindfully.org/(...)Training13jun06.htm.

I am an Aerospace Engineering student at the Delft University of Technology (http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=8750d4e4-f258-4661-9ac9-0fcc0b89f90d&lang=en), in my last year and finalizing my Master's thesis. My specialiazation is in the field of Control & Simulation. I am the son of a pilot of the MD-81 who also happens to be an airplane mechanic. I have also flown quite a lot in my life and do so regularly, but have not yet acquired my PPL.

First of all I would like to point out the irrelevance of the pictures you have used at the top and bottom of your article. You may call this nitpicking but the top picture is clearly meant to imply that a Boeing 757 is more difficult to fly because it happens to be larger. I know from theory and interviews with pilots that this is not exactly the case. The main difference between handling a small Cessna aircraft and a heavy transport jet is that the heavier ones generally have a larger response delay to your control input. The difficulties in flying a larger jet are not in the actual flying, but rather in monitoring the state of the aircraft. There are many more systems on board that need to be monitored. The flying in both cases are governed by the same equations of motion since both aircraft are stable systems in contrast to most military aircraft for example. The parameters may differ of course, but there is no reason whatsoever to assume that a pilot of a small single engine airplane could not successfully FLY a larger jet to a specific target, solemnly based on the difference in sizes. I will come back on this later.

I agree that simulators are not easy to operate, but then again, they are not more difficult to operate than a normal airplane. Flying in a qualified simulator is considered equal to flying in a real jet and the hours you fly in a qualified simulator are valid flying hours. A completely untrained pilot will indeed be unable to navigate any kind of airplane to any geographic location. However, it is my understanding that the hijackers were actually trained in single engine airplanes and have possible trained in simulators with heavier aircraft. This should be enough to navigate the heavy aircraft to any position on Earth that is within range. The main things that the hijackers would need to be familiar with are:

- general feel of flying
- general feel of flying the heavy aircraft (being able to anticipate and correcting for the response delay)
- being aware of the aircraft's operating limits
- knowing where to locate the FMS (flight management system)
- being able to engage autopilot
- being able to engage altitude hold and airspeed hold
- being able to set a desired frequency in the NAV transponder

All of the above requirements are not so hard to meet with some training. Pilots receive extensive training not to simply fly the plane from point A to B, but to SAFELY fly the plane from A to B. You are obviously aware of the fact that the greater part of a pilot's training and the training he still needs to do at least twice a year for the remained of his career are mostly aimed at responding to emergency situations. My father for example, has to train in a simulator environment multiple times a year and all they do is training for emergency situations.
It is obvious to me that it was never the hijackers intent to safely fly the airplane anywhere, and therefore they would not need the extensive training a normal commercial pilot needs to operate the plane safely. Simply flying and navigating the plane is very basic and any moderately intelligent person should be able to become familiar with this in a simulator environment in a matter of weeks.

You are over exaggerating the incompetence of the hijackers in flying their Cessna's. Hanjour obtained his commercial pilot certificate in 1999 and you and other conspiracy theorists are twisting the fact that he was reported to the FAA 5 times for 'incompetence' as a result of his poor English to somehow convince readers that this has anything to do with his abilities to fly. It is clearly stated that he already had his commercial pilot certificate before he did his oral exam. The fact remains that he had his commercial pilot certificate and was looking for a job as a pilot in Saudi Arabia. I see no reason to believe that he was incompetent to fly an airplane simply because someone uttered "He could not fly at all". If this were true then why did the FAA grant him his pilot certificate?

I have also read into Ziad Jarrah, who also obtained his PPL. Marwan al-Shehhi also obtained his pilot license and spent hundreds of hours in a 727 simulator. Mohamed Atta also obtained his PPL and has also trained extensively in a simulator environment. All of this can even be found on Wikipedia, which also lists its sources.

At this point it is clear to me that the whole essence of your entire article is flawed, because your article is titled "The Impossibility of
Flying Heavy Aircraft
Without Training ".

Clearly, the pilots were all able to fly and at least 2 of them are reported to have had extensive training on heavy jets in a simulator environment. I really wonder why you would every claims such as:

"although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172"
"And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport"

Given the facts against your statements I can only conclude that you are either misinformed, or that you are deliberately trying to fool simple minded readers.

Let us continue.

You write: "For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of piloting, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.".

This whole passage is obviously irrelevant since all 4 pilots were well familiar with cockpit layouts and at least 2 of them (I find it safe to assume all 4 of them) were well familiar with modern flight simulator environments.
You are also exaggerating the complexity of a modern cockpit and you fail to point out the irrelevance in light of the goals of the hijackers. While it is true that a modern cockpit is a very complex environment, most of the instruments are not needed to simply navigate the plane to a geographic location. The only things that the pilots would need is the speed indicator, altitude indicator, heading indicator and localizer arrow. They would also need to be able to operate the FMS. The first 4 cues are all integrated in one single display in every modern cockpit and is placed right in front of you. The FMS is usually also located on top of the instrument panel and is easy to operate. I see no reason whatsoever why 4 pilots should be completely mystified by the 'complexity' of this cockpit.

These instruments are alike in every modern jet and therefor it is not necessary to be specifically trained for that particular aircraft in order to be able to operate it. When a pilot gets schooled for another type of jet than he is used to, it is mostly a matter of understanding its systems and its specific operating limits and parameters. Both Boeing and Airbus make their cockpit layouts as alike as possible such that is is relatively easy for pilots to switch between aircraft types.

Thus again, you have failed to prove or even suggest why it would be overly difficult for the 4 hijackers to successfully operate the planes they hijacked..

You are also guilty of making certain simple techniques seem very difficult with phrases like: "and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues"

Since you are an aerospace engineer and a pilot, you are obviously aware that navigation takes place in a radial coordinate system, which is the most easy way of determining your position in a flat plane. All the pilots would really need is a radio beacon in proximity to their targets and then a heading which they need to intercept and that will bring them right to their targets. Since I am going to post this email on several websites I will explain how this works
Imagine the target is at a random point in 2D space. If there is a beacon in proximity to that target and the line in between te beacon and the target make a 90 degrees angle to the vertical, and the beacon is to the right of the target, the pilot would only need to intercept the 90 degrees TO radial if he is at the left of the target or the 270 degrees FROM radial if he is in between the target and the beacon.
The process of achieving this is as simple as it can get. There is a convenient localizer in the the synthesized display which is basically simply an arrow that goes to the right if you need to go right, and it goes to the left if you need to go left. As long as you keep the localizer centers, you are right on target. It is even possible to let the autopilot do this for you.

Your phrase "She / he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)" is therefore entirely misleading since all these 3 cues are given in 1 single synthesized display in modern cockpits and separately right next to each other in older cockpits, but still right in front of you.

For the readers, you can find such a display on http://cosmos.ssol.iastate.edu/isgc/NEWS/newsbrf400img3.jpg which is a very good example of how the main instrument looks that is required to fly and navigate the airplane, in total disregard of safety.
The airspeed is the number on the left, the altitude is the number on the right. The heading is indicated at the bottom and the localizer can be found as the black dot at the bottom of the artificial horizon (it is centered now, which means that is is right on track)
The airspeed for this airplane is thus 148kts, the altitude is 830 feet and its heading is about 332 degrees. The image is a bit unclear but usually the DME (distance measuring equipment) will also indicate the distance to/from target in this display.

Thus again, you have failed to prove that navigating an airplane to a target is anywhere near an impossible task.

The next paragraphs you write about flying blind are therefor also completely irrelevant since it is not difficult at all to localize a target using instruments for a pilot with the moderate skills the hijackers had. At a certain point they also lowered their altitude where your whole IFR arguments become void, unless you can prove that the visibility on that day was so bad that they would have needed and IFR approach all the way to their targets.

You are also misleading your readers with your paragraph about accidents of inexperienced pilots while flying under IFR. Most of these cases took place during landing and not while navigating from one point to the other. You are therefor comparing two separate situations since it was never the intention of the hijackers to safely land the airplanes.

You are citing certain people about the hijackers in order to attempt to discredit their abilities to fly. However :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwan_al-Shehhi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_93

seem to indicate that all 4 pilot hijackers were deemed qualified by the FAA to obtain their pilot certificate and there is proof that at least 2 of them have logged many hours in a simulator environment on heavy jets.

Your attempt to discredit their abilities based on the exclamations of unnamed individuals seems futile to me.

You then continue with speculating that it should be difficult for a man to overpower a sitting man who may be stronger. I am a skilled amateur fighter (muay thai kickboxing) and I know that strength and size do not always matter in a fight. A man that is standing has an enormous advantage over someone who is sitting with his back to his attacker. You also speculate that the pilot would turn the plane upside down rather than handing over the controls and that the hijacker would then break his neck. I hope you understand that a Boeing 757 is not a fighter plane and it will take considerable time for it to turn on its back. The hijacker would thus not fall straight on his head, but would tumble along the side of the cockpit. you should also not presume to know what the reaction of the pilot was during the hostile takeover. He may have stood up and tried to fight. Who knows. I do find your logic flawed that a fighter pilot would pretend like his Boeing 757 is a fighter jet and turn it upside down.

You continue your article on the assumption that the Hanjour has no idea whatsoever on how to navigate the airplane. Evidence points to the contrary and I therefore find it entirely acceptable that he was able to set his NAV transponder on a desired frequency and follow a heading that will place him straight on track to the Pentagon. He can let the autopilot take care of speed and altitude and even the initial navigation. Your entire argument that he would have no idea where on Earth he was is totally unfounded and is based on the flawed assumption that Hanjour has no piloting skills even though he gained his FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999.
And as you know, an argument that is based on an invalid assumption is no argument at all.

Your phrase "It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn't have known where to begin."

Is therefore completely void and only serves to misinform and deceive ill-informed readers.

Your phrase "In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots, while flying blind at 500 MPH, (about 750 feet every second) over 30,000 feet high and above the unfamiliar ground, (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments."

Is also based on a false assumption that none of the hijackers had any idea of how to operate navigational systems. You also attempt to convince readers of the impossibility of accomplishing the desired tasks of the hijackers by making it SEEM impossible.

Even though 3500 feet per minute is quite high for a descent rate, it is nowhere near impossible. Turning off your transponder does not require you to be able to spell the word 'transponder' at all. So I see no reason why you should make this comment, except for trying to convince your readers that it somehow matters. Believe it or not, many people actually use such arguments to try to make me believe that he would not be able to switch off his transponder.

It is also obvious that the people in the towers thought this was a military plane. I think it is safe to assume they have never before in their life seen a commercial jet deliberately plunging down into the pentagon. This does not mean however that a Boeing 757 can not do this. I have seen many instances of test pilots doing the most amazing things with a Boeing 747, including a barrel roll. A Boeing 757 is a stable plane that can basically do any kind of maneuver that the pilot wishes as long as he does not exceed its operating limits.

I have always failed to see the relevance of the argument that the plane hit the point in the building where there were minimal casualties. If it would have hit in another side of the building with maximal casualties, you could basically also say that it was somehow planned to hit the building right there.

I also don't see why it would be impossible for an airplane to fly on close proximity to the ground at 500MPH. I am very well aware of the effects of wing-in-ground effects but it is certainly nowhere near impossible for a plane to accomplish this.
The only thing that happens when a plane at high velocity flies close to the ground is that the tip vortices get 'broken' in the ground and therefore there is a reduction in induced angle of attack which increases lift. It is therefore nearly impossible to LAND an airplane on its rear wheels in this situation, because in order to descent more you would need to point your nose down. It is however not impossible at all to fly an airplane at high speeds close to the ground due to the effects that you mentioned.

You correctly state what happens when a plane gets close to the ground and that he would not be able to get lower to the ground unless speed is reduced. This is however not the only way to accomplish lowering your altitude. As an aeronautical engineer you obviously know what speed reduction basically means. It means that the lift decreases and therefore the airplane can get lower to the ground. This same effect can also be accomplished by simply reducing your angle of attach, i.e. pushing the stick forward, which also decreases lift.
It makes me wonder, why you failed to point out this fact.

What makes me even wonder more, is the fact that you use the ejected light poles as an argument, but that same argument voids conspiracy theorists conclusions that a cruise missile was used, since a cruise missile would obviously have been incapable of knocking out multiple light poles.

I will post this review of your article on multiple websites and I hope that other people can review this and I look forward to your reply.

I do however want to point out that your article is very biased and you do not substantiate most of the claims you make. You also base your arguments on flawed assumptions such as that none of the hijackers were capable of operating even a small aircraft, even though they have all obtained their pilot license. You also use a lot if ridiculing phrases and words that seem to serve no other purpose but to mislead your readers and you follow up by making certain simple techniques/systems seem overly sophisticated in order to convince your readers that you know what you are talking about so they won't be too critical on your flawed article.

In short, it is my conclusion that your article is not only based on a false assumption, but it also stresses a lot of irrelevant information. It seems to me that you have your opinion ready about who was behind the 9/11 attacks and you are willing to present articles on the web with void arguments and misleading information. I do not mean this as an insult to your person but I do find it worrying that an engineer and pilot goes through such lengths in order to convince others of your personal opinion.

Regards,
Kenneth Verbist.

en dit was zijn antwoord:

Kenneth,

Thank you for your response (to an article than actually began its life as an email to friends a few years ago).

Re your comment “...my conclusion that your article is not only based on a false assumption, but it also stresses a lot of irrelevant information...”

Having perused your missive (admittedly fleetingly -- I’ve limited time) I shall withhold response until you’ve fully perused the following two websites:

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Until such time, I’m afraid we’d both be wasting our time (you, especially).

For example, may I suggest you begin with this:


Capt. Russ Wittenberg


Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 ’s.

Wittenberg had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).

Capt. Wittenberg is a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth <http://pilotsfor911truth.org/>

Statement:

"The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…


"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." http://www.arcticbeacon.com <http://www.arcticbeacon.com/17-Jul-2005.html>


Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon:
"The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high-G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous... It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon... The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."

Have a good day.

Kind regards,

Nila Sagadevan

had ik eindelijk gedacht dat ik een slim iemand had gevonden, hij claimed nochtans zelf een piloot en aeronautical engineer te zijn, en ook hij kan uiteindelijk niet eens uitleggen waarom zijn hele artikel is gebasseerd op een foute aanname. hij heeft ook nog eens allemaal aerodynamische verschijnselen opgenoemd waarvan hijj niet kan aangeven waarom ze relevant zijn.

en als laatste komt ook hij niet verder dan een stukje text quoten uit een conspiracy site.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 16:54 schreef Cyclonis het volgende:

Until such time, I’m afraid we’d both be wasting our time (you, especially).

Misschien is hij toch slimmer als je denkt Cyclonis.

Nee...ik zit hier niet om jouw te overtuigen, daar ben ik al tijden geleden mee gestopt.

Jij vroeg naar die getuigenverklaring van William Rodriguez ,naar aanlijding van de post van NorthernStar, ik gaf hem je in de hoop je daarmee van dienst te zijn. Wat je er verder mee doet of geloofd zal mij verder een worst wezen.

quote:

Hier denken een aantal mensen nog dat ze anderen kunnen overtuigen door heel hard te schreeuwen dat de Amerikaanse regering liegt en dat iedereen die dat niet gelooft maar dom is.

dat idee heb ik meer met jouw posts.....

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 17:01 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

[..]

Misschien is hij toch slimmer als je denkt Cyclonis.

ik heb heel duidelijk zijn hele artikel onderuit gehaald. 80% van zijn artikel is er op gebasseerd dat die kapers rookies waren en helemaal niet konden vliegen. als je een beetje onderzoek doet naar de kapers wordt het duidelijk dat ze alle 4 hun brevet hebben gekregen van de FAA endat minstens 2 honderden vlieguren hebben geboekt in een boeing 727 simulator. dit is precies de training die een piloot tegenwoordig krijgt wanneer hij trained voor een groot vliegtuig. vroeger had je nog dat je als piloot in opleiding ook gewoon meevloog, maar tegenwoordig geschied dat allemaal in simulatoren.

ik zie dat zinnetje eerder als een teken dat hij er niet op in wenst te gaan omdat hij zelf ook wel weet dat zijn hele artikel nergens op slaat en op onwaarheden berust. heb ik duidelijk aangegeven in mijn betoog.

Mijn god...hieruit blijkt weer dat je er niet zo goed in bent .

Lees het nog eens rustig over

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 17:07 schreef Cyclonis het volgende:

[..]

ik heb heel duidelijk zijn hele artikel onderuit gehaald. 80% van zijn artikel is er op gebasseerd dat die kapers rookies waren en helemaal niet konden vliegen. als je een beetje onderzoek doet naar de kapers wordt het duidelijk dat ze alle 4 hun brevet hebben gekregen van de FAA endat minstens 2 honderden vlieguren hebben geboekt in een boeing 727 simulator. dit is precies de training die een piloot tegenwoordig krijgt wanneer hij trained voor een groot vliegtuig. vroeger had je nog dat je als piloot in opleiding ook gewoon meevloog, maar tegenwoordig geschied dat allemaal in simulatoren.

ik zie dat zinnetje eerder als een teken dat hij er niet op in wenst te gaan omdat hij zelf ook wel weet dat zijn hele artikel nergens op slaat en op onwaarheden berust. heb ik duidelijk aangegeven in mijn betoog.

Ok

quote:

Zoals ik al gezegd heb, ik heb zijn verhaal al gelezen. En ik zie er niks in staan waardoor ik aan het NIST verhaal ga twijfelen.

Mijn god...en weer een bevestiging .

quote:

Lees het nog eens rustig over

slaat op de draad , niet op het arteikel van William Rodriguez ,dit naar aanleiding van de

quote:

Vandaar dat je dan wel de moeite neemt om mij te verwijten dat ik niet goed begrijpend kan lezen

opmerking van jouw.

Nu begin ik me echt af te vragen hoe serieus we jouw posts moeten lezen aangezien jouw post interpretatie te wensen over laat

quote:

Ow wat leuk dat je dat bedoeld. Nou dat maakt ineens veel verschil hoor.

Ik zie nog steeds geen aanleiding om aan het NIST rapport te twijfelen

jeez

en als je nu begrijpend had gelezen wist je dat het mij niks uit maakt waar jij in geloofd en dat het mij ook niet ging om jouw te overtuigen maar dat het ter informatie voor jouw was naar aanleiding van een vraag, waarop jij mij ging vragen naar een interpretatie van het artiekel waarop ik antwoorde dat ik dat niet ging doen

je bent echt ongeloofelijk

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 17:25 schreef calvobbes het volgende:

[..]

Ow wat leuk dat je dat bedoeld. Nou dat maakt ineens veel verschil hoor.

Ik zie nog steeds geen aanleiding om aan het NIST rapport te twijfelen

zolang er geen enkel wetenschappelijk instituut op deze wereld een goede reden geeft waarom de NIST analyse niet klopt is er ook geen aanleiding toe.

zolang de enige mensen op deze wereld die de conspiracy theories aanhangen bestaan uit een stel mensen die zich totaal buiten hun vakgebied profileren als techniek deskundigen, en onzin uitkramen zoals "aluminium does not glow", blijft die aanleiding om te gaan twijfelen ver achterwege

quote:

Waarom verspil je zoveel tijd aan zeiken op mij als het jou toch geen worst kan schelen wat ik denk?

goed ik zal me bij deze onthouden van het geven van informatie waarnaar jij vraagt

Oh wacht dan kom je natuurlijk weer huilen dat mensen geen antwoord op de vragen geven/weten

quote:

Waarom verspil je zoveel tijd aan zeiken op mij als het jou toch geen worst kan schelen wat ik denk?

antw:
goed ik zal me bij deze onthouden van het geven van informatie waarnaar jij vraagt

Oh wacht dan kom je natuurlijk weer huilen dat mensen geen antwoord op de vragen geven/weten

niet selectief quoten waardoor de context uit zn verband word gerukt......ook iets waar je heel goed in bent is me opgevallen (alhoewel ik je dat niet direct kwalijk kan nemen want het is meestal het gevolg van niet goed begrijpend kunnen lezen)

[ Bericht 32% gewijzigd door merlin693 op 10-04-2007 17:44:50 ]

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 17:38 schreef merlin693 het volgende:

[..]

niet selectief quoten waardoor de context uit zn verband word gerukt......ook iets waar je heel goed in bent is me opgevallen

Jezus, negeer 'm dan gewoon als hij je zo ergert.