Is Jesse Ventura right?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, August 22, 2024 21:33
VIEWED: 9077
PAGE 10 of 13
Quote:I’m not a pilot, but I have spoken with pilots. In fact, I’ve asked this very question and the answer is yes, with a little training, anyone can steer a jetliner. It takes a few hours of training to learn to manipulate the levers, and the computer takes care of the rest - to maintain a smooth flight and stability in the air.
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Are you a pilot? Is anyone here opining on this subject a pilot? Not discounting or dismissing your opinion, but it does help to put it in context.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
BUT if you’re not taking off or landing or concerned about your passengers, then any idiot can do it.
Everyone is saying any idiot can fly a plane. But that was not my question. My question specifically is if someone with no real flight experience can target a building 200 feet wide going 500 miles an hour? This targeting is, in my opinion, much more than just flying a plane.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How Hard Is It to Fly a 757 or 767?
The AirSafe Journal™
17 September 2001
vol. 1 num. 16
In the wake of the attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is clear that one of the key factors in the success of those attacks is that at least one member of each of the four teams of hijackers was a trained pilot. While there is some question as to the amount of flying expertise possessed these hijackers, there is no indication that any of them had the level of experience or qualifications of an airline pilot. Whatever their level of expertise, it was sufficient to guide three of the four hijacked planes to their targets, causing the deaths of thousands.
Many people have wondered how it could be possible for relatively unskilled pilots to do this. This writer is in a unique position to answer that question. I am a licensed pilot of very limited experience, with just under 100 hours in small, single-engine training aircraft such as the Cessna 172. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to take a short course on the 757 that included classroom training, individual computer based training, and about five hours in a full-motion simulator. This high fidelity simulator was the same kind of that airline pilots use in their initial training or to simulate a wide range of emergency procedures.
After about a week of training, I was familiar with the layout of the flight deck and with the operation of the flight controls, autopilot, and navigation systems. As a result, flying the simulator was much less difficult than I had imagined at the beginning of the course. The most difficult part of the simulator training was takeoffs and landings. On the other hand, flying the aircraft in other phases of flight was relatively easy, even compared to flying a Cessna 172. Changing the aircraft's course, speed, or altitude was not very difficult when using either the autopilot system or when flying the aircraft manually. The flight control system made the aircraft rather responsive and made it easy to perform normal flying manuvers.
Given my experiences in the simulator, I feel that if I were to be put into a 757's cockpit in the middle of a flight on a relatively clear and sunny day, I would be able to change direction and altitude without any trouble. Given a basic knowledge of a region's geography and of available navigational aids, I would also be able to navigate well enough that I could find a major city and fly the aircraft to any major landmark in that city. Because the basic cockpit layout and many of the procedures used in the 757 are almost identical to those of the 767, I feel that the same would be true for a 767.
In short, I believe that any person who has earned a private pilot's license and who has access to the same kind of ground school and simulator training that I received could fly a 757 or 767 well enough to hit a large building. Given the wide availability of this kind of training, it would appear that the kind of terrorist actions that took place in New York and Washington could easily be repeated in the future.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I replied to some, though not all. At some point though, there is nothing more to say. What do I say, "Yeah, I know about center of gravity, but the issues are more complicated than that?"
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Finally, CTS, I must note that you have not replied to any of the posts that give you exactly what you say you want: a discussion of the technical issues.
Quote:That is right. I appreciate someone else asking the same questions I'm thinking.
And yet you give a big THANK YOU to the one poster who at all agreed with you, (I’m not counting PN) though he gave you no facts at all.
Quote:Or both? There's just been very few "facts" in this thread so far. All I've been hearing are explanations parroted from PBS documentaries. In fact, I think your post is the first to suggest where to look for more technical information that might answer my questions. For that, thank you to you too.
But what are you really asking for? Do you really want to talk facts, or are you only out to find people to agree with your gut level suspicions?
BTW, the economist is a 911 skeptic, not to be confused with Brig. Gen. Partin, the OK City skeptic. And credentials don't sway me one way or another. I evaluate information on its own merit--context of authorship is important, but ultimately, opinions have to stand on their own.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
personally, i think there IS a cover-up regarding 9/11, and that certain AMerican and anglo-european interests took part in its execution.
if you delve deeply enough into so called "conspiracy theory", you run across the same intricate web of names and groups: the CFR, the tri-lateral commission, the bilderbergs, the UN.. and you ARE left with an impression that theres a greater agenda, a somewhat epic vision for the world that is being orchestrated by select groups of people.
9.11 may have been executed by Arabs, but the actual plans, to in essence alter AMerican foreign and domestic policy permanently, in a totalitarian way.. obviously was not.
given the massive failures on 9.11, the FAA completely neglecting their jobs, NORADS inexplicable absence, the accuracy and accomplishment of the hijackers to execute 3/4 of their mission(and just altogether the political aftermath of 9/11)... that cannot be dismissed as chance, coincidence, luck, or any other form of apology. if it was just blind luck, combined with uniform mistake across the line, given the 'theory of odds', something had to have worked in our favor.. but it didnt
the conspirators know how to hide behind bureaucracy and the pyramid scheme, so accountability is nearly impossible; its like trying a robot for a murder: how do you punish it? the circumstantial evidence overwhelms the governments "account", hands down.. and if you guys want to debate the specifics, lets open up another thread.. because something was definitely foul, whether anyone knows who to attribute it to or not
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, there is flight experience, and there is flight experience. Obviously, your idea of flight experience is nothing like mine.
There has been a response to this already on this thread - your assumption of no real flight experience is wrong. Four of the pilots - one on each plane - held FAA certificates as qualified pilots. There are witnesses who went to flight school with these people. Why do you insist on ignoring this?
Just because someone has a pilot's license in a single-engine plane does not mean he has flight experience. That would be like saying some 16 year old who has a driver's license has driving experience. Well, maybe he does technically, but I doubt he has enough driving experience to make a 7 foot wide exit ramp going 100 miles an hour. In my terms, I would say he has no real driving experience to speak of, even if he does have a driver's license, you see?
Here are some of the issues I am thinking of, so you can understand what I mean by lack of flight experience.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Flying-Without-Training13jun0
6.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS
Was this directed at me ? Then I apologize. I should have realized that you have so little interest in facts that gently pointing you in a fruitful direction was insufficient.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
All I've been hearing are explanations parroted from PBS documentaries.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That would be an excellent place to start, since a discussion of the WTC collapse in what you profess to be after. So hey, let's discuss! What are the more complicated issues?
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:I replied to some, though not all. At some point though, there is nothing more to say. What do I say, "Yeah, I know about center of gravity, but the issues are more complicated than that?"
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Finally, CTS, I must note that you have not replied to any of the posts that give you exactly what you say you want: a discussion of the technical issues.
Quote:I agree that there have been few facts on this thread, but hang on here - why are you so quick to blow off the PBS report? Did you actually try to look it up and see who's behind it and what it's all about?
There's just been very few "facts" in this thread so far. All I've been hearing are explanations parroted from PBS documentaries. In fact, I think your post is the first to suggest where to look for more technical information that might answer my questions. For that, thank you to you too.
Quote:Hmm. Way up the thread you said that you're no expert on engineering issues, so how are you qualified to judge the merit of such information? What basis do you have for dismissing a trained engineer who backs up his conclusions with detailed science in favor of an economist talking generalities?
I evaluate information on its own merit--context of authorship is important, but ultimately, opinions have to stand on their own.
And turn this on yourself - how are we supposed to believe that it's "more complicated" than center of gravity if you don't tell us and back yourself up with something solid? We are like you - well I am anyway. I evaluate based on merit. You gotta give me something to work with! So far, it's been thin...
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Again, you say you have no flight experience and aren't an expert, and yet your idea of flight experience is an automatic trump card? You do know what it means to be not an expert, right?
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Well, there is flight experience, and there is flight experience. Obviously, your idea of flight experience is nothing like mine.
There has been a response to this already on this thread - your assumption of no real flight experience is wrong. Four of the pilots - one on each plane - held FAA certificates as qualified pilots. There are witnesses who went to flight school with these people. Why do you insist on ignoring this?
Quote:When I was 16, I had no problem hitting a very small tree.
Just because someone has a pilot's license in a single-engine plane does not mean he has flight experience. That would be like saying some 16 year old who has a driver's license has driving experience.
But here we have a good discussion - you point to an opinion written by a pilot. But did you note that other pilots, as posted by Rue above, disagree? They say changing direction and altitude is easy - easier than flying a cessna, in fact. (Why do you just skip Rue's post? Does it lack merit? Why? Seriously, I'm wondering!)
The article you pointed to also said that the hijackers couldn't have possibly found their way to NYC. OK, he's ignoring that they had GPS equipment. The average schmoe can handle driving with GPS with the serious distractions of kids in the car and things - other cars, street signs, etc - to run into. All the planes had was open sky and a clear, unclouded view. And a large city on a coastline. I've flown over and around NYC several times. It's hard to not see.
You still haven't replied to a post above that brought up this issue: any pilot can get centered on a runway, and yet you can't believe they'd hit a building? Do you see the problem there? They got it lined up, then they accelerated. Like a 16 year old driver hitting the side of a barn with a sports car. Why is that so hard to believe possible?
As far as the Pentagon, I agree that hitting a building at ground level would not have been easy. But I don't think it's impossible. (I wonder if they were going so fast as the WTC planes?)
As I understand it, they only went to the pentagon after circling DC - they couldn't find the White House or something. Maybe the pentagon, being so large and distinctly shaped - was easier to see. Anyhow, it would have been a matter of making an extremely bad landing. Don't need to set down smoothly, just in a certain place. Do you really think that's so impossible?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:That's just it. How did the support get "removed"?
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Remove support and it will fall straight down because in the absence of any other forces physics says it can only fall downwards.
When the supports are weakened or deformed by heat as the official story alleges, buildings behave differently. It is when the supports are removed, say by explosives, that they fall straight down. At least, that is how I understand it.
No they will always fall downwards unless you take pretty extreme measures to make them fall over. Now had the towers fallen over, that would have been proof of foul play. They fell the only way they could fall because gravity was the only force acting on them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not an automatic trump. Just explaining where I'm coming from--answering your question on why I purposely ignore the alleged hijackers' flight experience.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
and yet your idea of flight experience is an automatic trump card?
Quote:I do not respond to any of Rue's posts as a matter of personal policy. Sometimes he makes good points, but nothing good has ever resulted from my conversing with Rue. We have uh...some bad history on these boards.
(Why do you just skip Rue's post? Does it lack merit? Why? Seriously, I'm wondering!)
Quote:I don't think it is impossible. I think it is highly unlikely, for all the reasons outlined in that article. An inexperienced pilot is not going to hit a building 200 feet wide going 750 feet/second, with 25 feet to spare on either side of the plane, without difficulty. It is more like 16 year old successfully taking an exit ramp 7 feet wide in a 6 foot wide car, going 100 miles an hour, partially blindfolded. Not impossible, just unlikely.
any pilot can get centered on a runway, and yet you can't believe they'd hit a building? Do you see the problem there? They got it lined up, then they accelerated. Like a 16 year old driver hitting the side of a barn with a sports car. Why is that so hard to believe possible?
I'm also not saying I'm right, and everyone else is wrong. I am saying this is why *I* have doubts and can't buy the kit and kaboodle.
Re the pancake fall, I'll have to spend a little time reviewing the links you've shared thus far. I'll write more on that soon.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME